Comments
denandrefyren t1_jeevekp wrote
Well that's because food prices aren't included in core CPI, neither are energy prices. They're considered "too volatile".
guitar_vigilante t1_jefsus8 wrote
No that isn't why. The food index increased 0.4% for February, and also the main CPI number published by the BLS is not Core CPI, so the number in the headline is not what you implied it is nor is the .4% increase in food out of line with the aggregate index.
[deleted] t1_jef1cf6 wrote
[removed]
BG40 t1_jeetr1d wrote
That’s price gouging in effect. Eggs manufacturers reporting 700% increases in profits isn’t inflation.
Tonaia t1_jef0mi8 wrote
That report specifically cited that the manufacturer was unaffected by the bird flu and didn't have to cull the flock.
key-wavelength t1_jef9tu6 wrote
The egg industry is a cartel. They have been busted for this in the past.
Tonaia t1_jefh8am wrote
I don't disagree. The context of that particular story does matter though. Cal-Maine Foods could have taken a smaller profit, but they didn't. They took full advantage and exploited the supply shock, but they could only do that because they didn't lose any production themselves.
Their unwillingness to step back from profit kept the egg prices high.
[deleted] t1_jefjol7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jef73u3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jef7uyt wrote
[removed]
Fineous4 t1_jefoo75 wrote
If you made one cent last year in profit, but made eight cents this year it is a 700% increase in profit. Percent increases in profit don’t matter because they tell you absolutely nothing. Increases in revenue tell the story.
Snagmesomeweaves t1_jefdidx wrote
Once we get YOY data for May etc when the rates started increasing and changing consumer habits, the inflated numbers from housing market will start showing less bias on the overall inflation numbers.
SirAwesome3737 t1_jefh83m wrote
The Fed is looking at core PCE ex housing. Housing isn't a part of the formula.
Snagmesomeweaves t1_jefid6b wrote
Fair enough, and I stand corrected
[deleted] t1_jeg6ihx wrote
[removed]
MentallyUnchallenged t1_jefk6jf wrote
0.3% per month is still about 3.7% a year, nearly double the target 2% rate of inflation.
Benedict-Donald t1_jefwv2j wrote
While true, did you expect inflation to go from 9% straight down to 2%? A gradual decrease is still good news.
jdfred06 t1_jeg48k7 wrote
Agreed. I would be more concerned if it dropped to 2% annual in a few months time.
Hell, I also think 2% is a little aggressive.
Bucksandreds t1_jegwjau wrote
The target is 2-2.5% not 2% and .3% monthly equate it’s 3.6% not 3.7% yearly.
Vegan_Honk t1_jeeq37e wrote
They expected inflation to increase anyways but the market will moon because it's slightly less than expected and thus fed can now cut rates because the peasants "will be fine" while rates are starting to really dig at important people: the rich.
Stupid fucking markets.
[deleted] t1_jeeiw4c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jeekib6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jeentph wrote
[removed]
OneWhoSearches t1_jeenof1 wrote
Tell that to my grocery store, thanks.