"Shrinkflation"

[occam]

A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188

An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.

[HVS]

On 14 Sep 2023, occam wrote

> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>
> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction.

I agree that it's ugly, but given that it describes a real practice,
what word would you use to describe it?

[Lionel Edwards]

Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.

[Hibou]

Oh dear! I've used it myself recently in reviews complaining about
products being shrinkflated.

An ugly word for a sneaky, cheating, ugly practice. The solution is to
abolish the practice.

[Lionel Edwards]

You'd want to emphasise how healthifying it is - downfatting as it does
with a wafer-thin sprinkle of de-sugaring?

[TonyCooper]

How, exactly, do you propose that that can be done?

When the supplier's costs increase, the supplier can either increase
the price of the unit or decrease the amount of content of the unit in
order to maintain the same profit. The supplier is in business to
make a profit.

By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
that to be sneaky. It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't
bother to read the label information on the package that states the
weight or number of units of the contents.

Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
themselves?



--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

It would however be nice to have a word for it, because it's really
annoying. A couple of months ago I wanted to bake a cake, so I bought a
packet of margarine.

When I strated making the dough, I discovered that I didn't have enough
margarine for the cake. The box only contained 250 grams, and I needed
350 grams. I was surprised that I hadn't seen that the box was smaller,
but then I made some calculations. They told me that the smaller box
only needed to be reduced to 80% of each of the three dimensions, and
that is so small a difference that it is hardly noticable unless you
have the two boxes side by side.

Now I have to buy two packages which results in more waste material.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

TonyCooper wrote:

> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
> that to be sneaky. It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't
> bother to read the label information on the package that states the
> weight or number of units of the contents.
>
> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
> themselves?

What change in the producer's planning is the result of my reading the
information? It's not like a have a different choice in another shop.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:46:51 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".

Far from a new word. Newer than the practice, though.

> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>
> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.

chillax (chill + (re)lax)

Do you use "Liz Truss" for something other than whatsername?

[lar3ryca]

I agree. A'spork' is obiously a 'fpoon'.

Others.. glamping, bromance, doxxing, and shout out,

--
I was sad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.
So I said, "Got any shoes you're not using?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Don't forget -- keep the box the same size.

[lar3ryca]

You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
There are several products I have done this with, and buy them only when
they are on sale at a price per unit that I feel is worth it.

--
What's the difference between Roast Beef, and Pea Soup?
I'm pretty sure anyone can roast beef.

[Adam Funk]

It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.

More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.


--
Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine;----they are the life,
the soul of reading! (Tristram Shandy)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

lar3ryca wrote:

>> What change in the producer's planning is the result of my reading the
>> information? It's not like a have a different choice in another shop.
>
> You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Then I get no cake.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:

[no, he didn't]

> >> What change in the producer's planning is the result of my reading the
> >> information? It's not like a have a different choice in another shop.
> > You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
> Then I get no cake.

What kind of cake uses margarine instead of butter?

[Mark Brader]

> > Subject: "Shrinkflation"

> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are

> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price"...

> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.
>
> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.

And I just heard of "skimpflation", the same idea but for other
sorts of products.
--
Mark Brader | "...it is happening a lot to me recently. almost
Toronto | as if my beliefs are no longer strong enough
m...@vex.net | to counter reality." --Stephen Perry

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:17:30 +0100
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2023-09-14, occam wrote:
>
> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
> >
> > An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
> > words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>
> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.
>
> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>

The word is new but the practice has been going on, erm possibly since the
first Mars bar.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[TonyCooper]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<petert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, that's part of it, but many products - specifically breakfast
cereal - have long been in boxes that are far larger than the content
requires to give the impression that more content is being purchased
than is actually in the box.

In the stores I shop in, the shelf labels on items usually list the
selling price and a "per x" price. The "x" is "ounce" (breakfast
cereals) or "units" (aspirin, for example, where a "unit" is a pill).
Theoretically, I can purchase the brand or size that is the most
economical. "Theoretically" because sometimes a brand that is not the
most economical is preferred, or a the size wanted does not have the
most economical "x".

[lar3ryca]

You get no cake only if you are unwilling to buy the ingredients at all.
You always have a different choice, only one of which is to have no
cake. Other choices are to use different ingredients (butter is better
for you anyway, and has better taste), to wait for the ingredient(s) to
go on sale, to make something other than cake, and so on.

Inflation causes companies to change something. If you don't like what
one company does, see if a different brand is doing the same thing. If
there are no acceptable alternative brands, complain to the company,
telling them why you think their method is not acceptable.

One solution to your problem, which appears to be that you feel there is
waste, which could be alleviated by buying more at a time, and freezing
whatever you don't immediately use.

--
Testicle (n.), a humorous question on an exam

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 15:46:46, occam posted:

>A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>
>https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>

I wish they'd do that with cars. Cars have been inflating in size ever
since way back when, and now they are too large for our roads, garages
and parking places. What's more, each time they grow they block more of
the following driver's view of the road ahead, which is an un-safety
consideration.

I remember when Mini was mini and didn't have window-winders - more
elbow room for the front seats, of course.

>An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>
>
>

--
Paul W

[TonyCooper]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:20:55 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>TonyCooper wrote:
>
>> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
>> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
>> that to be sneaky. It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't
>> bother to read the label information on the package that states the
>> weight or number of units of the contents.
>>
>> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
>> themselves?
>
>What change in the producer's planning is the result of my reading the
>information?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

The "sneaky" aspect is that a change in value is effected when the
content is reduced but the price remains the same, and some consider
it sneaky because the consumer is unaware of the change in value.

Theoretically, the consumer would be aware of the change if the
content remained the same and the sell price increased. The consumer
would notice that a unit that previously cost $3.00 now sells for
$3.25. That's assuming the consumer is aware of what the cost has
been.

Of course, when the content reduced, from 10 oz to 9 oz, and the sell
price remains the same, many consumers would not notice the change.


The informed consumer (one who reads the label) would be aware of the
change in either practice.

The real question, though, is how could the practice of reducing
content while retaining the same sell price be abolished as Hibou
suggests.

>It's not like a have a different choice in another shop.

If the consumer continues to want to use the product, the consumer is
going to continue to buy it whether the sell price is increased or the
contents are reduced.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

lar3ryca wrote:

> One solution to your problem, which appears to be that you feel there is
> waste, which could be alleviated by buying more at a time, and freezing
> whatever you don't immediately use.

It's not the margarine that is wasted. Two small boxes require more
material than one large.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

TonyCooper wrote:

> If the consumer continues to want to use the product, the consumer is
> going to continue to buy it whether the sell price is increased or the
> contents are reduced.

Precisely. That what makes shrinkflation so ridiculous. It's an
annouyance for the consumers and a waste of container material.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
>> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>>
> The word is new but the practice has been going on, erm possibly since the
> first Mars bar.

I must say! The present alcohol content is zero.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[occam]

On 14/09/2023 17:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> occam wrote:
>
>> A BBC news item today used this word  as meaning "products that are
>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>
>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>
> It would however be nice to have a word for it, because it's really
> annoying.

If all annoying actions had a word to describe it, we'd have to double
the size of English vocabulary.

