4 ms·

What supply and demand? The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. The demand has not changed in any material way.

by amluto 2y ago

What supply and demand? The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. The demand has not changed in any material way. And yet the prices have increased, and those increases have far outstripped the increases in the cost of goods sold. It’s worth noting that, in classical economic theory, the price in a competitive market is set by matching supply and demand, but the price in a monopolistic market is set higher such that the profit (“producer surplus”) is maximized, which harms the buyers (“consumer surplus”) even more than the amount by which the seller benefits. The net loss is called deadweight loss, and one can argue about whether and how government policy should be arranged to minimize deadweight loss.

pwg 2y ago
> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply" > The demand has not changed in any material way. True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/demand curve will predict that the price will rise to make the "demand" during the period of limited supply equalize with the new supply level due to the disruption. What often happens (and you see it most clearly with gasoline prices), is that the price reacts extremely quickly to the supply disruption by increasing fast (seemingly within hours). But then, when the "disruption" clears, and the supply amount returns to normal, the price tends to slowly drift downward (if it drifts downward at all).
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal. I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    What it costs to produce is irrelevant in an equilibrium price for supply and demand. I'm not sure you do understand. Many people are buying the cereal for $8. Its that simple. There is enough demand for it at $8 that the company is happy with the market clearing their supply at that price point. If people were not buying the cereal at that price, they would lower it, or have gone out of business by now. If someone could produce a substitute for far cheaper, and undercut, they would, and they do, but consumers are partial to name brands. Cheerios are $5 at Walmart, People are buying them. Those people that think that $5 is too much can and do buy the $2 off-brand alternative.
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      > If someone could produce a substitute for far cheaper, and undercut, they would Not when a cartel controls 97% of the market, distribution, placement, and is very keen on maintaining the status quo, as posited by the article.
      - creer 2y ago
        At least in high population places like much of California, nobody controls distribution and placement to this degree. If you are not happy with Safeway - and there is no reason to be - you can buy some product categories at the other chains, at walmart or Costco, unpackaged at specialized grocery stores, at several kinds of ethnic grocery stores, even at eastern european grocery stores. And that's before getting to online, long distance, grocery delivery which is not even always out of the question on price. ALL of these are functional. We do have a lot of choice currently.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Thanks for quoting the textbook at me. Does that seem like a competitive market to you? It shouldn't, because if it was, the cost would be pushed down near it's landed cost. That's a result of companies (both CPG producers and food market retailers) having concentrated market share in contravention of the law.

by amluto 2y ago

pwg 2y ago

> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply" > The demand has not changed in any material way. True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/demand curve will predict that the price will rise to make the "demand" during the period of limited supply equalize with the new supply level due to the disruption. What often happens (and you see it most clearly with gasoline prices), is that the price reacts extremely quickly to the supply disruption by increasing fast (seemingly within hours). But then, when the "disruption" clears, and the supply amount returns to normal, the price tends to slowly drift downward (if it drifts downward at all).

arrosenberg 2y ago
Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal. I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  What it costs to produce is irrelevant in an equilibrium price for supply and demand. I'm not sure you do understand. Many people are buying the cereal for $8. Its that simple. There is enough demand for it at $8 that the company is happy with the market clearing their supply at that price point. If people were not buying the cereal at that price, they would lower it, or have gone out of business by now. If someone could produce a substitute for far cheaper, and undercut, they would, and they do, but consumers are partial to name brands. Cheerios are $5 at Walmart, People are buying them. Those people that think that $5 is too much can and do buy the $2 off-brand alternative.
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    > If someone could produce a substitute for far cheaper, and undercut, they would Not when a cartel controls 97% of the market, distribution, placement, and is very keen on maintaining the status quo, as posited by the article.
    - creer 2y ago
      At least in high population places like much of California, nobody controls distribution and placement to this degree. If you are not happy with Safeway - and there is no reason to be - you can buy some product categories at the other chains, at walmart or Costco, unpackaged at specialized grocery stores, at several kinds of ethnic grocery stores, even at eastern european grocery stores. And that's before getting to online, long distance, grocery delivery which is not even always out of the question on price. ALL of these are functional. We do have a lot of choice currently.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Thanks for quoting the textbook at me. Does that seem like a competitive market to you? It shouldn't, because if it was, the cost would be pushed down near it's landed cost. That's a result of companies (both CPG producers and food market retailers) having concentrated market share in contravention of the law.