This "basked of goods" approach to understanding price inflation seems outdated to me. 114 items! It seems to me like there must be organizations out there with tons and tons of price and consumer spending data for thousands and thousands of items, right? It should be possible to get much more comprehensive measurement of price changes over time vs and approach taken like this one (or the CPI, for that matter).
2. This specific exercise is designed to be relatable to individuals (in general, and specifically ones such as the people interviewed in the article who claimed that their grocery bill went up about 50% in a year, which is implausible to put it politely) so that they can understand the actual level of inflation rather than the one they imagined in their head.
There needs to be an index that reflects what people really need and the closest I’ve found is the ALICE index: https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index
There's value in the index you described as well, but IMO it doesn't make sense to use it as the basis for the overall economy.
It's 100% purely supply side pricing, propped up by government spending and credit (which is largely backstopped by the government as well).
I listened to a podcast recently that some 'homeowners' have not made a mortgage payment in years, have no ability to pay, but here are essentially unlimited 'no doc' mortgage modifications available since the Corona time period.
How? Somebody is holding the bag here on the mortgage - a bank, probably. And they are fine with not receiving payments? Or is somebody else making payments on the homeowner's behalf?
You don't usually skate by on years of non-payments, so I'd sticker the original claim with [citation needed]
sounds like a very similar thing.
Here's another one on perpetual forbearances: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/covid-housing-relief-forever-rec...
This would seem to indicate that Covid forbearances are extending into 2026: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SFH/documents/SFH_FHA_INFO_...
I think they're looking at adding a means test, but I'm unsure.
So, the government is making everyone whole.
Swai is perhaps the worst possible fish to buy (low nutritional value, bad for environment, contains toxins) so (a) it's unfortunate they picked this fish and (b) it's good it's more expensive since perhaps people will buy less of it.
An additional note is all meats/organisms have similar cholesterol levels if you’re concerned with that. A one month vegetable only diet with very seldom seafood/eggs drops my overall score 50 points. 60 points if kept up for 2-3 months.
Best Fish Choices (High Omega-3s & Low Mercury) *
Fatty Fish: Salmon, Herring, Sardines, Anchovies, Mackerel (Atlantic), Trout (Rainbow). *
Lean Fish: Cod, Tilapia (check sourcing), Flounder, Sole (great lean protein).
* Shellfish (Low Mercury): Shrimp, Crab, Mussels. Worst Fish Choices (High Mercury & Other Concerns)
* High Mercury: Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel,Marlin, Tilefish (especially from the Gulf of Mexico).
* Contamination Concerns: Imported Tilapia, Imported Catfish (Basa/Swai), Farmed Salmon (check sourcing/farming practices).
Quick Guide: Best vs. Worst * Eat More: Salmon, Sardines, Cod, Shrimp, Herring.
* Eat Wild caught salmon
* Atlantic mackerel is good
* Pacific sardines one of the highest omega-3 fatty acid sources, includes vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium and selenium.
* Albacore tuna (troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia)
* Sablefish/black cod (from Alaska and Canadian Pacific)
* Eat Less/Avoid: Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, Tilefish.
* * Consider: Tilapia is lean but low in Omega-3s; opt for American-farmed if possible
* Beluga sturgeon - caviar great but going extinct. Blue sturgeon more sustainable
* Chilean sea bass high mercury
* eels tend to readily absorb and store harmful chemicals and contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and flame retardants
* Imported basa/swai/tra/striped catfish * Grouper often mislabeled
https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendations/download-consum...
The numbers show reduced prices for milk and butter (e.g. cream), and sugar remaining constant.
Thus: ice cream is being priced too high.
But maybe there are other factors? What about energy? One would assume that ice cream has a higher energy requirement than other "treat" style products? Are there specific tariff impacts on ice cream manufacturing equipment?
Or - Walmart is a big enough supplier that they have stable contracts with manufacturers, and are able to purchase their ingredients for the same cost as always, while Turkey Hill et al is competing over what's left. (Like Apple, buying up TSMC runs.)
That's the implication of your comment.
Good to track this yearly since some standard metrics are useless versus the shrinkflation, reduction in quality ingredients, and other manipulation we’ll learn about sooner or later.
Many ice creams are now dairy desserts due to not having enough ingredients to make the cut. Same with milk chocolates and now declared chocolate candy due to not using enough real cocoa.
I think, at least in the last year-or-so, big brands also became worried about getting flamed by the president for raising prices.
kenjackson•1h ago
foobarian•1h ago
kenjackson•1h ago
dsr_•1h ago
They want democratic socialism.
Meanwhile, the right wing has been telling them that public libraries and public schools and everything good except profit -- is communism.
bpt3•16m ago
Yes, though the definition of "reasonable" is a real sticking point
> and tighter regulation of markets
This is less clear to me, but I would agree people want less fraud and deception in markets
> with elimination of profit-taking middlemen
I don't think many people think about this at all, and it's another very nebulous term
> They want democratic socialism.
No, democratic socialists want democratic socialism. Most Americans do not.
> Meanwhile, the right wing has been telling them that public libraries and public schools and everything good except profit -- is communism.
I disagree with basically everything the current incarnation of the Republican party is doing or stands for, and silly statements like this aren't helpful.
bigyabai•59m ago
People don't "essentially want communism" by advocating for socialist policy. Serious economists will tell you that it is impossible to transition America's free market into a planned economy. We're capitalist through thick and thin.
MarcelOlsz•35m ago
fuzzfactor•31m ago
Exactly, people didn't used to even imagine there was any way to change nor think free-enterprise should be compromised for any special interests, the outcome had always been negative when lobbyists got their way too often with either party.
Remember why Ronald Reagan and the bulk of the American people from both parties absolutely hated Communism so much?
It wan't mainly the economic differences from a free-market system; that barely made it onto the radar and was largely academic.
It was the dictatorship aspect that was so disgusting and anti-American as can be.
Dismal economic considerations under Communist governments were well-recognized as a logical result of dictatorship, that had been obvious for centuries.
Otherwise there wouldn't have been as much ambition for subjects to withdraw from dictator/monarchy regimes and settle in America to begin with.
_factor•17m ago
I think we’ve crossed a line where we can no longer assume basic alignment with “our” leadership.