A couple of months ago I wanted to bake a cake, so I bought a
> packet of margarine.
>
> When I strated making the dough, I discovered that I didn't have enough
> margarine for the cake. The box only contained 250 grams, and I needed
> 350 grams. I was surprised that I hadn't seen that the box was smaller,
> but then I made some calculations. They told me that the smaller box
> only needed to be reduced to 80% of each of the three dimensions, and
> that is so small a difference that it is hardly noticable unless you
> have the two boxes side by side.
>
> Now I have to buy two packages which results in more waste material.
>

...or eat less cake.

[charles]

In article <nt96gilglngkihkt7...@4ax.com>,

However, there are often rival manufacturers of one product.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t้ฒ
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Maybe the years of Tory government have done away with it, but I had
the recollection that there was a law against it: products had to be
sold in round-number sizes: 1, 2, 5 times power of ten, with maybe some
traditional sizes still allowed, like 75 cL wine bottles.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

More waste for you, maybe, but more profit for the producer.

[occam]

On 14/09/2023 18:07, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 15:46:46, occam posted:
>> A BBC news item today used this word  as meaning "products that are
>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>
> I wish they'd do that with cars. Cars have been inflating in size ever
> since way back when, and now they are too large for our roads, garages
> and parking places. What's more, each time they grow they block more of
> the following driver's view of the road ahead, which is an un-safety

> consideration..

In all other respects however, the modern versions are safer. Braking,
road handling, emissions, crush-zones...

>
> I remember when Mini was mini and didn't have window-winders - more
> elbow room for the front seats, of course.
>

I recently saw the two side by side. Someone's classic 1960's Mini was
parked next to a modern Mini Cooper. The difference in size was
jaw-dropping. That's what I'd call 'sizeflation'.

[TonyCooper]

I don't follow that.

It's a way that the supplier maintains the profit margin when the
supplier's costs increase.

In the case of increased costs to the supplier, either the selling
price has to be increased or the contents must be reduced leaving the
selling price unchanged, in order to maintain the profit margin.

Either is going to annoy the consumer.

The waste of container material is minor. The usual change in the
amount of content is such that the container's size would not be made
that much smaller. If new, slightly smaller, containers were used any
remaining inventory of the old container would have to be scrapped,
new plates and artwork would be required to print the new container,
and the overpack containers would have to be changed also. And,
possibly, the machinery used to fill the containers.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

occam wrote:

> I recently saw the two side by side. Someone's classic 1960's Mini was
> parked next to a modern Mini Cooper. The difference in size was
> jaw-dropping. That's what I'd call 'sizeflation'.

I know what you mean. I haven't seen them side by side, but I have often
seen the modern Mini and admired how it looked like the old one yet had
become a really great update. My 'shock' happened when I one day drove
behind one and realised how big it is. Up till then I had actually
thought that they were about the same size.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

TonyCooper wrote:

>> Precisely. That what makes shrinkflation so ridiculous. It's an
>> annouyance for the consumers and a waste of container material.
>
> I don't follow that.
>
> It's a way that the supplier maintains the profit margin when the
> supplier's costs increase.

Increased prices is in certain situations unavoidable. I don't call that
an annoyance - it's a fact of life. The annoyance is that I have to take
two boxes in stead of one. They take up more space in my fridge, and I
throw about 60% extra material away in relation to the old box.

> In the case of increased costs to the supplier, either the selling
> price has to be increased or the contents must be reduced leaving the
> selling price unchanged, in order to maintain the profit margin.
>
> Either is going to annoy the consumer.

Yes, but maintaining a certain profit is necessary. Packing two boxes in
stead of one is not. That is a random choice.

> The waste of container material is minor. The usual change in the
> amount of content is such that the container's size would not be made
> that much smaller.

Exactly - almost the same size, but two in stead of one. That is a
considerable extra waste of material (and space).

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <5ae3da58...@candehope.me.uk>,

However, manufacturers of fast-moving consumer goods often employ
"follow the leader" pricing strategies, such that they all copy
changes in each other's pricing or package sizes, to maintain relative
profit margins. One manufacturer merely *announcing* price or
packaging unit changes can effectively change the strategy for all
their competitors. Supermarkets effectively require all manufacturers
to use the same size package for some products.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14/09/2023 16:29, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2023-09-14 09:20, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> TonyCooper wrote:
>>
>>> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
>>> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
>>> that to be sneaky.  It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't
>>> bother to read the label information on the package that states the
>>> weight or number of units of the contents.
>>>
>>> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
>>> themselves?
>>
>> What change in the producer's planning is the result of my reading the
>> information? It's not like a have a different choice in another shop.
>
> You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
> There are several products I have done this with, and buy them only when
> they are on sale at a price per unit that I feel is worth it.
>

Legislation to require a large 'flash' on the packaging which states:

"Now Even smaller!"

I estimate at least 15% of the buying public would actually read and
digest the information.

(Yes, I am an optimist.)

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14/09/2023 17:07, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 15:46:46, occam posted:
>> A BBC news item today used this word  as meaning "products that are
>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>
> I wish they'd do that with cars. Cars have been inflating in size ever
> since way back when, and now they are too large for our roads, garages
> and parking places. What's more, each time they grow they block more of
> the following driver's view of the road ahead, which is an un-safety
> consideration.
>
> I remember when Mini was mini and didn't have window-winders - more
> elbow room for the front seats, of course.

Nor did it have (interior) door handles.
Just a bit of string.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 20:08:26 +0200

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5qFmL7Mu--/pddnthxpd4vl9usevmnw.jpg
maybe?

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 15:46:46, occam posted:
> >A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> >shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >
> >https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
> >
> I wish they'd do that with cars. Cars have been inflating in size ever
> since way back when, and now they are too large for our roads, garages
> and parking places. What's more, each time they grow they block more of
> the following driver's view of the road ahead, which is an un-safety
> consideration.
>
> I remember when Mini was mini and didn't have window-winders - more
> elbow room for the front seats, of course.

There was nothing to wind, the windows were sliding,
just like on many other cars of the period.

Some more luxurious cars had a small triangular window for ventilation.
For some strange reason it was called a 'quarter glass',

Jan

[Lionel Edwards]

"Quarter light".

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 21:17:52, Sam Plusnet posted:

Thanks for the reminder - I think that must have been rather quickly
superseded by little lever latches by the backward edge of each door.

And nothing so unnecessarily complex as a starter motor switch built
into the ignition switch. Just a plunger button on the floor pan for
connecting the starter motor to the battery.

But my goodness, weren't they fun to drive! There was something close to
perfect in the way they sat on the road. Which reminds me - what became
of the annual Monte Carlo Rally each winter? Too many Mini wins?
--
Paul W

[Peter Moylan]

That explains why Mars bars don't taste as good as they used to.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/09/23 03:13, occam wrote:
> On 14/09/2023 17:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

>> A couple of months ago I wanted to bake a cake [...]

>> Now I have to buy two packages which results in more waste material.
>
> ...or eat less cake.

Let him eat brioches.

[Chris Elvidge]

It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their profit
margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food manufacturers
(Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit margins, thus
increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE, Fed) are increasing
interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever actually proved that
increasing interest rates actually reduces inflation, or is the an
economics red herring?


--
Chris Elvidge, England
MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL"

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/09/23 10:14, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
> It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their
> profit margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food
> manufacturers (Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit
> margins, thus increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE,
> Fed) are increasing interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever
> actually proved that increasing interest rates actually reduces
> inflation, or is the an economics red herring?

