美國(guó)陷入高通脹已經(jīng)整整一年了。
不論是房租、二手車(chē)價(jià)格還是肉價(jià)菜價(jià),總之在美國(guó),有關(guān)衣食住行的一切都在漲價(jià),2021年,美國(guó)的通脹水平不斷刷新紀(jì)錄,本輪通脹被公認(rèn)為近40年來(lái)最嚴(yán)重的一次。
在本輪通脹的背后,有一些客觀原因是真實(shí)存在的,比如消費(fèi)者的需求空前高漲,同時(shí)企業(yè)卻廣泛存在勞動(dòng)力短缺和供應(yīng)鏈不繼的問(wèn)題。除此之外,我們不禁也會(huì)想到另一個(gè)問(wèn)題:是不是還有一些企業(yè)在以通脹為借口哄抬物價(jià),借機(jī)發(fā)“國(guó)難財(cái)”呢?
持有這種看法的人不在少數(shù),美國(guó)總統(tǒng)喬·拜登政府里的不少高官,包括一些消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)人士甚至一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都是這么認(rèn)為的。例如馬薩諸塞州參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫本月致信美國(guó)司法部(Department of Justice),敦促后者對(duì)一些涉嫌違反反壟斷法和哄抬物價(jià)的企業(yè)采取措施。沃倫在信中指出:“美國(guó)的通脹已經(jīng)達(dá)到幾十年來(lái)的最高水平,這在相當(dāng)程度上是企業(yè)的貪婪和反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為造成的,聯(lián)邦政府必須采取一切手段避免有人哄抬物價(jià),為美國(guó)人民把物價(jià)降下來(lái)?!?/p>
最讓普通消費(fèi)者感到壓力的,是食品和家庭用品價(jià)格的上漲?!敦?cái)富》雜志的一項(xiàng)分析顯示,在“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”中上榜的28家食品與消費(fèi)品制造商中,有半數(shù)企業(yè)的平均凈利潤(rùn)率甚至較新冠疫情前有所上升。不過(guò)雖然它們的利潤(rùn)上漲了,卻很難說(shuō)這是不是與價(jià)格的上漲直接相關(guān)。
那么,這些企業(yè)真的在哄抬物價(jià)嗎?它們是借疫情發(fā)“國(guó)難財(cái)”的奸商嗎?首先需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是,我們?cè)诒疚闹刑接懙牟⒉皇欠蓡?wèn)題,因?yàn)槟壳?,美?guó)在聯(lián)邦層面尚無(wú)具體法律規(guī)范這種行為。
其次,股市是這種貪婪,投資者會(huì)“用腳投票”“口嫌體直”地回報(bào)上市公司的這種貪婪。不過(guò)股市畢竟不等同于經(jīng)濟(jì)本身,一個(gè)東西在技術(shù)層面合法,并不代表它就是好的。有些東西對(duì)投資者來(lái)說(shuō)是好事,但很有可能對(duì)普通老百姓來(lái)說(shuō)就是一件壞事。
什么是健康的利潤(rùn)?
首先需要說(shuō)明一下,企業(yè)追逐健康的利潤(rùn),與哄抬物價(jià)甚至借疫情之機(jī)不當(dāng)?shù)美⒉皇且换厥隆渭兊貪q價(jià)也并不構(gòu)成哄抬物價(jià)。
奧本大學(xué)哈伯特商學(xué)院(Auburn University’s Harbert College of Business)的供應(yīng)鏈管理系主任格倫·里奇對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“不知道出于什么原因,現(xiàn)在企業(yè)的利潤(rùn)變得更高了。”他認(rèn)為,這既有可能是出于企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)的必要,但也有可能是出于企業(yè)高管的“機(jī)會(huì)主義行為”。
里奇指出,在討論漲價(jià)的問(wèn)題時(shí),很多人會(huì)將投機(jī)倒把與哄抬物價(jià)混為一談,但它們實(shí)際上是兩碼事。投機(jī)倒把主要是指企業(yè)試圖賺取超量或不公平利潤(rùn)的行為。
哄抬物價(jià)是指銷(xiāo)售者將商品或服務(wù)的價(jià)格提升到遠(yuǎn)高于合理或公平的水平。這種情況經(jīng)常發(fā)生在自然災(zāi)害之后,比如某地遭遇了颶風(fēng)災(zāi)害,當(dāng)?shù)氐纳碳揖陀锌赡芎逄锉匦杵返膬r(jià)格。
不過(guò),要想精準(zhǔn)評(píng)判很多哄抬物價(jià)行為是不是由企業(yè)策劃的,這卻是一件很困難的事情,因?yàn)槲飪r(jià)受到很多因素影響,而且制造商通常不會(huì)直接制定零售價(jià)格。一般來(lái)說(shuō),制造商只會(huì)給出一個(gè)建議零售價(jià),零售商可以接受,也可以不接受。晨星公司(Morningstar)的消費(fèi)板塊證券研究主管埃林·拉什指出:“光看這些干巴巴的數(shù)字,并不一定能夠反映故事的全貌?!?/p>
拉什在接受《財(cái)富》雜志采訪時(shí)稱(chēng):“從歷史上看,大多數(shù)時(shí)候,企業(yè)在漲價(jià)時(shí)都會(huì)明確表示,這不是為了抵消通脹造成的全部成本,而是為了抵消部分成本?!币哉{(diào)味料生產(chǎn)商味好美(McCormick & Company)為例,該公司也在2021年上調(diào)了價(jià)格。
味好美公司的首席執(zhí)行官勞倫斯·庫(kù)茲尤斯在今年1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上說(shuō):“為了抵消部分成本的上漲,我們?nèi)ツ暝谶m當(dāng)時(shí)機(jī)提高了價(jià)格。隨著成本繼續(xù)加速上漲,我們將在2022年再次適時(shí)提價(jià)?!?/p>
另外,也不是每家公司在漲價(jià)后都可以獲得更高的利潤(rùn)。比如“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜企業(yè)金佰利公司(Kimberly Clark)的首席執(zhí)行官邁克爾·蘇在近期的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上指出,金佰利公司已經(jīng)實(shí)施了“數(shù)輪”的“重大定價(jià)行動(dòng)”。
由Datasembly公司為《財(cái)富》雜志進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)分析顯示,2021年,金佰利公司生產(chǎn)的舒潔(Kleenex)紙巾和好奇(Huggies Little Snugglers)紙尿褲的價(jià)格分別上漲了16.4%和9.4%。但根據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志的分析,即便是在漲價(jià)之后,目前金伯利的利潤(rùn)率仍然只有9.4%,低于新冠疫情以前的水平。
漲價(jià)
毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),現(xiàn)在不光是美國(guó)企業(yè),就連很多外國(guó)公司也在全面漲價(jià)。目前不光是消費(fèi)者物價(jià)指數(shù)(CPI)這種基準(zhǔn)指數(shù)在上漲,各大公司也是喊漲聲一片。
有些公司坦承,它們之所以被迫提價(jià),是因?yàn)樽陨沓杀旧蠞q得過(guò)高了。比如“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜的零食和飲料公司億滋國(guó)際(Mondelez)今年1月宣布要將產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲6%至7%。億滋國(guó)際的首席執(zhí)行官德克·范迪普特在1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上表示:“我們已經(jīng)大幅上調(diào)了產(chǎn)品價(jià)格,以確保能夠保價(jià)有效對(duì)沖大宗商品的通脹風(fēng)險(xiǎn),另外我們也在持續(xù)提升生產(chǎn)率指標(biāo)?!彼矝](méi)有排除今年晚些時(shí)候會(huì)進(jìn)一步漲價(jià)的可能。
寶潔公司(P&G)表示,該公司之所以漲價(jià),主要是為了抵消供應(yīng)鏈風(fēng)險(xiǎn),以及下步有可能會(huì)面臨的匯率風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。寶潔公司的首席財(cái)務(wù)官安德烈·舒爾滕在1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上稱(chēng):“我們將通過(guò)漲價(jià)和生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)中的節(jié)約來(lái)抵消一部分成本壓力?!睂殱嵐镜漠a(chǎn)品包括剃須刀、尿布和洗衣粉等各種日用品。舒爾滕指出,寶潔在美國(guó)銷(xiāo)售的所有產(chǎn)品類(lèi)別都將漲價(jià)。這也是寶潔公司自2019年春季以來(lái)實(shí)施的最大規(guī)模的漲價(jià)。
