This video speaks volumes. I have long held that greed is one of the great motivators in the world. The love of money makes people do things that hurt others. If you trust a company and find that the only reason they were doing things was because of the company’s sole purpose of business was the love of money instead of wanting to help people… what would you do?

Would you rather have a company raise the price and decrease the size of the product they are selling or just increase the price?

Prices have increased not only because of the price of materials to make the products but to increase the profits. In some cases this has amounted to nothing more than greed. As the prices have increased the size of the products have decreased. Finding ice cream that is sold in a half gallon container or a five-pound bag of sugar is akin to winning the grocery lottery.

Today, I saw a half liter bottle of balsamic vinegar selling for 2.29. The liter bottle used to sell for $3.99. Buying two would mean for the same amount there is a price increase of 15%.

No one really wants price increases but reducing the volume of products also contributes to waste if you need a certain amount for a recipe or family’s needs. If you have to buy a larger container or a multiple smaller ones to get the amount you need, then there is the chance that some might be wasted.

Toilet paper rolls have been shrinking as the price remains the same. Some things that we cannot live without such as food and personal hygiene items are being sold in packages that are more “profit friendly” for companies yet take more out of the consumer’s bottom line.

My preference would be to have the product size remain the same and increase the price moderately. When you have grown accustomed to a certain size and know how long it will take you to use an item, only to have the size reduced by 20% it seems like a crime. When the price stays the same, but there is less in the package, this is still a price increase, subtle yet still an increase. For some items you just can’t make do – while eating less may work for your waistline – using fewer personal hygiene products may not be good for your social life.

The researchers found that shoplifting — or what’s euphemistically known as product “shrinkage” — jumped 5.9% in the past year at the more than 1,000 retail chains the group surveyed globally. In previous years, the increase hovered at 1.5% annually. Though the problem was documented across all regions, the steepest increases occurred in North America (8.1%), the Middle East (7.5%) and Europe (4.7%). In terms of total losses, retailers in North America topped the charts at $46 billion, followed by Europe’s $44 billion and $17.9 billion in the Asia-Pacific region. In North America and Latin America, store owners and employees were the leading pilferers; in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, it was customers who were swiping the most loot.

Reports have recently noted that crime has not dramatically increased because of the recession. For those who don’t think that stealing from an employer is theft, then they need to realize that retail theft is still theft just as stealing office supplies or not doing any work while at work.

The study shows that there has been an increase of people stealing items, not that they need, but just things that they want. Basically, this is not Jean Valjean from Hugo’s Les Miserables stealing because of hunger. These are people who are stealing out of greed. Businesses pass these costs along to the shoppers at an average of $436 to the US consumer and $250 to European consumers.

If you can’t afford it, then don’t buy it or steal it.

The president’s speech about the economy spoke volumes to regular Americans but did nothing for Wall Street. The markets are still down though people are anxious and ready for improvement.

“There’s a lot of nervousness,” said Terry L. Morris, senior equity manager at National Penn Investors Trust. “It’s a tug-of-war between the news that’s out there and the fact that the market has already gotten pounded.”

“I think the market is cheap where it is, but it seems to want to get cheaper,” he said. 

There is a shakeup going on in the market. People are doing what they want to do by spending less, not making major purchases, because they are scared. Scared that they will not have a job, and unable to get the credit they formerly did. It is not easy to do what you wanted to do without money or dwindling assets.

Ben Bernanke suggests that bad borrowers should be bailed out as well. Though I disagree with his suggestion that those who took out loans that they couldn’t afford, though they are a drain on the economy, should be assisted.

“Some borrowers presumably knew what they were getting into,” Bernanke said before the House Financial Services Committee. “But from a public policy point of view, the large amount of foreclosures are detrimental not just to the borrower and lender but to the broader system.”

On the other hand, those who could afford to repay a loan but faced some sort of difficulty along the way, such as a job loss or health issue then definitely help those who want to repay their loans. The people who were unable to repay and were high risk  borrowers should not have received loans in the first place.

As Bernanke says that foreclosures are detrimental to the broader system, this is true, but the system needs a shakeup and greater accountability on an individual lending level. If a person says they make a certain amount of money, can’t verify it and regardless of their poise, charm and wit, if they can’t repay, they shouldn’t receive a loan. Of course now we know that greed and common sense are diametrically opposed so it is a challenge for people to be responsible. If the government bails out people who took out loans that they knew they couldn’t repay or had no proof of being able to repay then this would just be rewarding bad behavior. Large corporations are being chastised for using government money unwisely, so why should individuals be held to a different standard?

The only people affected by plummeting real estate prices are the ones who bought a house that cost more than they could afford, hoping for a spike in value so they could sell at a profit or take out a new loan based on an increased value. Their home wasn’t just a place to live; it was an investment they thought they could liquefy at will. If we’re saving these poor souls from the 26.7% drop in their investment, we should give twice as much aid to everyone who has lost approximately 50% in the stock market since its peak.

Barrels of oil are now less than half the price of their highs. Currently trading at just over $69, this will give people some leeway in their budgets because the lower prices are finally trickling down to the consumer.  

But before you get too happy, read this.

An Iraqi official says Iraq believes that the $100 a barrel is a “fair and acceptable” oil price for both producers and consumers.

Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad says that if crude prices continue to fluctuate, OPEC will cut its production.

That’s right. Oil producers are losing money and definitely want to recoup some of their losses by cutting production. Even if oil increased slightly to $75 a barrel, oil consumption globally has decreased because of the economic crises.

The rescue plan has cut everyone’s investment gains, worldwide. Oil producing countries just don’t want to have to take their cut for the team like the rest of the world’s citizens. Also since people are unsure whether or not the prices will remain low, or if they will be able to have money to use for other things, consuming gasoline through driving or nonessential trips have taken a backseat while people try to pay for essentials like food and housing.

Looking at other commodities, at about 12:30 (CST, 10-16-2008) the only ones that were in positive territory were natural, gas, live cattle and feeder cattle. The only one that showed any gains of note were the feeder cattle up by 98 cents.

Spend within your means and hold tight.  Governments are now having to do this, but greed may have finally met its match.