Australia's Reserve Bank has been increasing interest rates at a
record-breaking speed, supposedly to control inflation. It says that
unemployment is too low, and that it must be driven upwards in order to
drive wages down.

Meanwhile, other figures I have seen say that wages have had little
effect on inflation, because wage growth is small. (Although there is a
bit of a problem with the rate of increase of CEO remuneration.) The
biggest factor causing inflation, amounting to 30% of the total, is
corporate profits. But those figures are based on actual data, and the
Reserve Bank economists seem to be saying that actual data should be
ignored if it is in disagreement with economic theories.

I suspect that increasing interest rates is likely to increase corporate
profits, leading to a potentially unstable positive feedback loop.

Almost all economic theories, as far as I can tell, are linked to
political philosophies, which gets in the way of having a disinterested
viewpoint. The people who want to model the real world seem to be out of
favour.

[Peter Moylan]

On 14/09/23 23:46, occam wrote:

> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>
> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.

Stagflation is an equally ugly word, but it seems to have become an
established dictionary word.

[Silvano]

Garrett Wollman hat am 14.09.2023 um 21:53 geschrieben:

> Supermarkets effectively require all manufacturers
> to use the same size package for some products.

Where? For which products? Certainly not here (Germany) for jam and
washing powder.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:02:36 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:17:30 +0100
>Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>
>> On 2023-09-14, occam wrote:
>>
>> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>> >
>> > https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>> >
>> > An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>> > words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>

>> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.

>>
>> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
>> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>>
>The word is new but the practice has been going on, erm possibly since the
>first Mars bar.

What I was thinking was about candy bars.

I figure that it was probably the inflation of the 1970s (OPEC, oil
prices) that created the need for shrinkflation, the very first
time that I became aware of it. The 'even' price (a nickel?) of
a candy bar was not conveniently boosted -- think of all those
candy machines -- so the portions were slightly reduced.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:19:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 15/09/23 10:14, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>>
>> It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their
>> profit margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food
>> manufacturers (Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit
>> margins, thus increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE,
>> Fed) are increasing interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever
>> actually proved that increasing interest rates actually reduces
>> inflation, or is the an economics red herring?
>
>Australia's Reserve Bank has been increasing interest rates at a
>record-breaking speed, supposedly to control inflation. It says that
>unemployment is too low, and that it must be driven upwards in order to
>drive wages down.

I don't think that driving wages down/ unemployment up is the
mechanism as economists describe it, but I don't understand the
explanations I've heard.

(President of the Fed.) Paul Volker is given the bulk of credit for
driving down the US inflation circa 1980 via high interest rates,
starting while Carter was still President. High unemployment was
already a problem, so they did not want to drive it up.

I haven't heard it re-explained for the modern day. So far as I
know, they're relying on, "It worked for Volker, so that's what
we will do again." Except, they do seem to have some confidence,
as if there were some logic.

>
>Meanwhile, other figures I have seen say that wages have had little
>effect on inflation, because wage growth is small. (Although there is a
>bit of a problem with the rate of increase of CEO remuneration.) The
>biggest factor causing inflation, amounting to 30% of the total, is
>corporate profits. But those figures are based on actual data, and the
>Reserve Bank economists seem to be saying that actual data should be
>ignored if it is in disagreement with economic theories.
>
>I suspect that increasing interest rates is likely to increase corporate
>profits, leading to a potentially unstable positive feedback loop.
>
>Almost all economic theories, as far as I can tell, are linked to
>political philosophies, which gets in the way of having a disinterested
>viewpoint. The people who want to model the real world seem to be out of
>favour.

--

Rich Ulrich

[Silvano]

TonyCooper hat am 14.09.2023 um 17:16 geschrieben:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:45:39 +0100, Hibou
> <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Oh dear! I've used it myself recently in reviews complaining about
>> products being shrinkflated.
>>
>> An ugly word for a sneaky, cheating, ugly practice. The solution is to
>> abolish the practice.
>
> How, exactly, do you propose that that can be done?

With the law mentioned by Athel, if it ever existed. Quote: "products

had to be sold in round-number sizes: 1, 2, 5 times power of ten, with
maybe some traditional sizes still allowed, like 75 cL wine bottles."

Here (Germany) such a law doesn't exist, at least for jam, margarine and
washing powder.


> When the supplier's costs increase, the supplier can either increase
> the price of the unit or decrease the amount of content of the unit in
> order to maintain the same profit. The supplier is in business to
> make a profit.

>
> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
> that to be sneaky.

I certainly do and I still remember that a company used the introduction
of the euro to reduce the size while actually increasing the price (1 €
was only 1.95xxx DM and not 2 DM, as we used for practical purposes). My
reaction: there are other jam producers.

> It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't
> bother to read the label information on the package that states the
> weight or number of units of the contents.

I do bother, but I have no choice, if someone else (wife or children)
sticks to that brand.

> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
> themselves?

IMNSHO, yes. As Bertel already told you: "It's not like I have a

different choice in another shop."

Let me be even clearer: if my wife wants the X margarine, a few months
ago she could buy a 250 g package. Now I just checked in our fridge and
I found only a 225 g package. As you and lar3ryca correctly note, she
could instead buy the Y margarine, which still uses 250 g packages.
That's the economic theory, but in real life:
1) Perhaps she means that X tastes better than Y.
2) What can she do if all other margarine brands switch to 225 g packages?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Some more luxurious cars had a small triangular window for ventilation.
> For some strange reason it was called a 'quarter glass',

My parents' Volvo had those, and they produced an irritating whistling
sound if they were opened, and contributed a bit to the background noise
when they were not.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Hibou]

Le 14/09/2023 à 16:16, TonyCooper a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:

>> Le 14/09/2023 à 14:46, occam a écrit :
>>>
>>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>
>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>

>> Oh dear! I've used it myself recently in reviews complaining about
>> products being shrinkflated.
>>
>> An ugly word for a sneaky, cheating, ugly practice. The solution is to
>> abolish the practice.
>
> How, exactly, do you propose that that can be done?

Legislation is one possibility, where it can be applied; consumer
resistance is another.

I'll take one product I reviewed as an example. Nine of us have now
posted complaining that it has been shrinkflated, and the new product's
average rating is 1.6 on a scale of 1 to 5. I am now buying an
alternative. If enough people do the same, the manufacturer will twig
that shrinkflating is unacceptable.

> When the supplier's costs increase, the supplier can either increase
> the price of the unit or decrease the amount of content of the unit in
> order to maintain the same profit. The supplier is in business to
> make a profit.
>
> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider

> that to be sneaky. It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't

> bother to read the label information on the package that states the
> weight or number of units of the contents.

The product I mentioned had its weight cut by 20%. Its sides are now
concave instead of straight, yet the box it comes in has remained the same.

This is clearly intended to deceive.

On my screen, the price is in digits 14 pixels high, the weight 11
pixels, and the price per unit 8 pixels. I think their visual weight is
proportional to area, so goes as the square of these - ratios 3.1 price
: 1.9 weight : 1 unit price.

Price is the most obvious information, so cheating manufacturers are
much more likely to change the weight.

> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
> themselves?

Do you check the weight of all the products you buy every time you buy
them, even if they look the same and the price is unchanged?