寶潔公司的財(cái)報(bào)顯示,2021年第4季度(截至12月31日),該公司的銷(xiāo)售額較上年同期增長(zhǎng)了6%,這一定程度上可能也是由于漲價(jià)造成的。
實(shí)際上,到目前為止,美國(guó)很多大型食品和消費(fèi)品生產(chǎn)商都已經(jīng)實(shí)施了漲價(jià)。受《財(cái)富》雜志委托,Datasembly公司對(duì)2021年1月至2022年1月間“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜食品和消費(fèi)品企業(yè)生產(chǎn)的18種主要產(chǎn)品的全美平均售價(jià)進(jìn)行了調(diào)查,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),有11種產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格漲幅已經(jīng)超過(guò)了通脹水平。
調(diào)查顯示,在美國(guó)的主要食品與消費(fèi)品生產(chǎn)企業(yè)中,JBS、家樂(lè)氏(Kellogg)、金佰利和泰森食品(Tyson Foods)等,其部分產(chǎn)品的漲價(jià)幅度均超過(guò)了今年1月美國(guó)的通脹幅度(7.5%)。
該調(diào)查顯示,在被調(diào)查的產(chǎn)品中,漲價(jià)幅度最高的是有JBS公司品牌認(rèn)證的8盎司安格斯牛排(Angus Beef),其去年的漲價(jià)幅度達(dá)到了34%。泰森食品的一款無(wú)骨雞肉的價(jià)格也從2021年1月的6.62美元上漲到上個(gè)月的8.39美元,漲幅達(dá)到26.7%。相比之下,今年1月發(fā)布的CPI指數(shù)顯示,2021年美國(guó)的牛肉價(jià)格上漲了16%,雞肉價(jià)格上漲了10.3%。
另外,其中一些公司的利潤(rùn)率也確實(shí)比新冠疫情前更高了。在“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”的上榜食品和消費(fèi)品制造商中,有13家公司2021年的平均利潤(rùn)高于2019年,其中11家公司的利潤(rùn)增幅高于通脹率。不過(guò)這也未必表明它們一定有投機(jī)牟利行為。
比如,據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志調(diào)查,酒精飲料巨頭摩森康勝(Molson Coors)和日用品龍頭企業(yè)寶潔公司有5款產(chǎn)品的提價(jià)幅度基本與通脹水平一致,甚至略低于通脹率。但摩森康勝和寶潔去年的利潤(rùn)率卻比新冠疫情前的水平翻了一番。這兩家公司的利潤(rùn)上漲,有可能與銷(xiāo)量上漲或者與削減開(kāi)支有關(guān),不過(guò)也有可能與售價(jià)的小幅上漲有關(guān)。
泰森食品和JBS的利潤(rùn)率也出現(xiàn)了顯著的增長(zhǎng)——雖然漲幅不算業(yè)界最高,但也相當(dāng)可觀。如前所述,2021年,它們的一些關(guān)鍵產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格出現(xiàn)了大幅上漲。家樂(lè)氏的利潤(rùn)率也有一定上漲,而且它旗下的幾款產(chǎn)品的售價(jià)漲幅也超過(guò)了通脹率。
寶潔公司于2月18日對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志指出,該公司的生產(chǎn)成本近來(lái)持續(xù)上升,最近兩個(gè)季度,它的大宗商品成本和運(yùn)輸成本環(huán)比上漲了13億美元(稅后成本)。寶潔公司發(fā)言人稱(chēng):“這是近20年來(lái)我們看到的最大幅度的成本上漲,雖然我們需要轉(zhuǎn)嫁部分成本,但我們也將同時(shí)推動(dòng)各方面的創(chuàng)新,以繼續(xù)為消費(fèi)者帶來(lái)巨大價(jià)值。”
這位發(fā)言人還表示,寶潔公司專(zhuān)注于“為消費(fèi)者提供最佳性能的優(yōu)異產(chǎn)品,從而最終為消費(fèi)者帶去價(jià)值?!钡⑽粗苯釉u(píng)論公司的利潤(rùn)率為何變高的問(wèn)題。
摩森康勝和ADM公司拒絕就此發(fā)表評(píng)論。JBS公司則未回應(yīng)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求。
困難是真實(shí)存在的
穆迪投資者服務(wù)公司(Moody's Investors Service)的零售與消費(fèi)品部高級(jí)副總裁裁琳達(dá)·蒙塔格指出,目前,幾乎每家公司都面臨著供應(yīng)鏈卡脖子、“用工荒”和大宗商品成本上漲的問(wèn)題,這些問(wèn)題導(dǎo)致了企業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)預(yù)算上漲、利潤(rùn)率下降。而且就算企業(yè)宣布漲價(jià),從漲價(jià)到利潤(rùn)上漲之間,往往也還有一個(gè)時(shí)間差。
比如據(jù)拉什介紹,上個(gè)季度寶潔公司公布的毛利率是49.11%。其中,通脹因素對(duì)公司利潤(rùn)的影響達(dá)到了負(fù)4%,運(yùn)費(fèi)上漲對(duì)利潤(rùn)的影響也有負(fù)0.6%。
家樂(lè)氏公司的發(fā)言人克里斯·巴納指出,目前,全球?qū)Υ笞谏唐返男枨蟪掷m(xù)增加,而供應(yīng)卻相對(duì)緊張,這種供需失衡的影響是不容忽視的?!斑@導(dǎo)致食用油、小麥、玉米、大米、紙張和硬紙板等食品生產(chǎn)銷(xiāo)售所需的原材料價(jià)格包括運(yùn)輸成本創(chuàng)下歷史新高?!蓖瑫r(shí)巴納也對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“我們這個(gè)行業(yè)對(duì)哄抬物價(jià)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)詐騙等違法欺詐行為是零容忍的?!?
美國(guó)商會(huì)(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)的常務(wù)副會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席政策官尼爾·布拉德利于今年1月在一份聲明中表示:“與許多其他產(chǎn)品一樣,推動(dòng)肉類(lèi)價(jià)格上漲的因素包括需求上升、疫情導(dǎo)致的供應(yīng)鏈問(wèn)題,以及投入成本上升等等,特別是能源和勞動(dòng)力成本的上升?!?/p>
普渡大學(xué)(Purdue University)的農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)系主任杰森·盧斯克指出,2021年,用于飼養(yǎng)牲畜的谷物和油籽價(jià)格有所上漲,這反過(guò)來(lái)也推高了牲畜和家禽的飼養(yǎng)成本。
全美雞肉協(xié)會(huì)(National Chicken Council)的發(fā)言人湯姆·休珀指出,盡管玉米、大豆、汽油、包裝和運(yùn)輸成本都上漲了至少兩位數(shù),但美國(guó)雞肉價(jià)格的漲幅卻僅僅略高于總體通脹率(今年1月發(fā)布的2021年美國(guó)雞肉價(jià)格增幅為10.3%,而美國(guó)的總體通脹率為7.5%)。
泰森食品的發(fā)言人加里·米克爾森在回答《財(cái)富》雜志關(guān)于漲價(jià)和利潤(rùn)的問(wèn)題時(shí)稱(chēng):“經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和行業(yè)分析師都已經(jīng)證明,目前肉類(lèi)價(jià)格的上漲,是供應(yīng)鏈?zhǔn)芟?,以及糧食、勞動(dòng)力、能源等投入成本上漲,加上消費(fèi)者需求強(qiáng)勁共同作用的直接結(jié)果。”
穆迪投資者服務(wù)公司的零售與消費(fèi)品部高級(jí)副總裁裁琳達(dá)·蒙塔格認(rèn)為:“問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)并非是有些公司想發(fā)‘國(guó)難財(cái)’?!彪m然目前有些公司的利潤(rùn)率有所上升,但這種情形未必會(huì)一直持續(xù)下去。例如,一些公司利潤(rùn)率上升的原因,可能是由于在新冠疫情期間砍掉了一些營(yíng)銷(xiāo)預(yù)算,或者是銷(xiāo)量增加了。還有一些公司加大了生產(chǎn)和銷(xiāo)售速度,這也有助于緩沖運(yùn)營(yíng)成本上升帶來(lái)的影響。
“通脹是真實(shí)存在的。”蒙塔格認(rèn)為,任何聲稱(chēng)企業(yè)漲價(jià)是為了哄抬物價(jià)、投機(jī)倒把的人都是在“信口胡說(shuō)”。
是“體制問(wèn)題”在鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)漲價(jià)?
