- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Because this isn’t a strong economy…
The rich are making money, but they’re just hoarding it
So amount of money in circulation keeps decreasing, and prices keep increasing because in capitalism if a company isnt increasing profit margins, the stock price isn’t going up. And they finally figured out calling corporate greed “inflation” means around 2/3s of the country will accept it
Either we drastically raise taxes soon, or shits about to get really really bad.
Very few people will just sit back and calmly starve to death
deleted by creator
Yep. There’s a whole fucking lot of us.
Totally unrelated, but I’ve been teaching my friends to shoot and how to handle weapons. Also how to homestead your backyard. I pray those remain hobbies but I think im gonna live too long for that to remain true.
The number of people I know in this state (myself included) has only grown in the last year.
The 2/3 of the country can generally be fooled to believe anything.
However, just raising taxes in this case may have some similarity to extinguishing fire with a burnable substance.
You have to raise some taxes (say, on realty ownership, and some other possessions, and in general discourage possession of wealth without circulation) and lower some other taxes (say, anything taxing a transaction, I’m really not familiar with the way taxes work in USA, but in Russia plenty of taxes in hard numbers simply discourage economic activity). The goal should be increasing the actual inflation (not a good or bad thing per se). That’s if you are right about the cause, which I’m in doubt about TBF.
In the US income taxes are different at different income levels and corporate taxes are separate entirely. We can absolutely raise taxes without raising them on lower income people.
And yes several studies over the last couple decades have shown that US money is going up and not coming back down.
Differentiating income levels is another thing.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
That’s trickle down. You just described what we’ve been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that’s happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don’t create more jobs. They don’t pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven’t paid attention to a single word except for the “lowering taxes” parts.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
The amount of money in circulation isn’t decreasing though. Wages have increased more than inflation, almost every month in the last year. Especially for median wage/salaries.
When they say strong economy they are talking about spending, jobs etc.
The answer is in the first few sentences:
Housing crisis
The recent increase in wages isn’t even a patch on the vacuum the wealthy are using. If that was even remotely true then we wouldn’t be seeing this article.
If that was even remotely true then we wouldn’t be seeing this articlle
Did you read the article? Because it explains why
Short term holding - link
Long term holding - link
From the article - Food is up 25 percent along with rising rent and utilities.
I’m not sure you understand what economists mean by circulation. Money is going up and not coming back down. It has been doing this for decades. The more money that gets trapped at the top and put into the stock market means less money for the working class as a whole. While that sounds like some commie shit, it’s really not. Because the working class is the major demand generator in a capitalist economy. Economists want to see that money making the rounds through the entire economy because anyone left out of circulation will impact demand over the long term (and by the time it’s a short term problem you’re looking at a demand crisis which usually results in pitchforks).
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic. That’s why the two words are the same. But other necessities are often seen in history as well, including food and utilities as also mentioned in the article. This is relevant because the world recently figured out that the inflation of the last couple years was actually greed and not cost push. They literally just figured out they could use it as an excuse to raise prices well beyond what was necessary. Of course that’s not a surprise to anyone who listened to CEOs publicly telling their stockholders they were doing it.
So when you assert that it’s not a problem with circulation because rent went up. I have questions about you understanding the economic meaning of those words. The primary means of rent seeking behavior have gone up and wages already were not keeping up. Nobody cares if wages beat inflation last month. We need them to beat decades worth of inflation and stagnant wages. We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches who did nothing more than raise prices and pay their workers less.
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic.
Just an FYI, you’re using all of these terms incorrectly.
We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches
And your lack of understanding is why you say silly things like this.
Perhaps don’t go on at length as if you know about a topic when your only exposure to said topic is internet forums.
Hey NBC, an economy that’s not providing the basic necessities for working families is not a strong economy. No matter what the pretty graph says.
iT’s NoT a ReCeSsIoN (because we don’t like you having a word to call it, so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish)
The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It’s holistic, not a firm science and it’s like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to “stable”. There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it’s like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It’s weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it’s certainly something new that couldn’t have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it’s definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them… They are in a recession. My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition. It’s truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn’t have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain’t it. And thinking it’s a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
It’s strong for the people who matter.
