The critical part of the article is buried pretty deep here: Part of me wishes that this article focused on this question in earnest, rather than focusing on political party mudslinging. To me,...
The critical part of the article is buried pretty deep here:
More pertinent to the inflation debate is that stable gross margins mean that grocery chains did not suffer much from rising inflation.
Grocery chains managed to pass on, for the most part, the full pain of inflation to their customers. Is that fair?
Part of me wishes that this article focused on this question in earnest, rather than focusing on political party mudslinging.
To me, distinguishing between whether rising prices are due to specifically "greed"/"profits" or whether they're due to "passing on the pain of inflation" ultimately... feels a bit beside the point? At the end of the day, both situations involve corporations remaining profitable at the expense of consumers. How profitable... Doesn't really matter to me? It's the "at the expense of consumers" part that matters to me, given how much people are hurting right now.
They won't focus on that question, because it defeats the article. Loblaws and Empire own significant parts of their supply chain and costs, they can manipulate the expenses of their grocery...
Part of me wishes that this article focused on this question in earnest, rather than focusing on political party mudslinging.
They won't focus on that question, because it defeats the article. Loblaws and Empire own significant parts of their supply chain and costs, they can manipulate the expenses of their grocery business as a result and make the margins whatever they want. They have effective monopolies (especially when combined) in many of the markets they operate in, and we know they do act together (the bread price fixing scandal).
I feel a windfall tax is likely appropriate here, we need to discourage this type of collusion to ensure the consumers pick up the entire inflationary tab. But we also need to also address the root cause and break up the monopolies that allow this in the first place.
To be fair, this isn't an article. It's an editorial stating the position of the newspaper on a specific issue. That issue has been framed and pushed forward by the NDP. If you find that critical...
To be fair, this isn't an article. It's an editorial stating the position of the newspaper on a specific issue. That issue has been framed and pushed forward by the NDP. If you find that critical point to be a salient one then to some degree you're agreeing with The Globe that the NDP has not framed and focused on the true issue.
My apologies for the inaccuracy in my word choice! Honestly, I think the main thing that rubs me the wrong way (and the reason why I used the word "mudslinging" here) is the tone and wording of...
My apologies for the inaccuracy in my word choice!
Honestly, I think the main thing that rubs me the wrong way (and the reason why I used the word "mudslinging" here) is the tone and wording of this article? I feel like it's written in a way that gets the reader fired up and angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue. It's written in a way that's meant to sow political division? "Conspiracy theory" is a very charged term, especially given the prevalence of actually harmful conspiracy theorists like anti-vaxxers and such.
But, even if the NDP misrepresented the issue... it's not like there's a huge difference between the NDP's framing and The Globe's purported reality? At the end of the day, it's still "corporate profits >> consumer wellbeing", and in a less polarized world, I could see the editorial team and the NDP being on the same side of the issue here. But they're not? And that makes me feel sad.
Agreed. But, as someone with family and acquaintances who work in the industry at the corporate and vendor level, everyone should already be angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue. I don't...
I feel like it's written in a way that gets the reader fired up and angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue.
Agreed. But, as someone with family and acquaintances who work in the industry at the corporate and vendor level, everyone should already be angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue.
But, even if the NDP misrepresented the issue... it's not like there's a huge difference between the NDP's framing and The Globe's purported reality? At the end of the day, it's still "corporate profits >> consumer wellbeing", and in a less polarized world, I could see the editorial team and the NDP being on the same side of the issue here. But they're not? And that makes me feel sad.
I don't see it that way. To me, the difference between the issues pushed by the NDP and the ones briefly raised by The Globe's editorial is that the NDP is talking nonsense while The Globe has its finger pointed squarely in the right direction.
Abstracting them both to being about putting corporate profits over consumer well-being absolves the NDP of their role in spreading poorly researched misinformation, while also providing a built-in shield for the grocery oligopoly since they're largely innocent of the specific accusations the NDP has so loudly trumpeted.
It smacks of raising populist ire in a fashion designed from the beginning to fail — but that's a level of cynical corporate cronyism one usually associates with other political parties.
