Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inflation: The Basics
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 47 (588557)
10-26-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
10-26-2010 1:14 AM


Stop producing?
I admittedly don't know shit about Econ, never took one of those classes. But your position is strange to me, and thus interesting. I don't particularly "disagree" with you, simply because I'm unable to tell who is correct, but I do have a question.
If there's no greater demand for the TV dinners than before, the price won't go up. Supply and demand, remember? Things aren't priced as a function of what a dollar is worth; they're priced as a function of demand vs. supply.
Too, they're priced by how much they cost to make, so:
If prices of the materials to make TV dinners go up but demand for TV dinners doesn't, then they'll just make less TV dinners until the rarity of a TV dinner raises the price back to profitability.
Do you really think that'd work? Isn't it more likely that doing that would just put them out of business?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2010 1:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2010 6:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 47 (588677)
10-27-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
10-26-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Stop producing?
Well, they can't make more TV dinners, because they can't sell more TV dinners because demand is the same.
Couldn't make more and take a lower margin and try to drive the demand with lower pricing?
Making the same amount of TV dinners simply nets a lot less profit.
But less is still better than none. They shouldn't stop making them.
Since it means less profit to be in the TV dinner business we should expect some businesses to get out of the business altogether, which presumably means less TV dinner production.
Well that's no good at all!
We were using "TV dinners" as a synonym for "widget",
Yes, of course. We can use widget if you want, but I like have more specifics to attach analogies to.
but if we want to talk specifically about TV dinners what they're most likely going to do is put less food in a TV dinner and conceal the difference with marketing. You may have noticed the same thing happen to other items in your grocery store; Consumerist.com calls it the "grocery shrink ray", the propensity for items at the grocery store to contain less product but look and cost the same. Frequently voids or indentations are introduced in the packaging, so you wind up with less peanut butter (for instance) in a jar that looks just as big as before.
I hadn't heard that term, but I have noticed that (I think the first thing I noticed was when Gobstoppers got smaller)
And actually, in a sense, wouldn't that just be one of the ways that the dollar has become worth less? Or is that just the value of the food increasing?
How's that impact inflation? Throwing more money out there would help that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2010 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2010 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 47 (588704)
10-27-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
10-27-2010 2:06 PM


static dollars?
Couldn't {they} make more and take a lower margin and try to drive the demand with lower pricing?
I don't see how the math works out on that.
Assuming the widget costs $1 to make and they sell 100 at $2, then they've made $100.
With the same cost of $1, if they could increase sales to 250 by pricing it at $1.50, then they've made $125.
Making the same amount of TV dinners simply nets a lot less profit.
But less is still better than none. They shouldn't stop making them.
Well, there's capital costs. {snip} Eventually they're selling so few TV dinners that they're not getting enough in net to pay for the factory and the labor.
Well then they're no longer making a profit. Assuming they're making a profit, making something would be better than not:
quote:
Since it means less profit to be in the TV dinner business we should expect some businesses to get out of the business altogether, which presumably means less TV dinner production.
Well that's no good at all!
I think we'd want the producers to continue producing stuff, even if they're making less profit (so long as they're not losing money).
And actually, in a sense, wouldn't that just be one of the ways that the dollar has become worth less? Or is that just the value of the food increasing?
Well, there's more people, and they have to eat. That's an increase in demand for food. Doesn't that indicate the rising value of food?
Yes. But too, if the cost of food production has gone up, but the demand is the same, then that same $1 would be worth less food. No?
If you measure the distance between New York and London, you find that it increases at a rate of about a half-inch per year.
Does that indicate that our rulers are all shrinking, or that the plates are moving?
Are you saying that the value of the dollar is as static as the length of an inch? The value of the dollar can't change?
Don't be so quick to assume that measurements are changing because the things we use to measure them are changing. More often we measure change because the things we're measuring really are changing.
But if the cost to make the food goes up and then they start putting in less for the same price, how can you tell if the value of the food increased or if the value of the dollar decreased if the demand stays the same?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : 150 --> 250

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2010 2:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-28-2010 3:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 47 (588782)
10-28-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Minnemooseus
10-28-2010 3:43 AM


Re: Math error
D'oh >.<
Yeah, I'mma change that to 250.
Do you think CF is saying that the value of the dollar is static, and what do you think about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-28-2010 3:43 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2010 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024