This just sounds like "we should be concerned about why this company is able to price gouge" but we're also worried about not hurting the company's feelings.
The other factor is that rising prices often mean an increased need for investment by producers. That investment capital has to come from somewhere, so what look like increased profits based on current cost structures can actually be entirely justified if the company then needs to invest that money in order to get production volumes up and cope with increased capital costs.
I don't know enough about the food industry to be able to say which of these is happening, in which sector or country, but these are much more complex issues that the knee jerk reactions here imply. What I can say is, it seems to me that if the reduced supply from Ukraine and Russia is going to be made up, somebody somewhere is gong to have to ramp up food production an awful lot, and I can't imagine that's going to be cheap.
Considering that's the explicit context of this comment thread, obviously, the difference is exactly what we're talking about here.
> I don't know enough about the food industry to be able to say which of these is happening, in which sector or country, but these are much more complex issues that the knee jerk reactions here imply.
That's what I mean about sparing a company's feelings. You have no material objections, but it's important we not use the word "gouging" for companies whose profits are rising considerably faster than inflation and it's consumers being hurt. Tone policing is the least important (and least interesting) part of this conversation.
Price is a signal of scarcity. Food is more scarce due to supply chain issues, therefore food is more expensive. Is that bad? Sure, let's address the supply chain issues, overall macroeconomic inflation and, uh, other disruptions (incl. the UA war).
Unless you are specifically alleging direct conspiracy between food producers to raise prices (e.g., monopolistic action), (also already an illegal thing), there doesn't seem to be a clear call to action here.
if any given step in the value chain is increasing their prices beyond what is necessary to cover increases in costs (they are), that additional margin purely for the purpose of wanting more money is, imo, pretty shameless when it's hurting so many people down the line
and i don’t think you’d expect it to. the increased supply needs to hit the market first. depending on how that money is distributed, that could take a long time. also remember that QE has been central fiscal policy in the UK and US since basically 2007. and it’s safe to say that concentration of this wealth is.. very high.
> has UK M2 declining [..]
it becomes a bit more sobering when you look at the full scale on that graph (when the y-axis starts from 0). it’s a metaphorical deck-chair-thrown-off-of-the-titanic amount of decrease.
Yes we have high inflation now, but that’s just been a plain old cockup. The massive inflation reduction act stimulus for example.
Should we be concerned about why there are shifts in demand/supply? Sure.(In the case of food, part of this is driven by the UA war and likely other trends in food productive)?
But it is eminently unhelpful to simply attribute increases to 'gouging' and expect that to be the final say.