Shrinkflation is a nasty dishonest business. It would be acceptable only
if manufacturers boldly labelled their products "New smaller pack!" as
readily as they do "New bigger pack!"

[Hibou]

Le 14/09/2023 à 18:15, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-09-14 14:40:36 +0000, HVS said:
>> On 14 Sep 2023, occam wrote
>>
>>> A BBC news item today used this word  as meaning "products that are
>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>
>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction.
>>
>> I agree that it's ugly, but given that it describes a real practice,
>> what word would you use to describe it?
>
> Maybe the years of Tory government have done away with it, but I had the
> recollection that there was a law against it: products had to be sold in
> round-number sizes: 1, 2, 5 times power of ten, with maybe some
> traditional sizes still allowed, like 75 cL wine bottles.

I don't remember that. I know the weight of loaves was regulated -
between 1266 and 2008, it seems, when EU legislation introduced a
free-for-all. Thanks, Europe!

<https://dewihargreaves.com/2020/09/02/the-bread-law-that-lasted-800-years/>

And then there was the baker's dozen.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozen#Baker's_dozen>

[Hibou]

This discussion reminds me of the good sense of the Lilliputians, of
whom it is reported:

"They look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft, and therefore
seldom fail to punish it with death; for they allege, that care and
vigilance, with a very common understanding, may preserve a man’s goods
from thieves, but honesty has no defence against superior cunning; and,
since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual intercourse of
buying and selling, and dealing upon credit, where fraud is permitted
and connived at, or has no law to punish it, the honest dealer is always
undone, and the knave gets the advantage" - 'Gulliver's Travels'.

[phil]

On 15/09/2023 06:24, Hibou wrote:
>
> I don't remember that. I know the weight of loaves was regulated -
> between 1266 and 2008, it seems, when EU legislation introduced a
> free-for-all. Thanks, Europe!
>
> <https://dewihargreaves.com/2020/09/02/the-bread-law-that-lasted-800-years/>
>

Those nasty eurocrats, sweeping away unnecessary regulation and red
tape. At least we are now free to reintroduce it.

--
Phil B.

[J. J. Lodder]

Lionel Edwards <lionele...@gmail.com> wrote:

Aw, now you made me look it up.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_glass>

Is 'glass' versus 'light' a pondian thing?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 21:17:52, Sam Plusnet posted:
> >On 14/09/2023 17:07, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, at 15:46:46, occam posted:
> >>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> >>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >>>
> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
> >>>
> >> I wish they'd do that with cars. Cars have been inflating in size
> >>ever since way back when, and now they are too large for our roads,
> >>garages and parking places. What's more, each time they grow they
> >>block more of the following driver's view of the road ahead, which is
> >>an un-safety consideration.
> >> I remember when Mini was mini and didn't have window-winders - more
> >>elbow room for the front seats, of course.
> >
> >Nor did it have (interior) door handles.
> >Just a bit of string.
> >
> Thanks for the reminder - I think that must have been rather quickly
> superseded by little lever latches by the backward edge of each door.
>
> And nothing so unnecessarily complex as a starter motor switch built
> into the ignition switch. Just a plunger button on the floor pan for
> connecting the starter motor to the battery.

The early 2CV had a spring loaded cable for that, to a knob on the dash.
No 'Bendix' mechanism, just heavy contacts.
Someone at Citroen must have had fond memories:
The latest Citroens again have a start button on the dash.

> But my goodness, weren't they fun to drive! There was something close to
> perfect in the way they sat on the road. Which reminds me - what became
> of the annual Monte Carlo Rally each winter? Too many Mini wins?

??? They were real bone-shakers. Fine on smooth asphalt
but a disaster at speed on bumpy roads. Small wheels, stiff springs.
The passenger really needed the seat belt for not bumping into the roof.

Ask a period bank robber what getaway car he prefered, a Mini or a DS,

Jan

[phil]

There seems to be (in the UK anyway) a difference between what the motor
trade calls them and what the average Joe calls them. My workshop manual
calls the rear window the "back-light", and the side windows "door
glasses". Only the quarter light, quarter-light or quarterlight passed
into general use. That, in turn meant that what ordinary folks call
"lights" are described by the trade as "lamps".

Quarter-lights also provided a super-easy route for breaking into a car.

--
Phil B.

[Hibou]

Le 15/09/2023 à 09:56, J. J. Lodder a écrit :

> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>
>> But my goodness, weren't they fun to drive! There was something close to
>> perfect in the way they sat on the road. Which reminds me - what became
>> of the annual Monte Carlo Rally each winter? Too many Mini wins?
>
> ??? They were real bone-shakers. Fine on smooth asphalt
> but a disaster at speed on bumpy roads. Small wheels, stiff springs.
> The passenger really needed the seat belt for not bumping into the roof.

Summed up as "more bounce per ounce".

> Ask a period bank robber what getaway car he prefered, a Mini or a DS,

Ours liked Jags - and so did the police.

[Janet]

In article <ue07ln$2td57$1...@dont-email.me>,
ch...@mshome.net says...

https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/historical-
interest-rates-uk/

"1979 Conservative government
The incoming administration of Margaret Thatcher raised
interest rates to 17 per cent, as this was seen by the
government of the time as a key weapon in combating
inflation. It did have the effect of reducing inflation,
although critics noted its negative impact on UK
manufacturing exports."

Janet

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-09-14, lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2023-09-14 08:41, Lionel Edwards wrote:

>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 2:46:51 PM UTC+1, occam wrote:
>>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>
>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>

>> Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.
>
> I agree. A'spork' is obiously a 'fpoon'.
>
> Others.. glamping, bromance, doxxing, and shout out,

Is "doxx" a portmanteau, though? I thought it came from "docs", short
for "documents".


--
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown up. (CS Lewis)

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-09-14, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> occam wrote:
>
>> I recently saw the two side by side. Someone's classic 1960's Mini was
>> parked next to a modern Mini Cooper. The difference in size was
>> jaw-dropping. That's what I'd call 'sizeflation'.
>
> I know what you mean. I haven't seen them side by side, but I have often
> seen the modern Mini and admired how it looked like the old one yet had
> become a really great update. My 'shock' happened when I one day drove
> behind one and realised how big it is. Up till then I had actually
> thought that they were about the same size.

The new one should be called a Midi.


--
It would be unfair to detect an element of logic in the siting of the
Pentagon alongside the National Cemetery, but the subject seems at
least worthy of investigation. ---C Northcote Parkinson

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-09-15, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 14/09/23 23:46, occam wrote:
>
>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>
>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>
> Stagflation is an equally ugly word, but it seems to have become an
> established dictionary word.

Deer-hunters trying to outdo each other's wall trophies?


--
Ninety-nine percent of who you are is invisible and untouchable.
--Buckminster Fuller

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/09/23 20:47, Janet wrote:
> In article <ue07ln$2td57$1...@dont-email.me>, ch...@mshome.net says...

>> It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their
>> profit margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food
>> manufacturers (Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit
>> margins, thus increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE,
>> Fed) are increasing interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever
>> actually proved that increasing interest rates actually reduces
>> inflation, or is the an economics red herring?
>
> https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/historical-
> interest-rates-uk/
>
> "1979 Conservative government The incoming administration of Margaret
> Thatcher raised interest rates to 17 per cent, as this was seen by
> the government of the time as a key weapon in combating inflation. It
> did have the effect of reducing inflation, although critics noted its
> negative impact on UK manufacturing exports."