盡管通脹問(wèn)題引發(fā)了極大擔(dān)憂,但去年美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)率仍然達(dá)到了5.7%——或許這其中還有通脹的功勞。這不禁令人思考,對(duì)于40年來(lái)早已習(xí)慣了低通脹和全球化的美國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō),目前這種高需求、高就業(yè)率甚至是高通脹的環(huán)境,是否才是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)真正應(yīng)有的樣子?當(dāng)然,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)目前還在從新冠疫情泥潭中復(fù)蘇的路上,但自20世紀(jì)中葉以來(lái),美國(guó)還沒(méi)有經(jīng)歷過(guò)像這樣的真正的經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮。而在那一次的繁榮期,美國(guó)也遭遇了高通脹問(wèn)題。
也有一些專(zhuān)家認(rèn)為,目前美國(guó)的高通脹并不是經(jīng)濟(jì)健康增長(zhǎng)的表現(xiàn),甚至也不是為了抵消運(yùn)營(yíng)成本的上漲,而是放松監(jiān)管和缺乏競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果。
美國(guó)前勞工部長(zhǎng)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家羅伯特·賴(lài)克最近就這個(gè)話題撰文稱(chēng):“如果市場(chǎng)是具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的,企業(yè)就會(huì)壓低價(jià)格,以防止競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手搶走顧客。”
拜登政府最近也點(diǎn)名批評(píng)一些行業(yè)缺乏競(jìng)爭(zhēng),并指出這有可能導(dǎo)致成本上升。美國(guó)四大肉制品公司嘉吉(Cargill)、JBS、國(guó)家牛肉包裝公司(National Beef Packing)和泰森食品就在被點(diǎn)名之列,這四家公司控制了美國(guó)豬肉、牛肉和雞肉市場(chǎng)的大半壁江山。美國(guó)財(cái)政部(Treasury Department)近期也發(fā)布了一份63頁(yè)的報(bào)告,指出百威英博公司(nheuser-Busch InBev)和摩森康勝公司控制了美國(guó)啤酒市場(chǎng)65%的收入。因此有批評(píng)人士指出,這些公司之所以能夠隨心所欲地漲價(jià),就是因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者沒(méi)有太多的品牌和產(chǎn)品可以選擇。
今年1月,美國(guó)總統(tǒng)拜登曾經(jīng)指出:“我們?cè)谶^(guò)去幾十年里看到的情況是,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)越來(lái)越少,集中程度越來(lái)越高,這實(shí)際上阻礙了經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,很多行業(yè)都是由少數(shù)幾個(gè)大公司主導(dǎo)著整個(gè)市場(chǎng)?!?/p>
不過(guò),北美肉類(lèi)協(xié)會(huì)(North American Meat Institute)的會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席執(zhí)行官朱莉·安娜·波茨并不這樣認(rèn)為。她表示,美國(guó)的肉類(lèi)行業(yè)并不像拜登政府描述的那樣集中化,25年來(lái),美國(guó)肉類(lèi)市場(chǎng)的結(jié)構(gòu)基本上沒(méi)有變化?!叭绻羌谢瘜?dǎo)致了近期肉禽產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲,那么5年前或者10年前,集中化為什么沒(méi)有導(dǎo)致肉禽產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲呢?”美國(guó)四大肉制品公司都是該協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員,不過(guò)它們并未專(zhuān)門(mén)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志就拜登政府的有關(guān)言論作出評(píng)論。
美國(guó)啤酒協(xié)會(huì)(Beer Institute)的會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席執(zhí)行官吉姆·麥克格里維也指出,美國(guó)財(cái)政部的報(bào)告“曲解了繁榮發(fā)展中的美國(guó)啤酒產(chǎn)業(yè)?!彼赋觯?010年以來(lái),美國(guó)新注冊(cè)的啤酒廠超過(guò)1萬(wàn)家?!跋M(fèi)者也受益于越來(lái)越多的啤酒廠和進(jìn)口啤酒商,他們有了比以往任何時(shí)候更多的選擇?!卑偻⒉┖湍ι祫俣际敲绹?guó)啤酒協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員,不過(guò)他們也未對(duì)拜登政府的有關(guān)言論進(jìn)行評(píng)論。
據(jù)《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(Washington Post)報(bào)道,即使在白宮內(nèi)部,也有一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家反對(duì)政府將通脹歸咎于企業(yè)。
蒙塔格指出,實(shí)際上,食品和消費(fèi)品領(lǐng)域是存在著“大量激烈的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”的。很多上市公司不僅互為競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,還要面臨著很多非上市公司的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。據(jù)美國(guó)自有品牌制造商協(xié)會(huì)(Private Label Manufacturers Association)統(tǒng)計(jì),從銷(xiāo)售額上看,美國(guó)零售店的門(mén)店自有品牌大約占據(jù)了市場(chǎng)的17.7%;從銷(xiāo)量上看,則占據(jù)了市場(chǎng)的19.6%。
還有一些人認(rèn)為,當(dāng)前的物價(jià)上漲是不合理的。比如關(guān)注經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題的激進(jìn)社會(huì)組織Groundwork Collaborative的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家拉金·馬布德對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示,她認(rèn)為當(dāng)前企業(yè)紛紛漲價(jià)的現(xiàn)狀“非常不合理”,理由是首席執(zhí)行官和企業(yè)高管們能夠任意向消費(fèi)者漲價(jià),但美國(guó)的普通老百姓卻毫無(wú)選擇,只能被迫支付更高的價(jià)格——但與此同時(shí),這些企業(yè)卻在分更高的紅利給股東。
大公司通過(guò)漲價(jià)獲得了創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的利潤(rùn),首席執(zhí)行官們悄悄說(shuō)了大實(shí)話——他們很樂(lè)意推高通脹。
美國(guó)家庭支付了更高的物價(jià),企業(yè)高管獲得了更豐厚的獎(jiǎng)金。你們自己看看高管們是怎么說(shuō)的吧。
——伊麗莎白·沃倫(@SenWarren),2022年1月15日
“這些大公司靠刮勉強(qiáng)度日的底層人的油水而大賺特賺,這是不合理的,不但不合理,也對(duì)我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)有害。只有在我們所有人都過(guò)得好的時(shí)候,我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)才會(huì)好——而不是在只有這些大企業(yè)過(guò)得好的時(shí)候?!瘪R布德說(shuō)道。
她還補(bǔ)充說(shuō):“毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),企業(yè)是受利潤(rùn)驅(qū)使的。企業(yè)究竟賺多少利潤(rùn)才合適,這基本上是一個(gè)道德問(wèn)題。不過(guò)現(xiàn)在有一個(gè)顯然非常不合理的現(xiàn)象,那就是投資者和股東都在靠侵蝕普通消費(fèi)者的利益來(lái)賺錢(qián)?!?/p>
另一方面,那些大肆宣揚(yáng)自己漲價(jià)了的上市公司也的確在股市上獲得了豐厚回報(bào)。彭博社(Bloomberg)最近的一篇報(bào)道顯示,在近一個(gè)財(cái)季中,這些上市公司在宣布產(chǎn)品漲價(jià)后,其股價(jià)幾乎都是應(yīng)聲上漲。比如連鎖餐飲企業(yè)Chipotle在2021年12月宣布漲價(jià)4%后,其股價(jià)已經(jīng)上漲了10%。而清潔用品高樂(lè)氏(Clorox)的漲價(jià)行為則低調(diào)得多,基本上都是悄悄進(jìn)行的,高樂(lè)氏還在財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上警告投資者,未來(lái)幾年哪些因素有可能影響公司的利潤(rùn)率。結(jié)果該公司的股價(jià)直接暴跌14%。
馬布德指出,這些大企業(yè)一家接著一家地宣布漲價(jià),這與投資者的慫恿不無(wú)關(guān)系。有些企業(yè)看到別人漲后利潤(rùn)率上去了,自己也就跟著漲價(jià),而且投資者也要求它們這樣做。
馬布德認(rèn)為:“這樣一來(lái),就算通脹消失了,企業(yè)投機(jī)牟利的傾向也會(huì)長(zhǎng)期存在?!?/p>
漲價(jià)的長(zhǎng)期成本
絕大多數(shù)的美國(guó)人都意識(shí)到,當(dāng)前的高通脹是有問(wèn)題的。哈里斯民調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)(Harris Poll)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,90%的美國(guó)人注意到,近幾個(gè)月他們經(jīng)常購(gòu)買(mǎi)的商品價(jià)格有所上漲。有44%的美國(guó)成年人表示,通脹目前是他們最擔(dān)心的問(wèn)題。
不過(guò)有研究顯示,消費(fèi)者在緊急情況下,對(duì)物價(jià)上漲的容忍度會(huì)有所提升。比如哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)的研究人員最近發(fā)表的一篇論文顯示,在美國(guó)爆發(fā)新冠疫情之初,只有一小半美國(guó)消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為洗手液的價(jià)格上漲是不合理的。該論文的合著者克里斯托弗·布卡富斯科向《財(cái)富》雜志指出:“消費(fèi)者對(duì)‘合理’的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是相當(dāng)靈活的。人們對(duì)‘合理’與否的看法,在很大程度上取決于具體情況。”
至于消費(fèi)者會(huì)不會(huì)覺(jué)得高通脹是美國(guó)市場(chǎng)機(jī)制的結(jié)構(gòu)性弊病導(dǎo)致的,以及消費(fèi)是否愿意繼續(xù)容忍這種高通脹,目前我們尚不清楚。不過(guò)一旦消費(fèi)者的忍耐到了極限,那么一直追求和縱容漲價(jià)的企業(yè)以及政客,或許都要承受一波民意的強(qiáng)烈反彈。
當(dāng)前這輪漲價(jià)也是有實(shí)際成本的。除了一些自帶波動(dòng)性的大宗商品,有些產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格漲上來(lái)之后,未來(lái)即便供給壓力減輕了,它的價(jià)格也不容易再降下去了,例如一瓶汽水或者一支牙刷。所以從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看,消費(fèi)者將長(zhǎng)期承受更高的價(jià)格。
馬布德說(shuō):“有時(shí)我們談?wù)撏?,就像談?wù)撘粋€(gè)與我們無(wú)關(guān)的問(wèn)題一樣。但事實(shí)上,我們之所以非常關(guān)注通脹問(wèn)題,是因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)我們有實(shí)實(shí)在在的影響。物價(jià)的上漲真的會(huì)給弱勢(shì)群體造成非常非常沉重的打擊?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
美國(guó)陷入高通脹已經(jīng)整整一年了。
不論是房租、二手車(chē)價(jià)格還是肉價(jià)菜價(jià),總之在美國(guó),有關(guān)衣食住行的一切都在漲價(jià),2021年,美國(guó)的通脹水平不斷刷新紀(jì)錄,本輪通脹被公認(rèn)為近40年來(lái)最嚴(yán)重的一次。
在本輪通脹的背后,有一些客觀原因是真實(shí)存在的,比如消費(fèi)者的需求空前高漲,同時(shí)企業(yè)卻廣泛存在勞動(dòng)力短缺和供應(yīng)鏈不繼的問(wèn)題。除此之外,我們不禁也會(huì)想到另一個(gè)問(wèn)題:是不是還有一些企業(yè)在以通脹為借口哄抬物價(jià),借機(jī)發(fā)“國(guó)難財(cái)”呢?
