It's not necessary that lower farm income results in lower prices at the supermarket. For instance, the price of a chicken at the chicken farm is completely disconnected from the price of a chicken at the supermarket by the Tyson/JBS monopoly.
Food distribution is currently consolidating and rolling-up rapidly (ex: the Albertsons/Kroger merger). The result will be low farm income and high supermarket prices.
It's clearly not "completely" disconnected, otherwise there would be zero volatility in supermarket prices. But again a price is a price not matter what layer of the market it sits at, and all prices are subject to market conditions. Freaking out about some subsampling of them as being "real" in/de/stag/whateverflation in an attempt to shoehorn whatever noisy data you have into a signal that confirms your priors just leads to the kind of nonsense logic that produced the analysis I quoted above.
Comments
It's not necessary that lower farm income results in lower prices at the supermarket. For instance, the price of a chicken at the chicken farm is completely disconnected from the price of a chicken at the supermarket by the Tyson/JBS monopoly.
Food distribution is currently consolidating and rolling-up rapidly (ex: the Albertsons/Kroger merger). The result will be low farm income and high supermarket prices.
It's clearly not "completely" disconnected, otherwise there would be zero volatility in supermarket prices. But again a price is a price not matter what layer of the market it sits at, and all prices are subject to market conditions. Freaking out about some subsampling of them as being "real" in/de/stag/whateverflation in an attempt to shoehorn whatever noisy data you have into a signal that confirms your priors just leads to the kind of nonsense logic that produced the analysis I quoted above.
I understood that supermarkets are always changing prices semirandomly, so that consumers never really know what the price "should" be.