Interest rates do affect inflation, but both governments and central
banks seem to use an overly simplistic analysis in assuming that there
is a direct correlation. In fact it's a multi-factorial problem. Even at
the simplest level, you need to ask questions like "What are the
side-effects? Is it worth wrecking the economy to make a point? Must we
destroy the village in order to save it?"

Here are just a few of the factors that need to be considered.

1. There are causes of inflation that can't be altered by tweaking
interest rates. An obvious example is the big jump in the prices of oil,
coal, and gas caused by the invasion of Ukraine. The suppliers of these
commodities saw the opportunity of big profits, so they raised the
prices. No matter what you do to interest rates, they will still raise
the prices.

2. An obvious result of raising interest rates is the effect on the
housing market. People considering buying houses will reconsider,
causing a slump in the building industry, with a variety of flow-on
effects. People with an existing variable-rate mortgage are screwed;
some will survive, some will lose their homes. Rents go up, leading to
an increase of the number of people who choose to sleep under bridges.
(Note the special meaning of "choose" used by free-market economists.)

3. High interest rates are a problem for people who have debts. They
are, however, good for people who have excess savings. The net effect,
then, is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. This is
in addition to the transfer caused by the fact that the rich already
have enough influence to alter things like taxation rules.

4. Businesses that need to borrow money to keep operating or to expand
are very sensitive to interest rates. Some will go to the wall. Some
will just tighten their belts, with the effect that they hire fewer
employees and collectively slow down the economy. The best hedge against
such problems is to be a very big business. Rising interest rates will
kill off small operators but will help the big ones, increasing the risk
of the rise of monopolies.

5. I'll stop here, because I feel a speech coming on.

[Phil Carmody]

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>> > Subject: "Shrinkflation"

>> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are

>> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price"...

>
>> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.
>>
>> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
>> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>

> And I just heard of "skimpflation", the same idea but for other
> sorts of products.

Is there no scenario they won't shoehorn such neologism into? This
flationgate is scandalous!

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-6, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:02:36 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:17:30 +0100
> >Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-09-14, occam wrote:
> >>
> >> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> >> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >> >
> >> > https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188

...

> >The word is new but the practice has been going on, erm possibly since the
> >first Mars bar.

> What I was thinking was about candy bars.
>
> I figure that it was probably the inflation of the 1970s (OPEC, oil
> prices)

Or before that, as inflation was quite noticeable in the late '60s and
early '70s.

https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/inflation-rates.php

> that created the need for shrinkflation, the very first
> time that I became aware of it. The 'even' price (a nickel?) of
> a candy bar was not conveniently boosted -- think of all those
> candy machines -- so the portions were slightly reduced.

(Probably a dime. That's the lowest price I remember, in the late
'60s.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-09-15, Phil Carmody wrote:

> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>>> > Subject: "Shrinkflation"
>>> > A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>> > shrinking in size, but keeping their old price"...
>>
>>> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.
>>>
>>> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
>>> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>>
>> And I just heard of "skimpflation", the same idea but for other
>> sorts of products.
>
> Is there no scenario they won't shoehorn such neologism into? This
> flationgate is scandalous!

Well, I think it's just cromulent.


--
Slade was the coolest band in England. They were the kind of guys
that would push your car out of a ditch. ---Alice Cooper

[Peter T. Daniels]

Well, _something_ is working Over Here.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It was a *Jeopardy!* Daily Double yesterday. "She was the only
person to be chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, chair
of the Fed, and Treasury Secretary." (The contestant got it right,
of course.)

[charles]

In article <a5ffdec2-7869-49ff...@googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Now machines take credit cards

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t้ฒ
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[TonyCooper]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:34:51 +0200, Silvano
<Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

>TonyCooper hat am 14.09.2023 um 17:16 geschrieben:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:45:39 +0100, Hibou
>> <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear! I've used it myself recently in reviews complaining about
>>> products being shrinkflated.
>>>
>>> An ugly word for a sneaky, cheating, ugly practice. The solution is to
>>> abolish the practice.
>>
>> How, exactly, do you propose that that can be done?
>
>With the law mentioned by Athel, if it ever existed. Quote: "products
>had to be sold in round-number sizes: 1, 2, 5 times power of ten, with
>maybe some traditional sizes still allowed, like 75 cL wine bottles."
>
>Here (Germany) such a law doesn't exist, at least for jam, margarine and
>washing powder.
>

You have more faith than I do in the government's ability to create
and enforce a set of laws on this subject.

In this country, any regulation of content multiples would affect
domestic suppliers, but be unenforceable against imported products.
The government could require Smucker's to package marmalade in
particular multiples, but they damn well better not ban Mackays Dundee
marmalade because the government's reach doesn't extend to Scotland.

This thread aspect started over the need to purchase an unwanted
amount of margarine in order to bake a cake. I recently took up
cooking, but have not yet advanced to baking. Let's say, though, that
it takes 500 g's of margarine to bake that cake.

That would require the purchase of two packages of margarine if
margarine came in 250 g packages, but three packages if the packaging
is changed to 225 g's.

For this reason, a new set of laws is proposed?

Is cake the only time margarine is used in Bertel's household? If
cake-baking is not on the agenda, is any problem presented that the
difference between 225 g's and 250 g's created? Will Bertel use the
remaining 175 g's in other recipes? If so, it's a temporary problem
for Bertel.

As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible scenarios,
but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of "Extra Virgin
Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a recipe I was
planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.

My purchase provides more olive oil than I need, but I will need olive
oil for other recipes.

By the way...the brand of (stick) margarine we purchase is Land O
Lakes. It comes in four-stick, one pound (453.592 g) packages at
about US $3.00 per package. Two packages would be required to yeild
500 g. Each package is prox 4.5 inches (length) x 2.5 inches (x4
sides). Not a great space-taker in the refrigerator.

If I'd bake a cake, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound of
margarine. (Actually, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound
of butter.)



--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:37:05 AM UTC-4, TonyCooper wrote:

> If I'd bake a cake, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound of
> margarine. (Actually, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound
> of butter.)

You could start with pound cake. 1 lb. flour, 1 lb. sugar, 1 lb. butter,
1 lb. eggs, 1/4 tsp. mace. Mix together thoroughly, bake. (If you use
those quantities, you'll need a really big cake pan [loaf shape].}

[TonyCooper]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:24:02 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>
>Price is the most obvious information, so cheating manufacturers are
>much more likely to change the weight.
>
>> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
>> themselves?
>
>Do you check the weight of all the products you buy every time you buy
>them, even if they look the same and the price is unchanged?
>

No, but the difference in weight from a previous purchase to the
current purchase has never been a factor in my shopping. Unlike the
cake example where a specific amount is required, all of my purchases
to date have been for a can/bottle/box/package of the product and a
small weight difference between the previous container and this
purchase would not be noticed.


The only time I note the weight/count of the contents is when I need a
particular weight/count of the product. That is for the current
purchase, and what those numbers might have been in a prior purchase
is not considered.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ue0kui$335uc$1...@dont-email.me>,
Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
>Garrett Wollman hat am 14.09.2023 um 21:53 geschrieben:
>> Supermarkets effectively require all manufacturers
>> to use the same size package for some products.
>
>
>Where? For which products? Certainly not here (Germany) for jam and
>washing powder.