持有這種看法的人不在少數(shù),美國(guó)總統(tǒng)喬·拜登政府里的不少高官,包括一些消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)人士甚至一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都是這么認(rèn)為的。例如馬薩諸塞州參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫本月致信美國(guó)司法部(Department of Justice),敦促后者對(duì)一些涉嫌違反反壟斷法和哄抬物價(jià)的企業(yè)采取措施。沃倫在信中指出:“美國(guó)的通脹已經(jīng)達(dá)到幾十年來(lái)的最高水平,這在相當(dāng)程度上是企業(yè)的貪婪和反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為造成的,聯(lián)邦政府必須采取一切手段避免有人哄抬物價(jià),為美國(guó)人民把物價(jià)降下來(lái)?!?/p>
最讓普通消費(fèi)者感到壓力的,是食品和家庭用品價(jià)格的上漲?!敦?cái)富》雜志的一項(xiàng)分析顯示,在“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”中上榜的28家食品與消費(fèi)品制造商中,有半數(shù)企業(yè)的平均凈利潤(rùn)率甚至較新冠疫情前有所上升。不過(guò)雖然它們的利潤(rùn)上漲了,卻很難說(shuō)這是不是與價(jià)格的上漲直接相關(guān)。
那么,這些企業(yè)真的在哄抬物價(jià)嗎?它們是借疫情發(fā)“國(guó)難財(cái)”的奸商嗎?首先需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是,我們?cè)诒疚闹刑接懙牟⒉皇欠蓡?wèn)題,因?yàn)槟壳?,美?guó)在聯(lián)邦層面尚無(wú)具體法律規(guī)范這種行為。
其次,股市是這種貪婪,投資者會(huì)“用腳投票”“口嫌體直”地回報(bào)上市公司的這種貪婪。不過(guò)股市畢竟不等同于經(jīng)濟(jì)本身,一個(gè)東西在技術(shù)層面合法,并不代表它就是好的。有些東西對(duì)投資者來(lái)說(shuō)是好事,但很有可能對(duì)普通老百姓來(lái)說(shuō)就是一件壞事。
什么是健康的利潤(rùn)?
首先需要說(shuō)明一下,企業(yè)追逐健康的利潤(rùn),與哄抬物價(jià)甚至借疫情之機(jī)不當(dāng)?shù)美⒉皇且换厥?。單純地漲價(jià)也并不構(gòu)成哄抬物價(jià)。
奧本大學(xué)哈伯特商學(xué)院(Auburn University’s Harbert College of Business)的供應(yīng)鏈管理系主任格倫·里奇對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“不知道出于什么原因,現(xiàn)在企業(yè)的利潤(rùn)變得更高了?!彼J(rèn)為,這既有可能是出于企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)的必要,但也有可能是出于企業(yè)高管的“機(jī)會(huì)主義行為”。
里奇指出,在討論漲價(jià)的問(wèn)題時(shí),很多人會(huì)將投機(jī)倒把與哄抬物價(jià)混為一談,但它們實(shí)際上是兩碼事。投機(jī)倒把主要是指企業(yè)試圖賺取超量或不公平利潤(rùn)的行為。
哄抬物價(jià)是指銷(xiāo)售者將商品或服務(wù)的價(jià)格提升到遠(yuǎn)高于合理或公平的水平。這種情況經(jīng)常發(fā)生在自然災(zāi)害之后,比如某地遭遇了颶風(fēng)災(zāi)害,當(dāng)?shù)氐纳碳揖陀锌赡芎逄锉匦杵返膬r(jià)格。
不過(guò),要想精準(zhǔn)評(píng)判很多哄抬物價(jià)行為是不是由企業(yè)策劃的,這卻是一件很困難的事情,因?yàn)槲飪r(jià)受到很多因素影響,而且制造商通常不會(huì)直接制定零售價(jià)格。一般來(lái)說(shuō),制造商只會(huì)給出一個(gè)建議零售價(jià),零售商可以接受,也可以不接受。晨星公司(Morningstar)的消費(fèi)板塊證券研究主管埃林·拉什指出:“光看這些干巴巴的數(shù)字,并不一定能夠反映故事的全貌。”
拉什在接受《財(cái)富》雜志采訪時(shí)稱(chēng):“從歷史上看,大多數(shù)時(shí)候,企業(yè)在漲價(jià)時(shí)都會(huì)明確表示,這不是為了抵消通脹造成的全部成本,而是為了抵消部分成本?!币哉{(diào)味料生產(chǎn)商味好美(McCormick & Company)為例,該公司也在2021年上調(diào)了價(jià)格。
味好美公司的首席執(zhí)行官勞倫斯·庫(kù)茲尤斯在今年1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上說(shuō):“為了抵消部分成本的上漲,我們?nèi)ツ暝谶m當(dāng)時(shí)機(jī)提高了價(jià)格。隨著成本繼續(xù)加速上漲,我們將在2022年再次適時(shí)提價(jià)?!?/p>
另外,也不是每家公司在漲價(jià)后都可以獲得更高的利潤(rùn)。比如“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜企業(yè)金佰利公司(Kimberly Clark)的首席執(zhí)行官邁克爾·蘇在近期的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上指出,金佰利公司已經(jīng)實(shí)施了“數(shù)輪”的“重大定價(jià)行動(dòng)”。
由Datasembly公司為《財(cái)富》雜志進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)分析顯示,2021年,金佰利公司生產(chǎn)的舒潔(Kleenex)紙巾和好奇(Huggies Little Snugglers)紙尿褲的價(jià)格分別上漲了16.4%和9.4%。但根據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志的分析,即便是在漲價(jià)之后,目前金伯利的利潤(rùn)率仍然只有9.4%,低于新冠疫情以前的水平。
漲價(jià)
毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),現(xiàn)在不光是美國(guó)企業(yè),就連很多外國(guó)公司也在全面漲價(jià)。目前不光是消費(fèi)者物價(jià)指數(shù)(CPI)這種基準(zhǔn)指數(shù)在上漲,各大公司也是喊漲聲一片。
有些公司坦承,它們之所以被迫提價(jià),是因?yàn)樽陨沓杀旧蠞q得過(guò)高了。比如“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜的零食和飲料公司億滋國(guó)際(Mondelez)今年1月宣布要將產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲6%至7%。億滋國(guó)際的首席執(zhí)行官德克·范迪普特在1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上表示:“我們已經(jīng)大幅上調(diào)了產(chǎn)品價(jià)格,以確保能夠保價(jià)有效對(duì)沖大宗商品的通脹風(fēng)險(xiǎn),另外我們也在持續(xù)提升生產(chǎn)率指標(biāo)?!彼矝](méi)有排除今年晚些時(shí)候會(huì)進(jìn)一步漲價(jià)的可能。
寶潔公司(P&G)表示,該公司之所以漲價(jià),主要是為了抵消供應(yīng)鏈風(fēng)險(xiǎn),以及下步有可能會(huì)面臨的匯率風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。寶潔公司的首席財(cái)務(wù)官安德烈·舒爾滕在1月的財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上稱(chēng):“我們將通過(guò)漲價(jià)和生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)中的節(jié)約來(lái)抵消一部分成本壓力?!睂殱嵐镜漠a(chǎn)品包括剃須刀、尿布和洗衣粉等各種日用品。舒爾滕指出,寶潔在美國(guó)銷(xiāo)售的所有產(chǎn)品類(lèi)別都將漲價(jià)。這也是寶潔公司自2019年春季以來(lái)實(shí)施的最大規(guī)模的漲價(jià)。
寶潔公司的財(cái)報(bào)顯示,2021年第4季度(截至12月31日),該公司的銷(xiāo)售額較上年同期增長(zhǎng)了6%,這一定程度上可能也是由于漲價(jià)造成的。
