It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'I Can't Eat an iPad'

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:51 PM
The New York Fed President, William Dudley, just got a street corner education in the cost of living.

The former Goldman Sachs chief economist gave a speech explaining the economy's progress and the Fed's successes, but come question time the main thing the crowd wanted to know was why they're paying so much more for food and gas.

Mr. Dudley tried to explain that other prices are falling. "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said. "You have to look at the prices of all things."

Reuters reports that this "prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience," with someone quipping, "I can't eat an iPad."

It's sickening, the way that Federal Reserve tries to justify its policies to the American people while, oh by the way, excluding gas and food prices from them because they 'don't matter."

More here

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
Recurring costs are rising. Ipad is an one off, food gas water you have to buy over and over.

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Cassius666
Recurring costs are rising. Ipad is an one off, food gas water you have to buy over and over.


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:18 PM
Not to mention the marketing department informed Apple what the price point would be for an iPad for maximum sales for the maximum profit. If marketing thought that the sales would have been enough at $550 or $600 to reach the target goals, guess what the price would have been?

$500 for the low end iPad is what the market would bear, therefore $500 is the price tag. Had they thought that the iPad1 had too much saturation then the iPad2 would have been priced at say $475 to move units at the desired rate.

Food and Gas are commodities and as such are at the whim of speculation as well as supply and demand. If for some reason, US unemployment rose to a stated 20% and gas supply infrastructure was unaffected to the point supply overshadowed demand, the price would lower significantly. That is until production output of refining was lowered to maintain the level of supply on pace with demand.

Which is partially why the price of gas dropped significantly at the end of Bush's presidency and has steadily rose during Obama's. The reduction of production finally balanced to compensate for the spike in unemployment during 2008-2009.

As for food prices, the rising costs are mostly due to the cost of fuel as everything is shipped. Transportation as well as profit margins for the growers (to keep pace with increase costs of living) demand higher prices which are passed to the end consumer at the grocery stores.

But the ultimate problem is the value of a dollar is what they say the value of a dollar is. The controllers of that value are too manipulated by the rich (which include themselves) that have the ultimate desire to at a minimum hold their level of wealth (if not improve upon it). The situation is wholly unconstitutional as Congress (which is placed by vote of the people) is supposed to set the value of the dollar, not the governors and board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

In other words, the absolute problem is that value is not determined by the people as a whole, but by the select few that have appointed themselves that sole power. Which makes it hard to control your own destiny when you have no say as to what your wealth is or can become. And by that I mean, you could be the next Tesla when it comes to inventions, but good luck capitalizing on that fortune.

But that is just my two cents on the subject.

new topics

top topics

log in