Soda, for example. About 25 years ago, here, the size of a case of
soda (12 cans) was changed from a box 3 cans tall and 4 cans deep to a
box 2 cans tall and 6 cans deep. I complained about this to the
manufacturer of my then-favorite beverage, and they said that the
whole industry was changing to the new form factor (which does not fit
on the refrigerator door) because supermarkets demanded it. In this
case, not even the volume changed, just the shape of the package, but
every soft-drink manufacturer and distributor complied within a very
short time, less than a year if I recall.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-09-15 06:11, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2023-09-14, lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-14 08:41, Lionel Edwards wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 2:46:51 PM UTC+1, occam wrote:
>>>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>>
>>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>>>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>>
>>> Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.
>>
>> I agree. A'spork' is obiously a 'fpoon'.
>>
>> Others.. glamping, bromance, doxxing, and shout out,
>
> Is "doxx" a portmanteau, though? I thought it came from "docs", short
> for "documents".

Not a portmanteau, but like 'shout out', it's definitely a recent
word/phrase I'd rather not see or hear.

--
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
~ Steven Wright

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-09-15 08:13, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2023-09-15, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>>>>> Subject: "Shrinkflation"
>>>>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price"...
>>>
>>>> It's been used in the UK for several years, at least.
>>>>
>>>> More recently I've heard of "drinkflation": lowering the alcohol
>>>> content of beers & wines to cut costs while maintaining the price.
>>>
>>> And I just heard of "skimpflation", the same idea but for other
>>> sorts of products.
>>
>> Is there no scenario they won't shoehorn such neologism into? This
>> flationgate is scandalous!
>
> Well, I think it's just cromulent.

I wish crapulent had the meaning it sounds like it should have.

--
The five weekdays abbreviate to Mt. WTF

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ue0evi$32785$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Australia's Reserve Bank has been increasing interest rates at a
>record-breaking speed, supposedly to control inflation. It says that
>unemployment is too low, and that it must be driven upwards in order to
>drive wages down.

The US Federal Reserve is unusual among central banks that it has a
"dual mandate" -- its enabling legislation calls for it to maintain
low inflation *and* full employment. In many other countries, the
central bank is either constrained only by politics (not
"independent") or is exclusively concerned with inflation. I'm not
sure what the case is for the Reserve Bank of Australia; I know the
Bank of England only became independent relatively recently.[1] There
was a lot of talk in the last decade that inflation is less of a
concern than an expanding economy, so long as "the economy" is
measured in real (inflation-adjusted) terms.

-GAWollman

[1] And of course its independence is conditional on the party in
power wanting to keep it that way, because parliamentary supremacy.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

TonyCooper wrote:

> This thread aspect started over the need to purchase an unwanted
> amount of margarine in order to bake a cake.

In that case I didn't state my point clearly. The amount of margarine is
not important - except that I was fooled the first time so I had to
little maragarine. What is important is the amount of packing material
and the increased total volume. The old box contained 500 g. The new one
250 g.

> Is cake the only time margarine is used in Bertel's household?

Yes, but margarine can last long in the fridge, so even if I don't bake
often, I can easily use the extra margarine for the next bake project.

> As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible scenarios,
> but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of "Extra Virgin
> Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a recipe I was
> planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.

Olive oil in Denmark is sold in bottles with a half liter, so we can't
get a 2 liter problem.

There is a supermarket chain in Denmark that has the policy never to
pack multiple items and never to bundle multiple items in a special
price offer. Unfortunately it is further away from my home than the one
I use. People from many other countries would, however, laugh at the
thought of my having a problem with a distance of 5 kilometers. The
nearest supermarket is 1 km away.

> By the way...the brand of (stick) margarine we purchase is Land O
> Lakes. It comes in four-stick, one pound (453.592 g) packages at
> about US $3.00 per package. Two packages would be required to yeild
> 500 g. Each package is prox 4.5 inches (length) x 2.5 inches (x4
> sides). Not a great space-taker in the refrigerator.

I wouldn't complain about a size that has a long tradition in your
country. I complain about the change from a similar Danish, established
size to half of it.

> If I'd bake a cake, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound of
> margarine. (Actually, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound
> of butter.)

If you tasted my cake, I think that you would agree that it is worth the
trouble.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

So it's all good if you're a rich shareholder in /top level employee of
big business. And you've got mates in government. Easy money!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Garrett Wollman wrote:

> The US Federal Reserve is unusual among central banks that it has a
> "dual mandate" -- its enabling legislation calls for it to maintain
> low inflation *and* full employment. In many other countries, the
> central bank is either constrained only by politics (not
> "independent") or is exclusively concerned with inflation.

The Danish Nationalbank became independent in 1936. Its purpose has been
unchanged for 200 years:

1. Help to stabilise prices
2. Help to provide secure payment methods
3. Help to keep the financial system stable

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Adam Funk wrote:

>> I know what you mean. I haven't seen them side by side, but I have often
>> seen the modern Mini and admired how it looked like the old one yet had
>> become a really great update. My 'shock' happened when I one day drove
>> behind one and realised how big it is. Up till then I had actually
>> thought that they were about the same size.
>
> The new one should be called a Midi.

I suspect that it is bigger than the Midi, but I haven't seen them
together - in fact it's been decades since I saw a Midi.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> ??? They were real bone-shakers. Fine on smooth asphalt
> but a disaster at speed on bumpy roads. Small wheels, stiff springs.
> The passenger really needed the seat belt for not bumping into the roof.
>
> Ask a period bank robber what getaway car he prefered, a Mini or a DS,

Volvo once ran a campaign in Denmark (no guarantee for correct wording,
but the gist of it is okay):

Volvo - the car most often stolen

They took flak for that one.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:01:06 -0600
lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2023-09-15 08:13, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2023-09-15, Phil Carmody wrote:
> >
> >> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> >>>>> Subject: "Shrinkflation"

[]

> >>
> >> Is there no scenario they won't shoehorn such neologism into? This
> >> flationgate is scandalous!
> >
> > Well, I think it's just cromulent.
>
> I wish crapulent had the meaning it sounds like it should have.
>

It will, Oscar, it will.

[TonyCooper]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:20:52 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>TonyCooper wrote:
>
>> This thread aspect started over the need to purchase an unwanted
>> amount of margarine in order to bake a cake.
>
>In that case I didn't state my point clearly. The amount of margarine is
>not important - except that I was fooled the first time so I had to
>little maragarine. What is important is the amount of packing material
>and the increased total volume. The old box contained 500 g. The new one
>250 g.
>

Those are not the figures you used in prior posts. You said the old
package was 500g and the new is 450g.

From 500g to 250g is one half of the original package. If the selling
price hasn't changed, that's a 100% price increase.

Still, for your cake, two packages works out to the right amount.

>> Is cake the only time margarine is used in Bertel's household?
>
>Yes, but margarine can last long in the fridge, so even if I don't bake
>often, I can easily use the extra margarine for the next bake project.
>
>> As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible scenarios,
>> but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of "Extra Virgin
>> Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a recipe I was
>> planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.
>
>Olive oil in Denmark is sold in bottles with a half liter, so we can't
>get a 2 liter problem.
>

Olive oil here is sold in several sizes, not just 2 L. The size I
chose (2 L = 67.6 fl oz) gave me the best buy per fluid ounce. (As an
American, I think in ounces, not in the parts of a liter you might.)