實(shí)際上,到目前為止,美國(guó)很多大型食品和消費(fèi)品生產(chǎn)商都已經(jīng)實(shí)施了漲價(jià)。受《財(cái)富》雜志委托,Datasembly公司對(duì)2021年1月至2022年1月間“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”上榜食品和消費(fèi)品企業(yè)生產(chǎn)的18種主要產(chǎn)品的全美平均售價(jià)進(jìn)行了調(diào)查,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),有11種產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格漲幅已經(jīng)超過(guò)了通脹水平。
調(diào)查顯示,在美國(guó)的主要食品與消費(fèi)品生產(chǎn)企業(yè)中,JBS、家樂(lè)氏(Kellogg)、金佰利和泰森食品(Tyson Foods)等,其部分產(chǎn)品的漲價(jià)幅度均超過(guò)了今年1月美國(guó)的通脹幅度(7.5%)。
該調(diào)查顯示,在被調(diào)查的產(chǎn)品中,漲價(jià)幅度最高的是有JBS公司品牌認(rèn)證的8盎司安格斯牛排(Angus Beef),其去年的漲價(jià)幅度達(dá)到了34%。泰森食品的一款無(wú)骨雞肉的價(jià)格也從2021年1月的6.62美元上漲到上個(gè)月的8.39美元,漲幅達(dá)到26.7%。相比之下,今年1月發(fā)布的CPI指數(shù)顯示,2021年美國(guó)的牛肉價(jià)格上漲了16%,雞肉價(jià)格上漲了10.3%。
另外,其中一些公司的利潤(rùn)率也確實(shí)比新冠疫情前更高了。在“《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)”的上榜食品和消費(fèi)品制造商中,有13家公司2021年的平均利潤(rùn)高于2019年,其中11家公司的利潤(rùn)增幅高于通脹率。不過(guò)這也未必表明它們一定有投機(jī)牟利行為。
比如,據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志調(diào)查,酒精飲料巨頭摩森康勝(Molson Coors)和日用品龍頭企業(yè)寶潔公司有5款產(chǎn)品的提價(jià)幅度基本與通脹水平一致,甚至略低于通脹率。但摩森康勝和寶潔去年的利潤(rùn)率卻比新冠疫情前的水平翻了一番。這兩家公司的利潤(rùn)上漲,有可能與銷(xiāo)量上漲或者與削減開(kāi)支有關(guān),不過(guò)也有可能與售價(jià)的小幅上漲有關(guān)。
泰森食品和JBS的利潤(rùn)率也出現(xiàn)了顯著的增長(zhǎng)——雖然漲幅不算業(yè)界最高,但也相當(dāng)可觀。如前所述,2021年,它們的一些關(guān)鍵產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格出現(xiàn)了大幅上漲。家樂(lè)氏的利潤(rùn)率也有一定上漲,而且它旗下的幾款產(chǎn)品的售價(jià)漲幅也超過(guò)了通脹率。
寶潔公司于2月18日對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志指出,該公司的生產(chǎn)成本近來(lái)持續(xù)上升,最近兩個(gè)季度,它的大宗商品成本和運(yùn)輸成本環(huán)比上漲了13億美元(稅后成本)。寶潔公司發(fā)言人稱(chēng):“這是近20年來(lái)我們看到的最大幅度的成本上漲,雖然我們需要轉(zhuǎn)嫁部分成本,但我們也將同時(shí)推動(dòng)各方面的創(chuàng)新,以繼續(xù)為消費(fèi)者帶來(lái)巨大價(jià)值?!?/p>
這位發(fā)言人還表示,寶潔公司專(zhuān)注于“為消費(fèi)者提供最佳性能的優(yōu)異產(chǎn)品,從而最終為消費(fèi)者帶去價(jià)值?!钡⑽粗苯釉u(píng)論公司的利潤(rùn)率為何變高的問(wèn)題。
摩森康勝和ADM公司拒絕就此發(fā)表評(píng)論。JBS公司則未回應(yīng)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求。
困難是真實(shí)存在的
穆迪投資者服務(wù)公司(Moody's Investors Service)的零售與消費(fèi)品部高級(jí)副總裁裁琳達(dá)·蒙塔格指出,目前,幾乎每家公司都面臨著供應(yīng)鏈卡脖子、“用工荒”和大宗商品成本上漲的問(wèn)題,這些問(wèn)題導(dǎo)致了企業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)預(yù)算上漲、利潤(rùn)率下降。而且就算企業(yè)宣布漲價(jià),從漲價(jià)到利潤(rùn)上漲之間,往往也還有一個(gè)時(shí)間差。
比如據(jù)拉什介紹,上個(gè)季度寶潔公司公布的毛利率是49.11%。其中,通脹因素對(duì)公司利潤(rùn)的影響達(dá)到了負(fù)4%,運(yùn)費(fèi)上漲對(duì)利潤(rùn)的影響也有負(fù)0.6%。
家樂(lè)氏公司的發(fā)言人克里斯·巴納指出,目前,全球?qū)Υ笞谏唐返男枨蟪掷m(xù)增加,而供應(yīng)卻相對(duì)緊張,這種供需失衡的影響是不容忽視的?!斑@導(dǎo)致食用油、小麥、玉米、大米、紙張和硬紙板等食品生產(chǎn)銷(xiāo)售所需的原材料價(jià)格包括運(yùn)輸成本創(chuàng)下歷史新高?!蓖瑫r(shí)巴納也對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“我們這個(gè)行業(yè)對(duì)哄抬物價(jià)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)詐騙等違法欺詐行為是零容忍的?!?
美國(guó)商會(huì)(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)的常務(wù)副會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席政策官尼爾·布拉德利于今年1月在一份聲明中表示:“與許多其他產(chǎn)品一樣,推動(dòng)肉類(lèi)價(jià)格上漲的因素包括需求上升、疫情導(dǎo)致的供應(yīng)鏈問(wèn)題,以及投入成本上升等等,特別是能源和勞動(dòng)力成本的上升。”
普渡大學(xué)(Purdue University)的農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)系主任杰森·盧斯克指出,2021年,用于飼養(yǎng)牲畜的谷物和油籽價(jià)格有所上漲,這反過(guò)來(lái)也推高了牲畜和家禽的飼養(yǎng)成本。
全美雞肉協(xié)會(huì)(National Chicken Council)的發(fā)言人湯姆·休珀指出,盡管玉米、大豆、汽油、包裝和運(yùn)輸成本都上漲了至少兩位數(shù),但美國(guó)雞肉價(jià)格的漲幅卻僅僅略高于總體通脹率(今年1月發(fā)布的2021年美國(guó)雞肉價(jià)格增幅為10.3%,而美國(guó)的總體通脹率為7.5%)。
泰森食品的發(fā)言人加里·米克爾森在回答《財(cái)富》雜志關(guān)于漲價(jià)和利潤(rùn)的問(wèn)題時(shí)稱(chēng):“經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和行業(yè)分析師都已經(jīng)證明,目前肉類(lèi)價(jià)格的上漲,是供應(yīng)鏈?zhǔn)芟?,以及糧食、勞動(dòng)力、能源等投入成本上漲,加上消費(fèi)者需求強(qiáng)勁共同作用的直接結(jié)果?!?/p>
穆迪投資者服務(wù)公司的零售與消費(fèi)品部高級(jí)副總裁裁琳達(dá)·蒙塔格認(rèn)為:“問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)并非是有些公司想發(fā)‘國(guó)難財(cái)’。”雖然目前有些公司的利潤(rùn)率有所上升,但這種情形未必會(huì)一直持續(xù)下去。例如,一些公司利潤(rùn)率上升的原因,可能是由于在新冠疫情期間砍掉了一些營(yíng)銷(xiāo)預(yù)算,或者是銷(xiāo)量增加了。還有一些公司加大了生產(chǎn)和銷(xiāo)售速度,這也有助于緩沖運(yùn)營(yíng)成本上升帶來(lái)的影響。
“通脹是真實(shí)存在的?!泵伤裾J(rèn)為,任何聲稱(chēng)企業(yè)漲價(jià)是為了哄抬物價(jià)、投機(jī)倒把的人都是在“信口胡說(shuō)”。
是“體制問(wèn)題”在鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)漲價(jià)?
