• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HIDDEN INFLATION - "Fewer Sheets Needed to Get the job Done"

If it still sells and increases your profit is that not a sound business decision? You focus on the "greedy" producer and not the stupid consumer. If these reduced value/quantity products still sell well at the non-reduced price then who is the one responsible for that?

People with limited cash and limited choices maybe. For example, if you can't find a product with the right price the suggestion is to shop around till you do right? But in order to do so you have to expend resources to go to different locales to find these lower prices...using funds either for gas or public transportation. So there go the savings you were seeking when you find the lower priced item. Spending quarters to save pennies?

I don't put all the blame on producers. I am not a big fan of our monetary policy. I don't trust money that has no intrinsic value because you can print as much as you want of it, which in turn reduces it's purchasing power as people lose faith. It's like a shallow version of post-WWI German printed money with nothing to back it up only in that case there was absolutely NO faith in it. We still have faith because our government seems strong and dependable but that's all it is, our continued trust it's worth something. What ever happens if we start thinking "my tangible whatsis cannot be exchanged for your intangible piece of paper?"
 
Last edited:
When a valid statement contradicts your belief system, ignore them! Might as well add me to that list....

I'm still trying to figure out how he thinks I came out with "some excuse to show that you are not really getting less quality than you used to pay for." That's a puzzler. I don't think he actually reads anyone else's posts, just skims to see if it is lock-step with his own assertions and then decides what the opposing argument must be and argues against that.
 
When a valid statement contradicts your belief system, ignore them! Might as well add me to that list....

This is not the first time I've seen you volunteer to be placed on someone's ignore list. Instead of making a production out of it, why don't YOU ignore people and then everyone is happy. Ya think?
 
I've been buying groceries on a regular basis for about 40 years and I've witness virtually every product shrink in size in order to maintain its price-point on the shelf. And if you ever see something that's "New and Improved", rest assured that it's reduced in size - another good scam is "Concentrated" when it comes to laundry detergent, etc.

While fast food and other restaurant meals get "jumboed" up, real or made-at-home meals get more expensive to put together. No wonder the average low income North American is ballooning in size when it's more economical to eat at McDonald's than eat at home.
 
This is not the first time I've seen you volunteer to be placed on someone's ignore list. Instead of making a production out of it, why don't YOU ignore people and then everyone is happy. Ya think?

Perhaps if you put more effort in understanding the topics you wish to discuss, you wouldn't have to defend nonsense positions against experts in these particular fields.
 
No wonder the average low income North American is ballooning in size when it's more economical to eat at McDonald's than eat at home.

Do you support a pigouvian tax on all non-whole foods, e.g. flour, water, milk, meat, cheese, non-concentrate juice, etc... would not invoke a sales tax where as Hungry Man, Oreo's, Kool-Aid, Mt. Dew, etc... would face a 10% sales tax?
 
This article may highlight a common practice amongst consumer goods manufacturers; however to relate it to inflation is a bit of a stretch, at best it is statistical noise.

The most common measure of inflation is the CPI, which is an index that measures the change in price of a "market basket" of consumer goods and services; however the methodology used factors out such noise. This is because the index is actually comprised of multiple indexes for multiple categories across multiple areas.

I'm not arguing that what the article says doesn't affect people's wallet over time; however to say that this masks inflation measures isn't accurate. There plenty of other services where you "get more" and "pay less" now, computers for example. The average computer today is cheaper and more powerful and with more gizmos included than a decade ago.


My measure of inflation is what I spend at the Grocery Store. It used to cost $35 (2009) for what costs $50 (2013) today. That's inflation. There were 10 burritos in a package now there are only 8. 8 ounces of potato chips was $.99 and now 10 ounces is $1.49. 2 chocolate cupcakes went from $.49 to $.69. All snack products went up at lest 33%. The CPI is a joke. The real world doesn't live in the now of false statistics that are manipulated to make sure the gov't doesn't have to increase Social Security.
 
Do you support a pigouvian tax on all non-whole foods, e.g. flour, water, milk, meat, cheese, non-concentrate juice, etc... would not invoke a sales tax where as Hungry Man, Oreo's, Kool-Aid, Mt. Dew, etc... would face a 10% sales tax?

