An investigation into egg prices

> Understanding a problem requires a holistic view of the larger system.

It does, but the result is extremely uncomfortable. And the solving it will require actions that are even more uncomfortable.

You have to come to grips with the fact that there are monopolies at every single level. There is no inventory anywhere except bottom. There is no over capacity at any level.

Consequently, supply and demand simply do not work. There is no "excess supply" to use to make extra profit by eating the extra demand. There is no upstart supplier who can absorb the extra demand. The big suppliers can ratchet up prices with zero consequences. What are you gonna do about it?

> it’s scary to me that people lack the skills, the desire or incentives to understand and objectively seek understanding of what’s happening around us especially in highly charged US political landscape.

They don't lack the skills. They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.

> This isn’t like pure scientific pursuit of knowledge but a more practical day to day ability to question, understand and gather new information with the purpose of developing an objective understanding of the world.

you've just described scientific persuit.

Just because the object of said persuit pertains to everyday life, doesn't mean it isn't scientific. The goal of science is to understand truth, and discern it from falsehoods (which might appear true intuitively).

Science isn't about researching niche, or cutting edge things. It's about the method, rigor and ability to change one's mind based on evidence regardless of priors.

> Understanding a problem requires a holistic view of the larger system.

In my experience, people don’t care about systems, they care about outcomes. The world is driven by people who care about outcomes and held together by people who understand systems.

The article you're commenting on states that 115 million egg-laying hens were culled, not 30 million.

And yet, this is the inevitable end-game of unfettered capitalism: to monopolize a market and prevent new entrants so as to eliminate competition and lock-in customers to a single producer that can set prices to whatever they want.

If the orange Cheeto was truly interested in combatting corruption, he would break apart this entire industry clear down to individual factories and processing plants, and implement laws to prevent anyone from ever buying out anyone else. Consolidation would be impossible, only organic growth would still be legal.

Or just put the entire industry under public control by nationalizing the industry. Without investors and CEOs to Hoover up those profits, prices could crater by 80% or more without affecting production or maintenance.

True. Also, as someone with 30 hens which will soon be coming into peak spring production, I look forward to selling my extra eggs at current prices, assuming they don't fall soon. It never fails: when egg prices go up, I get family and friends hitting me up to buy some eggs at $3/dozen; and then when the store prices fall below that, I don't hear from them and I'm feeding the extras to my dogs.

It's funny how some things (real estate) are supposed to keep going up in price, and it's a disaster that requires government intervention if they don't, while for other things (eggs) just the opposite is true. I suppose it depends on who benefits from each.

p.s. It also explains why at my local Pacific Northwest family owned market, there were plenty of $4.99 and $6.99 free range eggs per dozen for sale -- I believe this small chain prefers local suppliers.

That data means that reversing the rule that prevented meat chicken eggs from being sold will have a negligible impact on the crisis:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/national-chicken-council-asks-fda...

It also means this is not going to be a huge impact either:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/turkey-export-15...

That import is 240,000,000 eggs if my math is right. If it is spread over a few months we will barely notice it. If it were achieved in a single month, it might be more noticeable.

I am reasoning mostly based on significant figures. I did not compare historical lows to production figures to try to get an idea of what actual demand is and I assume there is a bit of a smoothing effect that allows a surplus and shortfall in adjacent months to cancel.

Here's a chart of the egg production from the data you found (Jan 2013 to Jan 2025). [1]

Added 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order curve fits to give an idea of the general trends in production.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/OikRTHL.png

> start pumping up the prices again

what stops new entrants from reaping this price rise? Your monopoly would have to prevent new entrants from even starting. That would be where monopoly laws come into effect.

Did you read the linked evidence that the "animal welfare" program was fake? What part of it did you interpret as fake? What evidence supports your conclusion that this is an example of "propaganda for nefarious purposes"?

I agree with the description in the linked document - defendants presented "substantial evidence that grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards", companies like McDonald's, Walmart, and Kroger demanded or required the animal welfare standards, the program was developed with input from a "Scientific Advisory Committee" of experts in animal reproductive welfare, and there was pressure from animal-rights groups and consumers for better treatment of hens.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.26...

> For their part, Defendants argued at trial that the UEP Certified Program was a bona fide effort to satisfy customer demand. In Defendants’ view, the UEP Certified Program was a natural response to pressure from animal-welfare groups, buyers, and end consumers. According to Defendants, they felt pressure to make life better for hens.

> In that vein, Defendants presented substantial evidence that the grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards. So did consumers. And so did animal-rights groups.

> For example, before adoption of the UEP Certified Program, Cal-Maine lost McDonald’s as a customer after McDonald’s demanded producers expand the size of cages for their hens. See Defs.’ Ex. 182. And within a few years of the creation of the UEP Certified Program, grocery chains like Walmart and Kroger would purchase eggs only from UEP Certified producers. See Defs.’ Exs. 329, 374, 639.

> According to Defendants, they were simply responding to market demand when they implemented the cage-space restrictions in the UEP Certified Program. The jury heard evidence that the UEP Certified Program was a legitimate animal-welfare program. Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the UEP created the standard after following the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Committee.

> That Committee consisted of an all-star team. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3085:25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong) (“I was very, very pleased. We put our dream team together.”). It was chaired by a leader in the field, Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, who has degrees in physiology, and specializes in the reproductive physiology of farm animals. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3074:19-25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong). Reproductive physiology of farm animals is what it sounds like – how animal reproduction works. Id. at 3075:1-10.

> In sum, the jury learned about the UEP Certified program, and about its standards. And the jury heard dueling views about the purpose of the program.

> Again, Plaintiffs alleged that the UEP Certified Program was a backdoor way to restrict supply. Plaintiffs told the jury that the program required the birds to have more space. More space equals fewer hens in each cage. And fewer hens means fewer eggs.

So in your view, potential monopolistic price fixing is not a concern as long as the absolute per-unit numbers are relatively low?

By that logic, we’d probably still be paying double-digit cents per minute for long distance calls. (Less than a dollar - a small price to pay to talk to your loved ones across the country!)

How is it under $1.00 for a two-egg meal when I'm lucky to find them even at $6.00/dozen?

$1 for 8g of protein?

Tuna/sardines are a bargain by that measure.

160 calories isn't much of a meal.

If anything, there is a shortage of eggs (some stores near me have run out), which means prices should be higher not lower.

The executive branch is currently being gutted?

Have no idea why this was downvoted.

>from serious outlets about how price gouging won't work

I think you meant to say "price freezes", "anti-gouging regulation" or similar.

5 dozen lucerne eggs is $50 here in SF at Safeway, as of this morny. A few weeks to a month ago, I recall it being $5-$6 for one dozen.