盡管通脹問(wèn)題引發(fā)了極大擔(dān)憂,但去年美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)率仍然達(dá)到了5.7%——或許這其中還有通脹的功勞。這不禁令人思考,對(duì)于40年來(lái)早已習(xí)慣了低通脹和全球化的美國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō),目前這種高需求、高就業(yè)率甚至是高通脹的環(huán)境,是否才是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)真正應(yīng)有的樣子?當(dāng)然,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)目前還在從新冠疫情泥潭中復(fù)蘇的路上,但自20世紀(jì)中葉以來(lái),美國(guó)還沒(méi)有經(jīng)歷過(guò)像這樣的真正的經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮。而在那一次的繁榮期,美國(guó)也遭遇了高通脹問(wèn)題。
也有一些專(zhuān)家認(rèn)為,目前美國(guó)的高通脹并不是經(jīng)濟(jì)健康增長(zhǎng)的表現(xiàn),甚至也不是為了抵消運(yùn)營(yíng)成本的上漲,而是放松監(jiān)管和缺乏競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果。
美國(guó)前勞工部長(zhǎng)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家羅伯特·賴(lài)克最近就這個(gè)話題撰文稱(chēng):“如果市場(chǎng)是具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的,企業(yè)就會(huì)壓低價(jià)格,以防止競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手搶走顧客?!?/p>
拜登政府最近也點(diǎn)名批評(píng)一些行業(yè)缺乏競(jìng)爭(zhēng),并指出這有可能導(dǎo)致成本上升。美國(guó)四大肉制品公司嘉吉(Cargill)、JBS、國(guó)家牛肉包裝公司(National Beef Packing)和泰森食品就在被點(diǎn)名之列,這四家公司控制了美國(guó)豬肉、牛肉和雞肉市場(chǎng)的大半壁江山。美國(guó)財(cái)政部(Treasury Department)近期也發(fā)布了一份63頁(yè)的報(bào)告,指出百威英博公司(nheuser-Busch InBev)和摩森康勝公司控制了美國(guó)啤酒市場(chǎng)65%的收入。因此有批評(píng)人士指出,這些公司之所以能夠隨心所欲地漲價(jià),就是因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者沒(méi)有太多的品牌和產(chǎn)品可以選擇。
今年1月,美國(guó)總統(tǒng)拜登曾經(jīng)指出:“我們?cè)谶^(guò)去幾十年里看到的情況是,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)越來(lái)越少,集中程度越來(lái)越高,這實(shí)際上阻礙了經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,很多行業(yè)都是由少數(shù)幾個(gè)大公司主導(dǎo)著整個(gè)市場(chǎng)。”
不過(guò),北美肉類(lèi)協(xié)會(huì)(North American Meat Institute)的會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席執(zhí)行官朱莉·安娜·波茨并不這樣認(rèn)為。她表示,美國(guó)的肉類(lèi)行業(yè)并不像拜登政府描述的那樣集中化,25年來(lái),美國(guó)肉類(lèi)市場(chǎng)的結(jié)構(gòu)基本上沒(méi)有變化。“如果是集中化導(dǎo)致了近期肉禽產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲,那么5年前或者10年前,集中化為什么沒(méi)有導(dǎo)致肉禽產(chǎn)品價(jià)格上漲呢?”美國(guó)四大肉制品公司都是該協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員,不過(guò)它們并未專(zhuān)門(mén)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志就拜登政府的有關(guān)言論作出評(píng)論。
美國(guó)啤酒協(xié)會(huì)(Beer Institute)的會(huì)長(zhǎng)兼首席執(zhí)行官吉姆·麥克格里維也指出,美國(guó)財(cái)政部的報(bào)告“曲解了繁榮發(fā)展中的美國(guó)啤酒產(chǎn)業(yè)?!彼赋?,自2010年以來(lái),美國(guó)新注冊(cè)的啤酒廠超過(guò)1萬(wàn)家?!跋M(fèi)者也受益于越來(lái)越多的啤酒廠和進(jìn)口啤酒商,他們有了比以往任何時(shí)候更多的選擇。”百威英博和摩森康勝都是美國(guó)啤酒協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員,不過(guò)他們也未對(duì)拜登政府的有關(guān)言論進(jìn)行評(píng)論。
據(jù)《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(Washington Post)報(bào)道,即使在白宮內(nèi)部,也有一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家反對(duì)政府將通脹歸咎于企業(yè)。
蒙塔格指出,實(shí)際上,食品和消費(fèi)品領(lǐng)域是存在著“大量激烈的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”的。很多上市公司不僅互為競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,還要面臨著很多非上市公司的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。據(jù)美國(guó)自有品牌制造商協(xié)會(huì)(Private Label Manufacturers Association)統(tǒng)計(jì),從銷(xiāo)售額上看,美國(guó)零售店的門(mén)店自有品牌大約占據(jù)了市場(chǎng)的17.7%;從銷(xiāo)量上看,則占據(jù)了市場(chǎng)的19.6%。
還有一些人認(rèn)為,當(dāng)前的物價(jià)上漲是不合理的。比如關(guān)注經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題的激進(jìn)社會(huì)組織Groundwork Collaborative的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家拉金·馬布德對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示,她認(rèn)為當(dāng)前企業(yè)紛紛漲價(jià)的現(xiàn)狀“非常不合理”,理由是首席執(zhí)行官和企業(yè)高管們能夠任意向消費(fèi)者漲價(jià),但美國(guó)的普通老百姓卻毫無(wú)選擇,只能被迫支付更高的價(jià)格——但與此同時(shí),這些企業(yè)卻在分更高的紅利給股東。
大公司通過(guò)漲價(jià)獲得了創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的利潤(rùn),首席執(zhí)行官們悄悄說(shuō)了大實(shí)話——他們很樂(lè)意推高通脹。
美國(guó)家庭支付了更高的物價(jià),企業(yè)高管獲得了更豐厚的獎(jiǎng)金。你們自己看看高管們是怎么說(shuō)的吧。
——伊麗莎白·沃倫(@SenWarren),2022年1月15日
“這些大公司靠刮勉強(qiáng)度日的底層人的油水而大賺特賺,這是不合理的,不但不合理,也對(duì)我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)有害。只有在我們所有人都過(guò)得好的時(shí)候,我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)才會(huì)好——而不是在只有這些大企業(yè)過(guò)得好的時(shí)候?!瘪R布德說(shuō)道。
她還補(bǔ)充說(shuō):“毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),企業(yè)是受利潤(rùn)驅(qū)使的。企業(yè)究竟賺多少利潤(rùn)才合適,這基本上是一個(gè)道德問(wèn)題。不過(guò)現(xiàn)在有一個(gè)顯然非常不合理的現(xiàn)象,那就是投資者和股東都在靠侵蝕普通消費(fèi)者的利益來(lái)賺錢(qián)。”
另一方面,那些大肆宣揚(yáng)自己漲價(jià)了的上市公司也的確在股市上獲得了豐厚回報(bào)。彭博社(Bloomberg)最近的一篇報(bào)道顯示,在近一個(gè)財(cái)季中,這些上市公司在宣布產(chǎn)品漲價(jià)后,其股價(jià)幾乎都是應(yīng)聲上漲。比如連鎖餐飲企業(yè)Chipotle在2021年12月宣布漲價(jià)4%后,其股價(jià)已經(jīng)上漲了10%。而清潔用品高樂(lè)氏(Clorox)的漲價(jià)行為則低調(diào)得多,基本上都是悄悄進(jìn)行的,高樂(lè)氏還在財(cái)報(bào)會(huì)議上警告投資者,未來(lái)幾年哪些因素有可能影響公司的利潤(rùn)率。結(jié)果該公司的股價(jià)直接暴跌14%。
馬布德指出,這些大企業(yè)一家接著一家地宣布漲價(jià),這與投資者的慫恿不無(wú)關(guān)系。有些企業(yè)看到別人漲后利潤(rùn)率上去了,自己也就跟著漲價(jià),而且投資者也要求它們這樣做。
馬布德認(rèn)為:“這樣一來(lái),就算通脹消失了,企業(yè)投機(jī)牟利的傾向也會(huì)長(zhǎng)期存在?!?/p>
漲價(jià)的長(zhǎng)期成本
絕大多數(shù)的美國(guó)人都意識(shí)到,當(dāng)前的高通脹是有問(wèn)題的。哈里斯民調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)(Harris Poll)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,90%的美國(guó)人注意到,近幾個(gè)月他們經(jīng)常購(gòu)買(mǎi)的商品價(jià)格有所上漲。有44%的美國(guó)成年人表示,通脹目前是他們最擔(dān)心的問(wèn)題。
不過(guò)有研究顯示,消費(fèi)者在緊急情況下,對(duì)物價(jià)上漲的容忍度會(huì)有所提升。比如哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)的研究人員最近發(fā)表的一篇論文顯示,在美國(guó)爆發(fā)新冠疫情之初,只有一小半美國(guó)消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為洗手液的價(jià)格上漲是不合理的。該論文的合著者克里斯托弗·布卡富斯科向《財(cái)富》雜志指出:“消費(fèi)者對(duì)‘合理’的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是相當(dāng)靈活的。人們對(duì)‘合理’與否的看法,在很大程度上取決于具體情況?!?/p>
至于消費(fèi)者會(huì)不會(huì)覺(jué)得高通脹是美國(guó)市場(chǎng)機(jī)制的結(jié)構(gòu)性弊病導(dǎo)致的,以及消費(fèi)是否愿意繼續(xù)容忍這種高通脹,目前我們尚不清楚。不過(guò)一旦消費(fèi)者的忍耐到了極限,那么一直追求和縱容漲價(jià)的企業(yè)以及政客,或許都要承受一波民意的強(qiáng)烈反彈。
當(dāng)前這輪漲價(jià)也是有實(shí)際成本的。除了一些自帶波動(dòng)性的大宗商品,有些產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格漲上來(lái)之后,未來(lái)即便供給壓力減輕了,它的價(jià)格也不容易再降下去了,例如一瓶汽水或者一支牙刷。所以從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看,消費(fèi)者將長(zhǎng)期承受更高的價(jià)格。
馬布德說(shuō):“有時(shí)我們談?wù)撏?,就像談?wù)撘粋€(gè)與我們無(wú)關(guān)的問(wèn)題一樣。但事實(shí)上,我們之所以非常關(guān)注通脹問(wèn)題,是因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)我們有實(shí)實(shí)在在的影響。物價(jià)的上漲真的會(huì)給弱勢(shì)群體造成非常非常沉重的打擊?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
You’ve been paying more for stuff for a year now.