I do support a reduction in, or elimination of, taxes on whole foods - here in Toronto, where I live, there is no tax on such foods while there is tax on some prepackaged meals and ready to eat foods in multiple serving packages. There also is tax on "snack" foods that are not nutritionally beneficial. We have a GST - goods and services tax - which is basically a value added tax so the more processed a product, the more tax it carries up the production line.
 
I do support a reduction in, or elimination of, taxes on whole foods - here in Toronto, where I live, there is no tax on such foods while there is tax on some prepackaged meals and ready to each foods in multiple serving packages. There also is tax on "snack" foods that are not nutritionally beneficial. We have a GST - goods and services tax - which is basically a value added tax so the more processed a product, the more tax it carries up the production line.

Another instance where Canada is ahead of the curve.
 
Never fear, the apologists always come out with some excuse to show that you are not really getting less quality than you used to pay for...it'll all come right in the end. Of course you are still paying for cheap crap with essentially worthless money so it's all good right?

Except that is not what they did. They explained that reductions in quality are recorded as increases in price, and so are accounted for. If your snickers is reduced in size and the price held steady, CPI records that as an inflationary price increase. They are doing exactly what they should to account for what you are claiming they are not accounting for. Therefore you are quite simply, wrong. Best to just admit it and move on.
 
Perhaps, but we're still just as "curvy" as our American breathren.

No way!

url


I will say much of obesity in the U.S. and Mexico is due to genetic factors. Not so much as people being prone to obesity, but how specific foods impact different ethical backgrounds. As far back as 1995, they were saying

The specific reasons for the increase in obesity among Native Americans have not been determined, although it has been hypothesized that Native Americans have a genetic predisposition to overweight in a westernized environment of abundant food and decreased energy expenditure.
 
I've been buying groceries on a regular basis for about 40 years and I've witness virtually every product shrink in size in order to maintain its price-point on the shelf. And if you ever see something that's "New and Improved", rest assured that it's reduced in size - another good scam is "Concentrated" when it comes to laundry detergent, etc.

While fast food and other restaurant meals get "jumboed" up, real or made-at-home meals get more expensive to put together. No wonder the average low income North American is ballooning in size when it's more economical to eat at McDonald's than eat at home.

The first part is completely true. There should be false advertising suits against these products, but I doubt it'll happen.

On the second account, it's not completely true. Most restaurants offer diet meals and have even been regulated to post calorie contents on the menus. The problems with fast food is just that it's fast; there is no need to wait or think about whether or not it's a good idea. I'll typically concede that it's cheaper to just buy fast food, but it's not necessarily bad for you. Don Gorske - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This guy eats 8.5 Big Macs a day, for years now, and has no health problems. I doubt that eating burgers like that is a "good" idea, but it doesn't seem to be linked to obesity. It's the idea that fat doesn't make you fat; dietary fat and cholesterol has no connection to obesity or blood cholesterol. The problem with the average American is eating sugary foods, drinking sugary drinks, and then not exercising; fast foods are not at fault.
 
My measure of inflation is what I spend at the Grocery Store. It used to cost $35 (2009) for what costs $50 (2013) today. That's inflation.
IF you're measuring the same items in the same proportions. And when I say same items I mean same quality and same size.

And then, of course, even the food at home index isn't based on what you buy. And where you live might also be above the national average.

There were 10 burritos in a package now there are only 8. 8 ounces of potato chips was $.99 and now 10 ounces is $1.49. 2 chocolate cupcakes went from $.49 to $.69. All snack products went up at lest 33%.
And the CPI considers all those price increases.
The CPI is a joke. The real world doesn't live in the now of false statistics that are manipulated to make sure the gov't doesn't have to increase Social Security.
If they're false, why do they need to be manipulated?

That you don't understand the theory or the math doesn't make them invalid.
 
Perhaps if you put more effort in understanding the topics you wish to discuss, you wouldn't have to defend nonsense positions against experts in these particular fields.

I understand your position. However, I don't trust experts in fields who try to baffle me with B/S. For example, the other gentleman I finally decided to ignore spent quite a few of his earliest posts in another thread trying to convince me that Hidden Unemployment had no validity when discussing job growth figures. That the millions of persons the government lists as marginally attached and discouraged workers should not count in unemployment figures because they have given up seeking work. That the only valid numbers should be limited to those actively seeking work.

