Montgomery Today

Here's a puzzle that might surprise you: while you're probably paying more at the pump than your parents did, you're actually getting a better deal at the grocery store than any generation in history. A fascinating new analysis of 124 commodities over the past century reveals a striking split in how different essentials have evolved. Of 25 major crops studied, 24 are cheaper today than they were historically—and we're not talking small changes. Half of these food staples have dropped by more than 50% in real terms. Meanwhile, fossil fuels tell the opposite story, trending consistently more expensive over time. This isn't just about recent gas price spikes or supply chain hiccups—it's a fundamental difference in how food and energy markets operate. The research, conducted by construction economist Brian Potter, suggests entirely different forces drive these two essential categories. Food benefits from technological advances, improved farming techniques, and economies of scale that keep pushing costs down. Energy, however, faces the reality of finite resources and increasingly expensive extraction methods. For families trying to balance budgets, this data offers both good news and challenges. Your grocery dollar stretches further than ever, but transportation and heating costs continue climbing. Understanding these long-term trends can help consumers make smarter decisions about everything from where to live to what career paths might weather economic changes best.

Picture this: A government wants to attract foreign investment, so they promise never to seize foreign-owned assets. Sounds good, right? But economists will shake their heads and mutter about "credibility problems" – the idea that investors won't believe the promise because governments can always change their minds later. Economist Bryan Caplan argues this conventional wisdom is dead wrong. The real reason brilliant policy reforms never see daylight isn't because they lack credibility – it's because most people, including the politicians who represent them, genuinely hate these ideas. Take that foreign investment example. If a country really wanted to attract investors, Caplan suggests they'd go all-in: give loud speeches praising foreign capital, create oversight boards run by foreign corporations, even let them overrule national laws. "These guys sound like they're for real," investors might think, giving the strategy maybe a 10% chance of working. But no government tries this approach. Why? "Because most leaders would rather attract no foreign investment than humiliate themselves," Caplan explains. The same pattern holds for immigration reform, Social Security changes, and other "awesome yet unlikely" policies. The exception? Boring, technical issues like monetary policy, where emotions don't run high and credibility actually matters. For everything else, it's not about trust – it's about what people fundamentally want.