From used cars to rent to the price of groceries, inflation set record after record throughout 2021 and came to be widely acknowledged as the worst in 40 years.
There are very real reasons behind why inflation is high, including unusually strong consumer demand at a time when businesses are navigating worker shortages and continuing supply-chain issues. But one nagging question hasn’t been answered yet: Are you getting screwed by companies using inflation as an excuse to raise prices on you?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Biden administration, consumer advocates, and even some economists think so. “The nation is dealing with inflation at its highest level in decades, much of it driven by corporate greed and anticompetitive behavior, and the federal government must use every tool available to prevent price gouging and reduce prices for Americans,” the Massachusetts senator wrote in a letter this month, urging the Department of Justice to take action against companies violating antitrust laws to hike prices for consumers.
Rising prices on food and household items, in particular, are starting to really worry consumers. The average net income margins, or profit margins, of about half of the 28 food and consumer goods manufacturers listed on the Fortune 500 have risen compared to the pre-pandemic levels, according to an analysis performed by Fortune. While those profit margins are up, it’s difficult to say whether or not that’s directly tied to higher prices.
So are these corporations really price gouging? Are they pandemic profiteers? Well, first off, it’s not a settled legal issue, given that there are currently no federal laws against it.
And secondly, the stock market largely loves it, with many investors rewarding public companies for their so-called greed. But the stock market is not the economy, and just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean it’s good. What’s good for investors may be very bad for the American consumer.
What is a healthy profit, anyway?
Let’s clear the air: Making a healthy profit is not the same as price gouging or even unfairly profiting off the pandemic. Nor does simply raising prices constitute price gouging.
“There's this issue of companies that are more profitable now for whatever reason,” Glenn Richey, the chair of the department of supply-chain management at Auburn University’s Harbert College of Business, tells Fortune. That could be a top-line issue where prices have been driven up out of necessity for the business; it also could be due to “opportunistic behaviors” by corporate executives, he says.
In fact, the discussions around companies’ price increases often conflate the idea of profiteering and price gouging, but they’re really two different things, Richey says. Profiteering essentially occurs when a business makes, or seeks to make, an excessive or unfair profit.
Price gouging happens on the consumer level when a seller increases the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Many times this happens after a natural disaster, like a hurricane, when local stores and suppliers jack up the price of necessities.
It’s difficult to pinpoint a lot of price gouging at the corporate level, however, because there are a vast number of factors at play and the manufacturers themselves generally don’t directly set the retail prices. Instead, there’s a suggested retail price that retailers can take or leave. “Just looking at the flat numbers doesn't necessarily tell the whole story,” says Erin Lash, a director of consumer sector equity research for Morningstar.
“Most of the time, historically, when firms have raised prices, they've been very explicit about the fact that this is not to cover the entirety of the costs they're incurring—it's to offset a portion of it,” Lash tells Fortune. Take the case of McCormick & Company, the spice and condiment supplier, which raised their prices in 2021.
“To partially offset rising costs, we raised prices where appropriate last year,” McCormick CEO Lawrence Kurzius said on a January earnings call. “As costs have continued to accelerate, we are raising prices again where appropriate in 2022.”
And not every company has a fatter profit margin after raising prices. Fortune 500 company Kimberly Clark’s CEO Mike Hsu noted during the company’s latest earnings call that the personal goods manufacturer had already implemented “multiple rounds” of “significant pricing actions.”
The prices of its products like Kleenex tissues and Huggies Little Snugglers diapers rose 16.4% and 9.4% respectively over the past year, according to a Datasembly analysis for Fortune. But that didn't help Kimberly Clark’s profit margin, which is at 9.4%, still below pre-pandemic levels, according to Fortune’s analysis.
Price increases
There’s no doubt that U.S. and even international companies have raised prices across the board. Not only are benchmarks like the consumer price index on the rise, the companies themselves are crowing about it.
Companies contend that they have been forced to raise those prices because their own costs have increased so significantly. Mondelez, a Fortune 500–listed snack food and beverage company, announced price increases of 6% to 7% took effect in January. “We have implemented material price increases, ensuring we are significantly hedged across key commodities and we are continuing to drive productivity measures,” Mondelez CEO Dirk Van de Put said during the company’s January earnings call. Van de Put did not rule out additional hikes later in the year.
P&G, meanwhile, said its price increases are meant to offset constrained supply-chain disruptions and even headwinds faced by foreign exchange rates. “We will offset a portion of these cost pressures with price increases and with productivity savings,” Andre Schulten, chief financial officer of P&G, which makes products ranging from razors to diapers to laundry detergent, said on a January earnings call. Schulten noted P&G announced increases across every U.S. product category. The company’s hikes are the largest implemented since the spring of 2019.
Yet P&G reported that sales during its latest quarter ending on Dec. 31 increased 6% compared to the prior year—perhaps fueled, in part, by those price increases.
In fact, many of the biggest food and consumer goods manufacturers have implemented price increases. A review by Datasembly for Fortune of a sampling of national average prices for 18 key products from Fortune 500–ranked consumer goods and food manufacturers January 2021 to 2022 found that 11 products saw inflation-beating price increases.
Companies including JBS, Kellogg, Kimberly-Clark, and Tyson all had products with price jumps that were higher than the 7.5% inflation rate hit in January.
The highest price increase among the products analyzed came from JBS brand Certified Angus Beef’s 8-ounce porterhouse steaks, which spiked nearly 34% over the past year, according to Datasembly. A package of Tyson’s Any’tizers Buffalo-style boneless chicken bites, meanwhile, surged from an average cost of $6.62 in January 2021 to $8.39 last month—a 26.7% increase. By comparison, the January consumer price index for beef and veal rose 16% over the past 12 months, while chicken prices jumped 10.3%.
Some of those same companies also have higher profit margins compared to pre-pandemic levels. Of the 13 foods and consumer goods manufacturers listed on the Fortune 500 that had higher average profit margins in 2021 than in 2019, 11 companies had margin increases that tracked higher than inflation. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re profiteering.
Alcoholic beverage giant Molson Coors and P&G, for example, raised prices on five products that Fortune examined in a way that corresponded with inflation, or even fell below it. Yet Molson Coors and P&G more than doubled their profit margins last year compared to pre-pandemic levels. These higher margins could be due to moving more product or cutting expenses. Or it could be tied to marginally higher prices.
Tyson and JBS also saw significant increases to their profit margins—not the highest seen, true, but still extensive. And as noted earlier, several of their key products saw major price jumps. Kellogg also saw healthy margin growth and above-inflation product price increases.