Honestly, at this point I feel a bit jaded about the output of political party messaging as a whole? We live in a political climate where honesty and sincerity are punished and sensationalism and...
Abstracting them both to being about putting corporate profits over consumer well-being absolves the NDP of their role in spreading poorly researched misinformation
Honestly, at this point I feel a bit jaded about the output of political party messaging as a whole? We live in a political climate where honesty and sincerity are punished and sensationalism and posturing are rewarded (see: The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low). In such a world, I'll take the "misinformation about the grocery oligopoly" party over the "misinformation about trans people" party any day.
everyone should already be angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue.
Where my priorities lie... this is just plain a non-issue to me? It's not a real reason for me to be truly angry.
Inflammatory off-topic rant that reveals my priorities
Those who work in the grocery industry are relatively insulated through layers of bureaucracy from this type of misinformation. They're not going to be attacked in the streets because the NDP called Galen Weston a greedy bastard. The people affected by Conservative misinformation, on the other hand? Not so much. We die.
That's not to say I shouldn't hold my own party to a higher standard? But... even if they were sensationalist on this specific issue, pointing that out feels more like a distraction than anything to me, especially given the points made in that Innuendo Studios video I linked. There's no reward for "Going High" when the other party will "Go Low" on every other issue.
Strongly agreed. But that doesn't mean I'm not still angry about it or cease to value parties being held accountable for doing so. I don't think you should hold your party to a higher standard,...
Honestly, at this point I feel a bit jaded about the output of political party messaging as a whole? We live in a political climate where honesty and sincerity are punished and sensationalism and posturing are rewarded
Strongly agreed.
But that doesn't mean I'm not still angry about it or cease to value parties being held accountable for doing so.
That's not to say I shouldn't hold my own party to a higher standard? But... even if they were sensationalist on this specific issue, pointing that out feels more like a distraction than anything to me, especially given the points made in that Innuendo Studios video I linked. There's no reward for "Going High" when the other party will "Go Low" on every other issue.
I don't think you should hold your party to a higher standard, but I do think you shouldn't wave away their lazy inaccuracies just because other parties also do it.
The NDP, with better attention to how the industry actually works, could be making the same amount of noise about the same corporate grocery industry, be exactly right, and focus the country's conversation on areas badly in need of reform — especially given their current position propping up the Liberal government. Pivoting to discuss other parties' stances on other issues doesn't seem relevant here: criticism of the NDP's misplaced focus isn't a referendum on the question of which party is best overall.
Thanks for explaining yourself! I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I'm glad to get to the heart of the matter here -- we're very much on the same page. I think the reason why...
Thanks for explaining yourself! I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I'm glad to get to the heart of the matter here -- we're very much on the same page.
I think the reason why I mentioned the party-focused comments is because, in places less measured than Tildes, I can just picture this editorial being used as fuel for fervor towards the NDP (and its values) as a whole. The conversation we're having here, with the nuance and the understanding... Just won't happen elsewhere?
And because it can be used as fuel for more nefarious purposes (rather than the well thought out argument you've shared here), I reflexively feel disheartened at the editorial's very existence. I feel the intent and the discord brewing from the title and the first 3/4 of the piece, far more so than the kernel of value that lies within.
To circle back around to my first comment:
Part of me wishes that this article focused on this question in earnest
Agreed across the board! Yes, articles which explore the issues pointed at in the editorial would be most welcome. Hopefully they follow, and if I come across them I'll make sure to post them...
Agreed across the board!
Yes, articles which explore the issues pointed at in the editorial would be most welcome. Hopefully they follow, and if I come across them I'll make sure to post them here. The grocery oligopoly is indeed in desperate need of reform.
In broad strokes, the Liberal party has a history of talking in reasonably progressive terms but governing with policies that fall to the right of their stated ideals. This isn't quite the same...
In broad strokes, the Liberal party has a history of talking in reasonably progressive terms but governing with policies that fall to the right of their stated ideals.
This isn't quite the same thing, of course, but it feels like a move the Liberals would make: Rile people up about an issue, investigate the issue, and implement token things to address the issue while everyone conveniently ignores the fact that you framed the issue incorrectly from the beginning so that your corporate cronies would escape the much deeper reforms which are actually needed.
