Canson Price Increase is Disturbing to Say the Least

[Alan Goldhammer]

To believe that the Federal Reserve can issue trillions of dollars worth of dollars into the market, putting trillions of dollars worth of debt on the books and it have no impact it to be totally naive.  If the Fed can't accurately set the price of a gallon of milk, to believe they can accurately set the price of money it equally naive.

The Fed neither sets the price of milk nor the price of money.  A US dollar is a US dollar and the only price of money is when you go out on the Foreign Exchange that things begin to vary.  It's a good time to go to Europe these days as the Euro has dropped like a dead weight because of their misguided austerity programs (and the ECB is not embarking on their own QE program albeit too late).

[dwswager]

As for Canson pricing, the art paper market is not perfectly competitive, that is firms have pricing power. Still, (in a simple model) a fall in the marginal cost of production should lead to a fall in price, all things equal. My guess is, Canson is seeing an increase in demand, and decided to raise prices.

There are host of reasons that a producer might raise prices.  I did a survey of 24" rolls just a week or so ago.

It's not about believing. It's about facts. And those are pretty simple: there has not been an increase in inflation. Don't believe the official figures? Fine. How about this: http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/ ?

This data is scraped from online.  Basically look at housing, food, energy, transportation and healthcare.  That is the non-discretionary side.  We have benefited greatly from production efficiencies that have held down the price of discretionary goods, especially electronics.  Which, by the way, is how the Fed missed the crash that led to the Great Depression.  They missed that production efficiency was making great rises in material and labor costs.

[hugowolf]

Please, go somewhere else. I am sure there are right wing forums elsewhere. This is a Printing, Papers, and Inks forum.

Brian A

[Geraldo Garcia]

This sounds just like a marketing person.  Were this true it argues that they have something wrong with the paper making process.  Personally from a physico-chemical point of view I doubt this explanation.

Hi Allan,

It is true, actually, and Hahnemühle agrees. The only difference is that Hahnemühle says it is old news and everybody does add gluing agents (like potato starch) to the paper base because of that, while Canson says their method is way better and more effective. I can see no flaw on the reason behind this explanation and, I must add, Canson papers are indeed way better on this regard, so I have no reason to discredit them.

[deanwork]

And what the lord giveth the lord can take away.


-------------
My guess is, Canson is seeing an increase in demand, and decided to raise prices.

[dwswager]

Please, go somewhere else. I am sure there are right wing forums elsewhere. This is a Printing, Papers, and Inks forum.

Brian A

Considering the original post concerned the price increases of a particular Canson Infinity paper, every single post in this thread was both civil and, in at least some way, germane...except yours which quite frankly, was just childish.

The Fed sets the price of money...they are called interest rates and affect the price of everything else.

Given the historical relationship I have seen between Canson and Hahnemuhle papers, it appears there might be something unique going on with the Rag Photographique. 

[AFairley]

Not sure where you live, but in the U.S. we have experienced tremendous inflation over the last decade.  Federal Reserve monetary policy coupled with $1.4 Trillion budget deficits have been killing us.  Anyone remember when $400 Billion deficits got people outraged?

As to the price of a particular paper, you either pay it or choose an alternative.  Doesn't mean you have to like it, but that is the way the world works.  The good part is we have an abundance of excellent alternatives in almost every paper category.  44"x50' rolls of Epson Hot/Cold Press Bright/Natural are like $203 at B&H.  About $150 cheaper than Canson Infinity Rag Photographique 310 gsm!  Or use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Red River, Moab, Museo alternatives!

Tremendous inflation?  I think your ideology is blinding you to the facts.  In the last decade, the highest average yearly rate was 3.8%.  Last year it was 1.6.  The annual average for the decade was 2.1.  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/  Sheesh.

[mstevensphoto]

Back when Hahnemuhle raised their prices a few years ago they stated that the cost of producing cotton had increased due to higher energy costs. That was probably true and appropriate. I don't see what Canson's excuse is.

Canson doesn't need an excuse to charge more. Perhaps they want to make more money? The thing about luxury products and services is that you charge what you want to make and something is only ever worth what you can get someone to pay. You are not entitled to their products at a rate you've paid simply by virtue of having paid that in the past. Nor are you entitled to any particular price level, that's just not in the whole life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. What's your excuse for charging more? would you be incredulous if your customers said "how dare you raise prices, what's your excuse?"