P&G told Fortune on February 18 that its production costs have simply been higher; the year-over-year increases of commodity and transportation costs have gone up $1.3 billion after taxes over the past two quarters. “These are the largest increases we've seen in about 20 years, and 50% higher than the next highest year,” a spokesperson told Fortune. “Where we need to pass on some costs, we’re pairing those price increases with innovation wherever possible to continue to deliver great value for our consumers.”
The P&G spokesperson said the company’s focus is on “delivering superior products with the best performance, ultimately delivering value to our consumers,” without commenting directly on the higher profit margin.
Molson Coors Beverage and Archer Daniels Midland declined to comment. JBS did not respond to requests for comment.
The struggle is real
Nearly every company is fighting supply-chain bottlenecks, worker shortages, and rising commodity costs—all of which drive up operating budgets and eat into profits, says Linda Montag, a senior vice president in Moody's Investors Service's retail and consumer goods group. And there’s typically a lag between when companies announce price increases and when those increases contribute to the company’s profit margin, if they ever do.
Inflationary headwinds, for example, are credited with creating a four percentage point drag to the 49.11% gross margin P&G reported for the latest earnings quarter. Higher freight costs generated a 0.6 percentage point hit, according to Lash.
The impact of growing global demand and tight supply for commodities on which food manufacturers rely cannot be overstated, says Kellogg spokesperson Kris Bahner. “This is creating record-high prices for ingredients and commodities needed to make and distribute our foods, such as cooking oils, wheat, corn, rice, and paper and cardboard, as well as transportation costs,” Bahner tells Fortune. “Our industry has zero tolerance for illegal and deceptive practices such as price gouging and online scammers.”
“Like so many other products, the factors driving meat prices higher include increased demand, COVID-related supply-chain disruptions, and increased input costs, especially higher energy and labor costs,” Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said last month in a statement.
Additionally grain and oilseed prices, which are used to feed livestock, have been higher in 2021, according to Jayson Lusk, head of the department of agricultural economics at Purdue University. This, in turn, has pushed up the cost of feed for livestock and poultry.
Price increases for chicken, in particular, are “barely” outpacing inflation—even despite major inputs like corn, soybeans, gasoline, packaging, and transportation increasing by double digit costs, adds National Chicken Council spokesman Tom Super. It’s worth noting, again, January chicken prices rose 10.3% over the past 12 months, compared to the overall inflation rate of 7.5%.
"Economists and industry analysts confirm that today’s higher meat prices are a direct result of constrained supplies due to the labor shortage, higher input costs for such things as grain, labor, and fuel, and strong consumer demand," Gary Mickelson, a Tyson spokesperson, said in response to Fortune's questions to the company around higher profit margins and product prices.
“It's not that some companies are raking in the benefits here,” Montag tells Fortune. The companies that are showing better margins right now aren't necessarily always going to do so, Montag says. The upswings, for instance, could be due to companies’ slashing marketing budgets during the pandemic or increased volume. Some companies are still producing and selling goods at a higher rate, which helps to cushion the impact of higher operating costs.
“The inflation is real,” Montag says. Anybody claiming that corporations raising costs right now are doing so to simply gouge people are “nuts,” she adds.
Some argue the system is rigged—and rewarding price hikes
Despite the concerns over pricing changes—or perhaps because of them, the U.S. economy grew 5.7% last year. Could this environment of high demand, lots of job creation, and yes, even high inflation, be what economic growth actually looks like to an America used to 40 years of deflationary globalization? To be sure, it’s still a rebound from the depths of the coronavirus recession, but America hasn’t had a genuine economic boom like this since the mid-20th century, when it last battled high inflation.
But some experts contend that higher prices aren’t a result of healthy economic growth or even making up for rising operating costs, but rather deregulation and a lack of competition.
“If markets were competitive, companies would keep their prices down in order to prevent competitors from grabbing away customers,” Robert Reich, an economist and former Clinton labor secretary, recently wrote on the topic.
Several sectors have been recently called out by the Biden White House for lack of competition that could be helping to drive up costs. Four major meat companies—Cargill, JBS, National Beef Packing, and Tyson—control half or more of the pork, beef, and chicken markets, according to the administration’s talking points. And the Treasury Department recently released a 63-page report highlighting that Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors control about 65% of the U.S. beer market by revenue. Those companies, critics say, are able to raise prices as they’d like because customers don’t have much choice between a host of different brands and products.
“What we've seen over the last few decades is less competition and more concentration that literally holds [the] economy back. And in too many industries, a handful of giant companies dominate the entire market,” Biden said in January.
But Julie Anna Potts, president and CEO of the North American Meat Institute, has pushed back on these claims, saying that the industry is not as concentrated as the Biden administration has portrayed and that the structure has largely remained unchanged for 25 years. "If concentration is causing the recent rise in consumer prices for meat and poultry products, why did concentration not cause inflation five or 10 years ago?" Cargill, JBS, National Beef, and Tyson are all members of the institute but did not comment on the Biden administration's claims specifically to Fortune when asked.
Beer Institute president and CEO Jim McGreevy, meanwhile, called the DOJ report a "mischaracterization of the thriving American beer industry," noting there have been more than 10,000 new breweries permitted since 2010. "Consumers are benefiting from the growing number of brewers and beer importers, with more choices for beer than at any other time in our nation’s history," he said. Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors are members. Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors did not comment about the Biden administrations' claims specifically to Fortune when asked.
Even inside the White House, some economists have objected to the administration's push to blame corporations for inflation, according to a report from the Washington Post.
In fact, there’s “an awful lot of competition” within the food manufacturing and consumer goods space. Not only are many of the companies competing with each other, they’re also going up against private labels, Montag says. Store brands have cornered about 17.7% of the market in dollars and 19.6% in units sold, according to the Private Label Manufacturers Association.
Yet others argue that the price hikes are unjust, including Rakeen Mabud, chief economist for the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive activist group focused on economic issues. Mabud tells Fortune what stands out to her as “deeply unfair” about the current situation is that CEOs and corporate executives are saying they’re able to jack up prices on consumers right now, and Americans don’t have a choice but to continue to pay the higher prices—all while these companies are paying bigger dividends to shareholders.
Giant corporations are making record profits by increasing prices, and CEOs are saying the quiet part out loud: theya€?re happy to help drive inflation.
American families pay higher prices and corporate executives get fatter bonuses. See for yourself what executives are saying:
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) February 15, 2022
“These megacorporations are making bank off of people who are just struggling to keep their heads above water,” Mabud says. “That's unfair. It's unfair, but it's also bad for our economy. Our economy does best when we all do well—not these big corporations.
“There's no doubt that companies are profit-driven. I think there's a real question, in many ways, a moral question, about how much profits are appropriate,” Mabud continues. “What is just very clearly unfair is the fact that investors and shareholders are making money on the backs of consumers right now.”
And public companies are currently being rewarded for trumpeting those price hikes. During the latest earnings season, companies that have touted successful product price increases saw almost immediate gains in their share price, according to a recent Bloomberg report. Chipotle, which heavily focused on its implementation of a 4% price increase in December, had its shares rise 10%. Clorox—which more quietly raised prices—focused more of its earnings call on warning investors that the cleaning supply company could see impacts on its margins for years. It saw its stock dip 14% in the aftermath, Bloomberg reported.
Company after company has announced price increases—and they're being egged on by their investors, Mabud argues. Companies are seeing their profit margins get ever fatter, and so they're hiking prices because it's working and investors are demanding that, she says.
“That's going to perpetuate this problem of profiteering long beyond inflation going away,” Mabud says.
The long-term cost of raising prices
The vast majority of Americans know something is wrong. Nine out of 10 have noticed that the prices on the items they routinely purchase have risen in recent months, according to Harris Poll, and 44% of U.S. adults say inflation is currently their biggest concern.
Consumers, however, are somewhat tolerant of price increases during emergencies, research shows. Less than half of U.S. consumers, for example, thought the price increase in hand sanitizer at the beginning of the pandemic was unfair, according to a recent working paper by Columbia researchers. “Consumer norms about fairness seem pretty flexible. So what people think is fair can be highly context dependent,” coauthor Christopher Buccafusco tells Fortune.
It’s less clear whether consumers are willing to consider there’s something structurally wrong or for how long that tolerance will hold. And if it doesn’t, there could be a huge backlash against both businesses and politicians who let it carry on.
Yet there’s a real cost to these rising prices. With the exception of slightly more volatile commodities, the cost of a can of soda or a toothbrush isn't going to come down that much in the future—even after supply pressures ease. Instead, consumers are going to be stuck with higher prices over the long haul.
“Sometimes we talk about inflation like we care about it for its own sake. We really care about inflation because we care about the way it affects people,” Mabud says. “These price hikes are really, really hitting vulnerable people hard.”