Not if it keeps going like this. The rich will find out really quickly that they have nothing more than funny bits of colored paper and a gentleman’s agreement with a Bank’s internet server. Strong economies start from the bottom up and die from the bottom up. Catering to the top has always been a recipe for disaster.
A strong stock market is not a strong economy. The economy is the flow of money exchanging hands, which is down because people are paid less than ever compared to the cost of living. This leads to starvation.
Hahaha, if you think the stock market is strong at the moment you haven’t been paying attention. I would recommend spending a little time looking into what happened with gamestop in Jan 21 and why.
Same reason I hate it when the housing market is described at “strong” in Australia? In what way? Is the market providing housing for all who need it? No?
Then it’s weak and I’ll have none of this “strong” housing market bullshit.
The housing market being strong means homes are selling. Homes selling means prices rising.
I know what they mean, I just think it ought not to be used, it’s a euphemism.
It’s not a euphemism, you’re just not the person benefiting from the strong market because you are not currently a homeowner.
It’s not benefitting anyone who buys a house (me included…) to live in either, only those who will sell for a profit.
We’re tying up money where it provides no value beyond the actual utility of the house (what it costs to build, maintain, the location etc).
It would be much better if that money were invested in businesses, which actually provide value to society.
Instead, we’re stuck with literal decades of debt, or stupidly high rent.
It abosultely is a euphemism for the vast majority (including home owners).
It’s not a euphemism because it is describing actual, literal market conditions. You won’t benefit from every strong market. Business owners do not benefit from a strong labor market. Freight brokers do not benefit from a strong driver market.
Tight and loose markets are a pretty basic concept man. There’s no language wizardry going on here.
That’s capitalism working exactly as expected.
It’s a strong hoarding economy, the rich and ultra-rich are hoarding wealth and companies are raising prices for everyone else to feed their insatiable demands for profit. There’s nothing strong about this economy for the majority of people.
As we all know, the word “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
Nice ‘economy’ you got there. Be a shame if this Dewalt cordless drill with 40mm carbide holesaw happened to it.
Glad people are starting to wake up to this.
The economy isn’t strong, for one. Rich people getting richer isn’t indicative of a healthy economy. The entire working class can barely afford their god damned groceries, 40 hours a week isn’t even enough to live on for most people.
The economy is dogshit right now. Fuck these corpo ghouls.
The economy is dogshit right now.
It’s not so much the economy that’s dog shit as it is the policies regulating the economy that are dog shit. Better redistribution of wealth would go a long way to alleviate the economic inequality of the US economy.
Of course, that would require implementing policies that many, especially conservatives, are not willing to implement.
Utilities have also been on the rise, and this year Ortigoza isn’t planning on turning on the home’s heater, even with temperatures dipping into the 30s at night. Instead, she plans to wear extra clothes around the house and bundle her daughter in blankets.
I just want to say… Don’t do that.
If you want burst water pipes, then that is how you do it.
Instead, let your house drop to uncomfortably cold temperatures, but with still a buffer above freezing. The thermostat is only accurate for wherever it’s placed in the house. It’s not able to tell you what temperature your pipes are at the distant ends of the house.
If you’re going to turn the heat off at below freezing, then you need to empty your pipes first, and no one is going to do that.
But yeah… I felt I needed to get that out of the way first.
Anyway, wages and unemployment are getting ‘better’, but that means very little if it’s still not a living wage.
Strong for who? The rich?
Because trickle down economy unsurprisingly doesn’t work. Good question tho.
In a household of four with two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt), we are at the point that the food budget is the only thing left to cut. We have canceled any subscriptions, cut all other spending, and often skip lunch/breakfast or eat Ramen noodles to save the bulk of our money for the kids and feed them better. I’m sick of beans and rice, BTW. Due to the nature of our jobs and the outside of school hours (which we are compensated for), side hustle is not an option. We would like to actually be present and part of our kids lives. I keep getting told “it gets better,” but the stress of making the bills and feeding the family is relentless, and that says a lot since we are way more fortunate than most. We need change.