((whoops sorry! I deleted my comment because you already answered my question in your other reply? But you had a second response ready faster than I could delete the redundant comment, hehe))
((whoops sorry! I deleted my comment because you already answered my question in your other reply? But you had a second response ready faster than I could delete the redundant comment, hehe))
Notice how even though inflation has eased, prices have not? But I'm sure it's legit and these corporations who had to pay everybody a couple bucks for price fixing a few years back are totally...
Notice how even though inflation has eased, prices have not? But I'm sure it's legit and these corporations who had to pay everybody a couple bucks for price fixing a few years back are totally honest and ethical. Please ignore Galen's new yacht.
Isn't that by definition, though? If inflation eases, then prices are expected to maintain the same. It's only if deflation occurs that prices would go down. And that introduces a whole slew of...
Notice how even though inflation has eased, prices have not?
Isn't that by definition, though? If inflation eases, then prices are expected to maintain the same. It's only if deflation occurs that prices would go down. And that introduces a whole slew of other economics factors that we're not used to seeing.
FTA: Wow, the Globe and Mail don’t pull their punches do they. I do agree with the conclusion that it seems grocers are just passing on the inflation to the customers. It makes the most sense. I...
FTA:
To the contrary, the NDP (and the Liberals, for that matter) have used inflation as a justification to spend more, not less. The NDP goes further than its parliamentary alliance partner in demanding a tax on the supposed windfall profits of the industry. And that’s really what’s at issue here: linking the (non-existent) problem of Big Grocery and inflation to the (longstanding) wish of the NDP to hike corporate taxes.
Wow, the Globe and Mail don’t pull their punches do they.
I do agree with the conclusion that it seems grocers are just passing on the inflation to the customers. It makes the most sense.
The critical part of the article is buried pretty deep here:
Part of me wishes that this article focused on this question in earnest, rather than focusing on political party mudslinging.
To me, distinguishing between whether rising prices are due to specifically "greed"/"profits" or whether they're due to "passing on the pain of inflation" ultimately... feels a bit beside the point? At the end of the day, both situations involve corporations remaining profitable at the expense of consumers. How profitable... Doesn't really matter to me? It's the "at the expense of consumers" part that matters to me, given how much people are hurting right now.
They won't focus on that question, because it defeats the article. Loblaws and Empire own significant parts of their supply chain and costs, they can manipulate the expenses of their grocery business as a result and make the margins whatever they want. They have effective monopolies (especially when combined) in many of the markets they operate in, and we know they do act together (the bread price fixing scandal).
I feel a windfall tax is likely appropriate here, we need to discourage this type of collusion to ensure the consumers pick up the entire inflationary tab. But we also need to also address the root cause and break up the monopolies that allow this in the first place.
To be fair, this isn't an article. It's an editorial stating the position of the newspaper on a specific issue. That issue has been framed and pushed forward by the NDP. If you find that critical point to be a salient one then to some degree you're agreeing with The Globe that the NDP has not framed and focused on the true issue.
"Mudslinging" is far from the correct word, IMHO.
My apologies for the inaccuracy in my word choice!
Honestly, I think the main thing that rubs me the wrong way (and the reason why I used the word "mudslinging" here) is the tone and wording of this article? I feel like it's written in a way that gets the reader fired up and angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue. It's written in a way that's meant to sow political division? "Conspiracy theory" is a very charged term, especially given the prevalence of actually harmful conspiracy theorists like anti-vaxxers and such.
But, even if the NDP misrepresented the issue... it's not like there's a huge difference between the NDP's framing and The Globe's purported reality? At the end of the day, it's still "corporate profits >> consumer wellbeing", and in a less polarized world, I could see the editorial team and the NDP being on the same side of the issue here. But they're not? And that makes me feel sad.
Agreed. But, as someone with family and acquaintances who work in the industry at the corporate and vendor level, everyone should already be angry at the NDP for misrepresenting the issue.
I don't see it that way. To me, the difference between the issues pushed by the NDP and the ones briefly raised by The Globe's editorial is that the NDP is talking nonsense while The Globe has its finger pointed squarely in the right direction.
