Debunking Robert Reich: Inflation is NOT Being Caused by 'Muh Greedflation'

Progressive leftists have lately been resurrecting a trend where inflationary trends are inaccurately blamed on alleged "greed" along with shoddy accusations of price fixing conspiracies. Robert Reich has recently released a video titled "Is It Inflation? Or Is It Greedflation? | Robert Reich" doing just this. Here is why they are wrong.

======LINKS======
All My Links:

If you want to leave me a tip / support my content:

Follow me on Twitter for channel updates and general bantz:

My Discord:

Odysee Backup:

Rumble Backup:
=================

Sources:

Robert's video:

Pepsico stats:

Inflation data:

Other:

[watchdealer]

Robert Reich is an economist the way Bill Nye is a scientist and the way Canada is a free country...

[hoominbeeing]

The main question to ask yourself every time you hear this argument is:

Why were companies not greedy before? Why did they magically become greedy now?

And no, muh "capitalism has stages" does not adequately answer this

[awatf]

If inflation is caused by corporate greed, why companies weren't greedy before?

[Nathan-jhho]

"Inflation has gone down so prices should go down"

"Acceleration has decreased so velocity should decrease"

[baphmet]

Inflation is actually caused by greed, since inflation is created by the FED increasing money supply as another tax.

[KRAMITDFROG]

Reich: "The corporations sit there in their corporation buildings and, see, they're all corporation-y and they make money."

[Majinken]

Wild how companies decided to all be greedy at the same time and just now

[guanglaikangyi]

"Inflatiin is dropping but prices aren't coming down."
How can someone say this with a straight face is beyond me.

[Majinken]

The "Muh corporations are making record profits while we suffer from inflation" argument is so funny to me because those profits are also inflated because of inflation 😂

[DjDeadpig]

I think these kind of people forget that when using the “greed = Inflation+capitalism” argument, they have to acknowledge many socialist states have also had inflation before.

[Arassar]

Supply and demand is literally the simplest, most basic tenet of economics, and these clowns don't understand it.

WHEN YOU INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF MONEY, THE VALUE OF THAT MONEY GOES DOWN. IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

[captainphoenix]

If all it took for companies to get these prices was "gReEd", then why weren't the prices what they are now 40 years ago, and why don't they just charge billions of times more than what they currently charge?

[free_at_last]

A balloon is not "inflated" when it rises. Defining "inflation" as "prices increasing" as opposed to the inflation of the money supply which results in those prices increasing is just another attempt to change reality with language.

[ServantOfSatania]

I agree, we need to stop the greedy politicians... that's what he meant, right?

[apc]

"Remember the devastating deflation on the 1930s, caused by corporations being to generous and selfless" cit. Robert Reich probably

[FriendlyNeighboorhoodPatriot]

Always blame it on the market as opposed to the actual problem, the Feds. Smh

[fluppet]

Its amazing how often you see 'inflation is down, why aren't the prices going down?' and they show the inflation rate.

If you have a pile of pennies and it used to grow by 1% each day but now it grows by .5%, its still growing, its just growing slower.

[highadmiralbittenfield]

I like to explain inflation like this:

Every dollar is a slice of the pie which is the total value within the economy. To print more dollars does not make the pie bigger, but rather makes every slice smaller in order to create more slices. Inflation rate is like the rate at which the pie is being sliced. Even if slices are made at a slower rate, the size of the slices is still decreasing. The pie is not being un-sliced.

[gjmguy]

Let’s say a country buys a state of the art money printer to where it can print significantly more money than before. Does this make a country more wealthy? Of course not.

[Zetact_]

The aptly named Rob Reich asserting, "Pepsi's ONLY competition is Coca-Cola, which also raised its prices!"
Even if you give him every statement about that as true, the business decision still makes no sense. If there were no outside factors causing the price increase, then if someone's largest competitor wished to take a large and noticeable increase in price, standard business practice would be to keep your own prices low so you can dominate market share without needing to even so much as alter your own trajectory. Coke might make more money if they raise their prices artificially to match Pepsi's decision but if they had the ability to charge a low price, why wouldn't they take the opportunity to, overnight, swipe all of Pepsi's customer base barring those few people who are so brand loyal that they're willing to pay the extra cost?
I've never heard the people who espouse "greedlfation" actually give an explanation to this.