>There is a supermarket chain in Denmark that has the policy never to
>pack multiple items and never to bundle multiple items in a special
>price offer. Unfortunately it is further away from my home than the one
>I use. People from many other countries would, however, laugh at the
>thought of my having a problem with a distance of 5 kilometers. The
>nearest supermarket is 1 km away.
>

The supermarket where I shop has BOGOs every day. BOGO = Buy One Get
One, which means you get 2 units for the price of one. If it's an
item we use, I'll take advantage of the BOGO, but it does create a
storage problem. Our condo has limited cupboard space compared to
what we had in our house.

>> By the way...the brand of (stick) margarine we purchase is Land O
>> Lakes. It comes in four-stick, one pound (453.592 g) packages at
>> about US $3.00 per package. Two packages would be required to yeild
>> 500 g. Each package is prox 4.5 inches (length) x 2.5 inches (x4
>> sides). Not a great space-taker in the refrigerator.
>
>I wouldn't complain about a size that has a long tradition in your
>country. I complain about the change from a similar Danish, established
>size to half of it.
>
>> If I'd bake a cake, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound of
>> margarine. (Actually, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound
>> of butter.)
>
>If you tasted my cake, I think that you would agree that it is worth the
>trouble.

Denmark is known for good desserts, and I have a sweet-tooth. It's
also known for not having the one item most Americans associate with
Danish baked goods.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-6, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> TonyCooper wrote:
...

> There is a supermarket chain in Denmark that has the policy never to
> pack multiple items and never to bundle multiple items in a special
> price offer. Unfortunately it is further away from my home than the one
> I use. People from many other countries would, however, laugh at the
> thought of my having a problem with a distance of 5 kilometers. The
> nearest supermarket is 1 km away.

Hahahahahahaha!

> > If I'd bake a cake, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound of
> > margarine. (Actually, I'd look for a recipe that called for one pound
> > of butter.)

> If you tasted my cake, I think that you would agree that it is worth the
> trouble.

The cake is better with margarine than with butter?

--
Jerry Friedman

[musika]

<https://www.sponge.co.uk/blog/2019/08/butter-or-margarine-for-cake>

High quality and high fat margarine can actually produce a lighter cake
with a better rise than butter can – butter can also make sponge cakes a
bit too rich. We have tried both butter and margaine in our sponge cakes
and found every time that margarine was far superior on taste, texture
and the rise of the cake.

--
Ray
UK

[Sam Plusnet]

On 15/09/2023 01:14, Chris Elvidge wrote:
> On 14/09/2023 18:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-09-14 15:18:43 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>>
>>> occam wrote:
>>>

>>>> A BBC news item today used this word  as meaning "products that are

>>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>>
>>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>>>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>>

>>> It would however be nice to have a word for it, because it's really
>>> annoying. A couple of months ago I wanted to bake a cake, so I bought
>>> a packet of margarine.
>>>
>>> When I strated making the dough, I discovered that I didn't have
>>> enough margarine for the cake. The box only contained 250 grams, and
>>> I needed 350 grams. I was surprised that I hadn't seen that the box
>>> was smaller, but then I made some calculations. They told me that the
>>> smaller box only needed to be reduced to 80% of each of the three
>>> dimensions, and that is so small a difference that it is hardly
>>> noticable unless you have the two boxes side by side.
>>>
>>> Now I have to buy two packages which results in more waste material.
>>
>> More waste for you, maybe, but more profit for the producer.
>>
>>
>

> It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their profit
> margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food manufacturers
> (Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit margins, thus
> increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE, Fed) are increasing
> interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever actually proved that
> increasing interest rates actually reduces inflation, or is the an
> economics red herring?
>
>

There is an alternative approach.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan insisted on _Reducing_ interest rates in order to
tackle inflation, and fired several Central Bank officials who were not
fully on board with the plan.
This resulted in inflation rising to (well) over 100%.
(The government stopped publishing real data)
Once the recent election was over, the policy seems to have been quietly
dropped.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 15/09/2023 14:01, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/09/23 20:47, Janet wrote:
>> In article <ue07ln$2td57$1...@dont-email.me>, ch...@mshome.net says...
>
>>> It's noticeable, in the UK at least, supermarkets have kept their
>>> profit margins relatively stable, whereas the FMCG and food
>>> manufacturers (Unilever, P&G etc.) have increased their profit
>>> margins, thus increasing inflation, while the central banks (BoE,
>>> Fed) are increasing interest rates to counter it. Has anyone ever
>>> actually proved that increasing interest rates actually reduces
>>> inflation, or is the an economics red herring?
>>
>> https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/analysis/historical-
>> interest-rates-uk/
>>
>> "1979 Conservative government The incoming administration of Margaret
>> Thatcher raised interest rates to 17 per cent, as this was seen by
>> the government of the time as a key weapon in combating inflation. It
>> did have the effect of reducing inflation, although critics noted its
>> negative impact on UK manufacturing exports."
>
> Interest rates do affect inflation, but both governments and central
> banks seem to use an overly simplistic analysis in assuming that there
> is a direct correlation. In fact it's a multi-factorial problem. Even at
> the simplest level, you need to ask questions like "What are the
> side-effects? Is it worth wrecking the economy to make a point? Must we
> destroy the village in order to save it?"

Sure, but imagine you are the head of the central bank and have been
required to "do something" about inflation.
The only lever you can operate is the one labelled "Interest Rate".

[Sam Plusnet]

Agreed. It's time for a new style icon

"The Austin Maxi!"

[Jerry Friedman]

Thanks, interesting. I wonder whether they've tried pure vegetable
shortening and whether their margarine contains butter flavoring.

Have we done AmE versus BrE "sponge cake" lately?

--
Jerry Friedman

[wugi]

Op 14/09/2023 om 16:41 schreef Lionel Edwards:

> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 2:46:51 PM UTC+1, occam wrote:
>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>
>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>

> Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.

In Dutch we have concullega's°, collegues from the concurrentie,
competition.
Has English such portmanteau? Compegues?
° In French this combo of con and cul syllables may sound awkward.

--
guido wugi

[musika]

I can't answer that, but vegetable fat has a long history of use in baking.

> Have we done AmE versus BrE "sponge cake" lately?
>

Not that I've noticed.

--
Ray
UK

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-6, wugi wrote:
> Op 14/09/2023 om 16:41 schreef Lionel Edwards:
> > On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 2:46:51 PM UTC+1, occam wrote:
> >> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> >> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
> >>
> >> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
> >> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
> >
> > Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.

> In Dutch we have concullega's°, collegues from the concurrentie,
> competition.
> Has English such portmanteau? Compegues?

Not that I've noticed, though businesspeople get up to all kinds of things
without notifying me. If it means someone who works for the competition
and does something similar to you, I'd probably say "counterpart".

You need "such a portmanteau". (As an American, I'd say, "Does English
have..." but "Has English..." may work better in Britain.)

[Silvano]

Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 15.09.2023 um 18:20 geschrieben:

> TonyCooper wrote:
>

> Yes, but margarine can last long in the fridge, so even if I don't bake
> often, I can easily use the extra margarine for the next bake project.
>
>> As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible scenarios,
>> but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of "Extra Virgin
>> Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a recipe I was
>> planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.
>
> Olive oil in Denmark is sold in bottles with a half liter, so we can't
> get a 2 liter problem.