I've worked for nearly three years in my State's department of unemployment and I know better. I also know that even using the limited numbers accepted by you "economists and statisticians" there are still four people seeking work for every job opening currently available in the USA, small wonder the government does not want to worry about those who once actively sought work but kept getting rejected for job openings.

Empirical evidence also shows me that your touted economic indicators don't seem to affect the workers much, that you "economists and statisticians" keep propping up the idea that our system is working when we have nearly 50 million people on food stamps only 4.3 million of whom are on welfare. So forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in your economic theories and statistical methods of support for them.
 
Last edited:
Except that is not what they did. They explained that reductions in quality are recorded as increases in price, and so are accounted for. If your snickers is reduced in size and the price held steady, CPI records that as an inflationary price increase. They are doing exactly what they should to account for what you are claiming they are not accounting for. Therefore you are quite simply, wrong. Best to just admit it and move on.

Really? So you say I am paying the same price for less, and some voodoo economic system calculates this as inflation but not really bad inflation, just "acceptable" inflation...so that makes it all right that I am consistently getting less value for my dollar? That's because on balance I am still getting value, because although I am paying more for the food I need to survive there is that computer I don't need which is relatively cheaper than previous computers I didn't need?

Oh, and let's not forget all those new inexpensive clothes, that aren't as durable as the old ones I used to get for the price, but because they haven't increased in price (I just have to replace them more often) that somehow "saves" me money too. Then there is the furniture made of balsa wood, and other changes in product quality and durability that create...what was that old term again??? Oh yeah, "planned obsolescence" which keeps me buying the same things over and over as they wear out faster and faster...but they are cheap so that makes up for the waste of money.

Great! I'll just sit and play on my computer and forget I'm hungry until you tell me how else I am getting value to keep my spirits up, okay? :)
 
Last edited:
The first part is completely true. There should be false advertising suits against these products, but I doubt it'll happen.

On the second account, it's not completely true. Most restaurants offer diet meals and have even been regulated to post calorie contents on the menus. The problems with fast food is just that it's fast; there is no need to wait or think about whether or not it's a good idea. I'll typically concede that it's cheaper to just buy fast food, but it's not necessarily bad for you. Don Gorske - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This guy eats 8.5 Big Macs a day, for years now, and has no health problems. I doubt that eating burgers like that is a "good" idea, but it doesn't seem to be linked to obesity. It's the idea that fat doesn't make you fat; dietary fat and cholesterol has no connection to obesity or blood cholesterol. The problem with the average American is eating sugary foods, drinking sugary drinks, and then not exercising; fast foods are not at fault.

I don't disagree with you, and you're probably right about the lawsuits - it would have happened already if it ever was, consider lawyers in the US sue for everything.

But I have to say that the advent of the "all you can eat" dinner buffet, at obscenely low cost, has led to a lot of people, particularly in the US where they're everywhere, even for breakfast, brunch and lunch too, to overeat and then vegg out has been a contributing cause to obesity - when you go to an all you can eat place, there's no such thing as the guy who eats healthy and a normal size meal - he's gotta get his money's worth.
 
I understand your position. However, I don't trust experts in fields who try to baffle me with B/S.

Ok. Just don't expect people to believe you given the level of support you have provided with respects to your position.

For example, the other gentleman I finally decided to ignore spent quite a few of his earliest posts in another thread trying to convince me that Hidden Unemployment had no validity when discussing job growth figures. That the millions of persons the government lists as marginally attached and discouraged workers should not count in unemployment figures because they have given up seeking work. That the only valid numbers should be limited to those actively seeking work.

That is how you define unemployment. Discouraged workers are discouraged workers; attempting to lump them into another category in order to rationalize your political position doesn't cut it with people who actually understand this topic.

I've worked for nearly three years in my State's department of unemployment and I know better.

I would expect a better quality of post. What's the problem?

Empirical evidence also shows me that your touted economic indicators don't seem to affect the workers much, that you "economists and statisticians" keep propping up the idea that our system is working when we have nearly 50 million people on food stamps only 4.3 million of whom are on welfare. So forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in your economic theories and statistical methods of support for them.

You don't understand what empirical evidence entails, nor understand the rigors of the peer review process. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, but i does raise questions as to why you reference it.
 
Really? So you say I am paying the same price for less, and some voodoo economic system calculates this as inflation but not really bad inflation, just "acceptable" inflation...so that makes it all right that I am consistently getting less value for my dollar?

