[OGWhales]

> Demand for cheerios is elastic- people can substitute by buying oatmeal. Demand for salmon fillets is elastic- people can substitute by buying tuna, beef, beans, tofu, etc.... for just about any given food item there are substitutes to provide similar high quality nutrition.

This would be a good argument but I feel it’s undermined by the heavy consolidation in the food market, no? If the same company is selling each product, then it doesn’t matter as much if a consumer switches between them

I agree with the rest of what you said. I certainly don’t know how to prove which is more relevant but I believe the supply shock and excess money played the largest role, however I think it’s wrong to dismiss either as both seem to be at play.

[s1artibartfast]

It matters even in a Consolidated Market. The cost of a thousand calories of steak is different than the cost of a thousand calories of dried beans.

Just because the cost of dry beans has gone up 10% doesn't mean that you can't save money by eating them instead of beef.

If customers don't switch to beans despite high prices for steak, it tells you something about the demand for beef relative to the cost sensitivity of customers.

[danaris]

Ah, yes: because people who have limited disposable income were making up most of their calories with steaks...and because everyone who was buying steaks will be going aaaaalll the way to replacing them with dried beans.

Rather than people with limited disposable income already buying cheaper foods, and when those get more expensive, just having to buy less.

And, once again, for many, many things, the company that sells the steaks is owned by the same conglomerate as the company that sells the beans, and they're raising the prices in lockstep.