Also, the expiry date for olive oil is much longer than that for
margarine or butter. Therefore even the larger bottles with 0.75 litre
are not at all a problem. I could have a problem, though, with the 5
litre bottles of frying oil I saw in Spain.

> There is a supermarket chain in Denmark that has the policy never to
> pack multiple items and never to bundle multiple items in a special
> price offer. Unfortunately it is further away from my home than the one
> I use. People from many other countries would, however, laugh at the
> thought of my having a problem with a distance of 5 kilometers. The
> nearest supermarket is 1 km away.

I do indeed laugh, but for the opposite reason to what you'd expect.
There are SEVEN supermarkets less than 1 km away from my home and two
more about 1.2 km away. And no, I don't live in the city centre.

[Silvano]

Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 15.09.2023 um 18:31 geschrieben:

> The Danish Nationalbank became independent in 1936. Its purpose has been
> unchanged for 200 years:
>
> 1. Help to stabilise prices
> 2. Help to provide secure payment methods
> 3. Help to keep the financial system stable

JFTR, what did it depend on before it became independent?
Is your list of priorities correct or is it instead 312, 231 or one of
the other alternatives?

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/09/23 00:36, TonyCooper wrote:

> As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible
> scenarios, but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of
> "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a
> recipe I was planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.

In the long run, you're better off keeping two different kinds of olive
oil. Extra virgin has a stronger taste, so you can use in salad
dressings, etc; but it's not as good for cooking, because it has a lower
smoke point.

In my mind, extra virgin is what you need when the gods are dissatisfied.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/09/23 05:17, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 14:01, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Interest rates do affect inflation, but both governments and
>> central banks seem to use an overly simplistic analysis in assuming
>> that there is a direct correlation. In fact it's a multi-factorial
>> problem. Even at the simplest level, you need to ask questions like
>> "What are the side-effects? Is it worth wrecking the economy to
>> make a point? Must we destroy the village in order to save it?"
>
> Sure, but imagine you are the head of the central bank and have been
> required to "do something" about inflation. The only lever you can
> operate is the one labelled "Interest Rate".

That triggers another of my gripes. Inflation is affected by government
policies; taxation policy, for example. But our government, and possibly
yours too, doesn't dare back off from tax cuts for the rich, so it
doesn't want to do anything about inflation. Instead, it hands the
problem to a body that has just one blunt instrument that doesn't work
very well.

[TonyCooper]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 23:56:24 +0200, Silvano
<Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

>Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 15.09.2023 um 18:20 geschrieben:
>> TonyCooper wrote:
>>
>
>> Yes, but margarine can last long in the fridge, so even if I don't bake
>> often, I can easily use the extra margarine for the next bake project.
>>
>>> As a novice cook, I may not understand all of the possible scenarios,
>>> but I do know that I recently purchased a 2 L bottle of "Extra Virgin
>>> Olive Oil" because we were out of olive oil and a recipe I was
>>> planning calls for 2 tablespoons of olive oil.
>>
>> Olive oil in Denmark is sold in bottles with a half liter, so we can't
>> get a 2 liter problem.
>
>Also, the expiry date for olive oil is much longer than that for
>margarine or butter. Therefore even the larger bottles with 0.75 litre
>are not at all a problem. I could have a problem, though, with the 5
>litre bottles of frying oil I saw in Spain.

The expiration date for the 2L bottle of olive oil in the cupboard is
May, 2024.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 23:56:24 +0200

Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

> Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 15.09.2023 um 18:20 geschrieben:
> > TonyCooper wrote:
> >

[Oil bottle sizing omitted]

> > thought of my having a problem with a distance of 5 kilometers. The
> > nearest supermarket is 1 km away.
>
> I do indeed laugh, but for the opposite reason to what you'd expect.
> There are SEVEN supermarkets less than 1 km away from my home and two
> more about 1.2 km away. And no, I don't live in the city centre.

Are they actually 'Super' markets though - is this an instance of
shopflation?

Purely for information I checked my own situation;
There are 2 'local' shops within 1km, plus another one but up a hill,
then the town centre has 1 (one) supermarket, and 2 (mostly frozen)
food shops, at 1.6km (1mile). There's 1 more supermarket out of town at
2km. Heaps of shopping at Big Town 8km away (half an hour by bus).

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 15-09-2023 kl. 14:11 skrev Adam Funk:
> It would be unfair to detect an element of logic in the siting of the
> Pentagon alongside the National Cemetery, but the subject seems at
> least worthy of investigation. ---C Northcote Parkinson

In Copenhagen, the American and Russian embassies are situated
either side of a cemetery.

/Anders, Denmark

[J. J. Lodder]

wugi <wu...@brol.invalid> wrote:

> Op 14/09/2023 om 16:41 schreef Lionel Edwards:

> > On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 2:46:51?PM UTC+1, occam wrote:
> >> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
> >> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
> >>
> >> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
> >> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
> >
> > Also staycation, mockumentary and spork.
>
> In Dutch we have concullega's°, collegues from the concurrentie,
> competition.

Kul. Your Dutch perhaps.
It is just stupid management-guru talk,
inventing non-existent words to hide the fact
that they have nothing of substance to say.

> Has English such portmanteau? Compegues?
> ° In French this combo of con and cul syllables may sound awkward.

No doubt English/American management gurus
can be even more stupid than Dutch ones,

Jan

[Paul Carmichael]

El Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:16:43 -0400, TonyCooper escribió:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:45:39 +0100, Hibou
> <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>
>>Le 14/09/2023 à 14:46, occam a écrit :
>>>
>>> A BBC news item today used this word as meaning "products that are
>>> shrinking in size, but keeping their old price".
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66809188
>>>
>>> An ugly word which hopefully does not get any traction. Similar ugly
>>> words include 'chilaxing', and "Liz Truss". Good riddance.
>>

>>Oh dear! I've used it myself recently in reviews complaining about
>>products being shrinkflated.
>>
>>An ugly word for a sneaky, cheating, ugly practice. The solution is to
>>abolish the practice.
>
> How, exactly, do you propose that that can be done?
>
> When the supplier's costs increase, the supplier can either increase the
> price of the unit or decrease the amount of content of the unit in order
> to maintain the same profit. The supplier is in business to make a
> profit.
>
> By decreasing the content while retaining the same selling price, the
> increase in cost is less evident to the consumer, and you may consider
> that to be sneaky. It's sneaky only because the consumer doesn't bother
> to read the label information on the package that states the weight or
> number of units of the contents.
>
> Is it really "sneaky" to take advantage of consumers who don't inform
> themselves?

If the quantity is "standard", then it's dishonest. Everyone expects a
carton of milk to be one litre. A tube of toothpaste is 70cl. A bag of
sugar is 1kg. A bag of flour is 1kg. We've been buying the same products
for years. Are we expected to check the weight every time? We effectively
trust the supplier. If they are making a change to a well established
item, they should make this known to the clients.

If they put a few grams less tuna in the little tins, thereby saving
themselves millions, we're not going to notice that we're getting less
for our money.

When they have a promotion, adding to the quantity, they shout it from
the rooftops "10% extra free!". They should equally say "10% less than
last week for the same price".

It's called honesty. We then have the choice.

And yes, I do understand business.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es