I know he has me on ignore, but does anybody understand how he could have reached the conclusion that that's what either I or Dezaad said or implied? I'm baffled. Neither of us said anything about "bad" or "acceptable" or any other judgement call.

I need an interpreter here.
 
That is how you define unemployment.

Actually, if I remember correctly, he also wanted to include high school and college students who didn't want/need to work, stay home spouses, people taking care of family members...basically everyone except for "fully" retired and disabled. That was his definition of "True" unemployment regardless that he's the only one who holds that position.
 
IF you're measuring the same items in the same proportions. And when I say same items I mean same quality and same size.

And then, of course, even the food at home index isn't based on what you buy. And where you live might also be above the national average.

And the CPI considers all those price increases.
If they're false, why do they need to be manipulated?

That you don't understand the theory or the math doesn't make them invalid.


I understand the theory and the math and that is why I say they are false statistics. CPI uses "substitutions" to manipulate and who knows what else. The best way to make an economy look good is to blow smoke up the citizen's collective asses until they don't have a clue what is going on. That's the real world. It's the same smoke with unemployment, manufacturing, white goods, and all to instill "confidence" so the fiat currency doesn't crash. "Full faith and credit" is a world of confidence and the root of our problem. Don't allow any figures to escape that will mar the image of "Confidence." Smoke and mirrors are working overtime, and that's a fact, Jack!
 
That is how you define unemployment. Discouraged workers are discouraged workers; attempting to lump them into another category in order to rationalize your political position doesn't cut it with people who actually understand this topic.

NO, that is how you "economists and statisticians" and the government want to define unemployment. You do it to make things seems better than the really are. That's propaganda, not reality. Because you agree with this propaganda your facts and figures have no validity, except in your own view of things. There are millions of people who want to work but have realized no one is going to hire them, or that the chances of getting hired in this job market are slim to none. Don't even get me started on the new bodies entering the market every day from schools and colleges, often burdened with debt. Or any of the other 40 million "potential unemployed" who don't count for w/e reasons.

You don't understand what empirical evidence entails, nor understand the rigors of the peer review process. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, but i does raise questions as to why you reference it.

Peer review process.. is that where a bunch of self-styled experts gets together and decides who is telling the right truth at any partucular time? That process? LOL

I used to respect that process until I saw how political and contradictory it was. And isn't all life about politics and contradiction? LOL You "economists and statisticians" have been wrong many many times in history. Just because you claim to be experts and can support your positions with highly developed pie charts and nice little graphs the rest of us "non-peers" can't grasp...is no reason for me to believe your truth is the right truth either. Sorry, feel free to "ignore my ignorant prattle" because I am not going to pretend to expertise in a field I've found riddled with self-serving esoteric b/s.
 
Actually, if I remember correctly, he also wanted to include high school and college students who didn't want/need to work, stay home spouses, people taking care of family members...basically everyone except for "fully" retired and disabled. That was his definition of "True" unemployment regardless that he's the only one who holds that position.

I am sure this metric might provide some insight within labor markets but wouldn't the ratio between the number of non-farm employees and the total population provide even a better picture (1-(NFE/POP))?

The not-employed ratio:

fredgraph.png


Still shouldn't be confused with the unemployment rate. :2razz:
 
I understand the theory and the math and that is why I say they are false statistics. CPI uses "substitutions" to manipulate and who knows what else.
Which kind of substitution are you referring to? Substituting ELIs due to non-availability, or substitution meaning changing the weights based on change in expenditures? I'm not sure how you would consider either of those "manipulating."
 
NO, that is how you "economists and statisticians" and the government want to define unemployment. You do it to make things seems better than the really are. That's propaganda, not reality. Because you agree with this propaganda your facts and figures have no validity, except in your own view of things. There are millions of people who want to work but have realized no one is going to hire them, or that the chances of getting hired in this job market are slim to none. Don't even get me started on the new bodies entering the market every day from schools and colleges, often burdened with debt. Or any of the other 40 million "potential unemployed" who don't count for w/e reasons.

The chart above is more to your liking? Cool! That you disagree with the official metric due to opinion alone is of no use to this discussion; it certainly doesn't support your position!

Peer review process.. is that where a bunch of self-styled experts gets together and decides who is telling the right truth at any partucular time? That process? LOL

No. Where statistical significance is analyzed within the context of its application.
 
Back
Top Bottom