It's cost of doing business. if you want to use the product put the new price in your calculations and change your prices or margins accordingly.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Hi Allan,

It is true, actually, and Hahnemühle agrees. The only difference is that Hahnemühle says it is old news and everybody does add gluing agents (like potato starch) to the paper base because of that, while Canson says their method is way better and more effective. I can see no flaw on the reason behind this explanation and, I must add, Canson papers are indeed way better on this regard, so I have no reason to discredit them.

Thanks for the clarification but even so they should have appropriate processes in place that make flaking a very rare event.  I've not seen this happening in anything that I've printed and I've used mainly Museo papers with some Hahnemuhle and the old IGFS.

[dwswager]

Tremendous inflation?  I think your ideology is blinding you to the facts.  In the last decade, the highest average yearly rate was 3.8%.  Last year it was 1.6.  The annual average for the decade was 2.1.  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/  Sheesh.

The link you provided uses the U.S. CPI for which the calculation method has changed numerous times over the decades.  Using the current formula, the inflation of the 1970s doesn't look bad at all.  Try calculating inflation using Housing, food, energy, transportation and healthcare.  I'ts like using the DxOmark sensor rating number without understanding the data and assumptions on which it is based.

Inflation numbers Current method versus pre-1980 method:


Does anyone remember the riots over the price of corn a few year ago?

[Alan Goldhammer]

@dwswager - ShadowStats has been debunked more times than Bill O'Reilly's war stories.  If you are really serious about analyzing inflation or any other financial parameter from the US Government it's really quite easy.  Just visit the FRED Database site that is run by the St. Louis Fed and get your Excel program set up for it.  You can slice and dice data in a lot of different ways over varying periods of time.  

EDIT:  Here is a good critique of ShadowStats and other delusional inflationistas.  Interesting that ShadowStats subscription price is higher than Adobe's CC photography package.  Wow, that's a real outrage.

[howardm]

Can we get back to printing? 

[dwswager]

@dwswager - ShadowStats has been debunked more times than Bill O'Reilly's war stories.  If you are really serious about analyzing inflation or any other financial parameter from the US Government it's really quite easy.  Just visit the FRED Database site that is run by the St. Louis Fed and get your Excel program set up for it.  You can slice and dice data in a lot of different ways over varying periods of time.  

EDIT:  Here is a good critique of ShadowStats and other delusional inflationistas.  Interesting that ShadowStats subscription price is higher than Adobe's CC photography package.  Wow, that's a real outrage.

All the graph shows is the 2 figures for Inflation:  one using the pre-1980 model the government used and one showing the current model.  Nothing to debunk.  One can argue which model is more representative of an overall macro scale, but in reality neither of them are on a micro scale.  

The Washington post article discusses 3 points.  First point basically makes the case the government makes for changing the model (substitution of quality and quantity).  Basically an Ipad air, because it has new technology and features at the same price as the iPad 1 not only counts as zero inflation, but because of 'quality' substitution it counts as deflation!  And the argument leaves out the fact that discretionary goods occupy a larger percentage of the CPI.  Good for me and the upper quintiles, but for the lower quintile earners, who spend the bulk of their income on non-discretionary goods it becomes totally unrepresentative.

The 2nd point uses an online scraping model to validate the CPI.  Not many people I know buy housing, food, healthcare, transportation, and energy online.  I'm Amazon prime for years and buy shit loads from them and B&H and the vast bulk of my spending is still the old fashion way.  BTW, I live in a 3600 SQFT all brick house in the city with the highest median income in the entire south!  We have the 2nd highest concentration of PhD's in the country (2nd to silicon valley) and the 2nd largest research park next to the triangle in North Carolina.  We know all about discretionary spending!

The 3rd point is to assume Shadow stats is bogus because if you use the pre-1980 models for inflation and the current models for Okuns Law it doesn't fit.  Nobody is saying that the level of discretionary spending hasn't boomed and the GDP that supports that production.   I make a decent chunk of my income in the stock market.  I know what sectors are doing well and which aren't.  What the data shows is that basic necessities have gotten expensive over time while consumer electronics has not.

This is my last post on this topic as most think I'm trying to bad mouth someone or another.  At the end of the day, you can believe that a single number somehow represents the state of the economy, no matter how it's calculation has changed over the years or you can look deeper into the data and figure out how it really impacts you.

Oh, and as a student of economics, I believe like W. Edwards Demming did with quality, some numbers are unknown and unknowable so trying to CALCULATE based on some estimated average is chasing your tail.  Just punch in different area codes in gas buddy and try 'estimating' a price of gasoline over time and location to use in your calculations while propagating the uncertainty in your model and data.  The uncertainty overwhelms the data!  I know, I used to do Probablistic Risk Analysis for commercial power reactors!