Abstracting them both to being about putting corporate profits over consumer well-being absolves the NDP of their role in spreading poorly researched misinformation, while also providing a built-in shield for the grocery oligopoly since they're largely innocent of the specific accusations the NDP has so loudly trumpeted.
It smacks of raising populist ire in a fashion designed from the beginning to fail — but that's a level of cynical corporate cronyism one usually associates with other political parties.
Honestly, at this point I feel a bit jaded about the output of political party messaging as a whole? We live in a political climate where honesty and sincerity are punished and sensationalism and posturing are rewarded (see: The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low). In such a world, I'll take the "misinformation about the grocery oligopoly" party over the "misinformation about trans people" party any day.
Where my priorities lie... this is just plain a non-issue to me? It's not a real reason for me to be truly angry.
Inflammatory off-topic rant that reveals my priorities
Those who work in the grocery industry are relatively insulated through layers of bureaucracy from this type of misinformation. They're not going to be attacked in the streets because the NDP called Galen Weston a greedy bastard. The people affected by Conservative misinformation, on the other hand? Not so much. We die.
That's not to say I shouldn't hold my own party to a higher standard? But... even if they were sensationalist on this specific issue, pointing that out feels more like a distraction than anything to me, especially given the points made in that Innuendo Studios video I linked. There's no reward for "Going High" when the other party will "Go Low" on every other issue.
Strongly agreed.
But that doesn't mean I'm not still angry about it or cease to value parties being held accountable for doing so.
I don't think you should hold your party to a higher standard, but I do think you shouldn't wave away their lazy inaccuracies just because other parties also do it.
The NDP, with better attention to how the industry actually works, could be making the same amount of noise about the same corporate grocery industry, be exactly right, and focus the country's conversation on areas badly in need of reform — especially given their current position propping up the Liberal government. Pivoting to discuss other parties' stances on other issues doesn't seem relevant here: criticism of the NDP's misplaced focus isn't a referendum on the question of which party is best overall.
Thanks for explaining yourself! I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I'm glad to get to the heart of the matter here -- we're very much on the same page.
I think the reason why I mentioned the party-focused comments is because, in places less measured than Tildes, I can just picture this editorial being used as fuel for fervor towards the NDP (and its values) as a whole. The conversation we're having here, with the nuance and the understanding... Just won't happen elsewhere?
And because it can be used as fuel for more nefarious purposes (rather than the well thought out argument you've shared here), I reflexively feel disheartened at the editorial's very existence. I feel the intent and the discord brewing from the title and the first 3/4 of the piece, far more so than the kernel of value that lies within.
To circle back around to my first comment:
Agreed across the board!
Yes, articles which explore the issues pointed at in the editorial would be most welcome. Hopefully they follow, and if I come across them I'll make sure to post them here. The grocery oligopoly is indeed in desperate need of reform.
In broad strokes, the Liberal party has a history of talking in reasonably progressive terms but governing with policies that fall to the right of their stated ideals.
This isn't quite the same thing, of course, but it feels like a move the Liberals would make: Rile people up about an issue, investigate the issue, and implement token things to address the issue while everyone conveniently ignores the fact that you framed the issue incorrectly from the beginning so that your corporate cronies would escape the much deeper reforms which are actually needed.
((whoops sorry! I deleted my comment because you already answered my question in your other reply? But you had a second response ready faster than I could delete the redundant comment, hehe))
It's all good, cheers!
Notice how even though inflation has eased, prices have not? But I'm sure it's legit and these corporations who had to pay everybody a couple bucks for price fixing a few years back are totally honest and ethical. Please ignore Galen's new yacht.
Isn't that by definition, though? If inflation eases, then prices are expected to maintain the same. It's only if deflation occurs that prices would go down. And that introduces a whole slew of other economics factors that we're not used to seeing.
FTA:
Wow, the Globe and Mail don’t pull their punches do they.
I do agree with the conclusion that it seems grocers are just passing on the inflation to the customers. It makes the most sense.
I hate how everything is politicized.
An archived version, in case you can't turn off JavaScript or use incognito.