“It gets better” is just a bullshit comment to keep you complacent. It doesn’t get better unless we make it better.
two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt)
Sorry but they counts as one income tops. It’s shameful how little teachers are paid. I hope you and your family find a better situation somehow.
There is often change. But it never gets better. It has never gotten better and it never will.
factually inaccurate. look man, I’m a cynic, but saying the New Deal didn’t improve people’s lives is bullshit.
Almost everything is better for almost everybody now compared to 100 years ago. It obviously requires systematic efforts and economic growth, but it’s just as obviously possible.
You mean how can some people barely survive while others have millions or even, wtf, billions? NBCnews? That’s your question?
Boy that’s a question right there NBCnews. Yessir a real head-scratcher. Hmm! Boy howdy, the mind reels at what could be the cause of such a huge imbalance in our society. I suppose we’ll just never FUCKING KNOW.
Hey, at least some of us get an office pizza party.
Back to work.
We were over at my mother’s yesterday and we were talking about grocery prices and my mother asked my wife how much we paid for milk and my wife says she doesn’t look, because it doesn’t matter when we need milk regardless. I don’t look either. It’s the same with gas prices. I hear they’ve gone way down, but I’ve honestly stopped looking. What difference does it make what a gallon of gas costs when I need that gallon no matter what it costs?
I like to pay attention though so you can see firsthand how bad things are getting. I remember selling shoes to old people and all the employees would joke that they all had no sane grip on the fact that prices go up. They’d say at 80 years old, well when I was 30 that used to be $X thats way too high of a price! Its funny though because we will never experience that. We are used to it being this way year to year much less 30 or 40 years from now. So much so that some people dont even check the price anymore, we just know its higher than it used to be automatically. It’s sad.
You don’t need milk. You do need gas though.
We don’t “need” milk in the sense that it is not necessary for our survival. We need milk in order to keep eating and drinking the things we enjoy eating and drinking. And I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect milk in your tea and your cereal.
No, you do need milk. Don’t let the capitalist propaganda engine tell you that comfort and contentment are not necessary for life. To even insinuate that having milk to put on cereal or in tea is some sort of luxury or indulgence that you should be able to cut out is lunacy. Human beings need comfort as much as we need socialization for emotional and mental maintenance. We need fun and enjoyment. That is why even in modern hunter-gatherer tribes the workload is less than half of ours and they all have full bellies and spend the rest of their time pursuing leisure activities and spending time with their family/community.
(not accusing the person you are replying to, they are a victim too)
I don’t disagree with you at all. I was sort of trying to say that myself but you put it much better than I did. I can live without any comfort if it means that or death, but it sure would take a toll on me. That’s why solitary confinement is such torture.
It’s not about comfort. Humans need calcium, lactose, various bacteria to not, eh, have reduced mobility conditioned by the toilet always being nearby, and so on.
Capitalist propaganda engine? Do you hear yourself? Say those words out loud and tell me your not a looney conspiracy theorist. What propaganda? XD
Is it propaganda to say most mammals do not keep drinking milk after they’re babies? Is it also propaganda to say things like broccoli, kale, nuts and seeds are calcium alternatives? Is it propaganda that the vitamin D can be obtained from fish, sunlight, and liver? Explain what this propaganda machine is. 🤡
I wish we were on Reddit so I could /r/woosh you. Did you even read the comment? The comment has literally nothing to do with the milk. I also acknowledged that you weren’t some asshat shill, but perhaps I was too forgiving.
You talked about milk for most of the comment. Also, people on Lemmy unironically talk like you did so I assumed you were one of those “capitalism is the reason for every bad thing” kind of people.
I indicated that the idea that something trivial being considered a luxury or indulgence that could be eliminated was asinine, milk happened to be the pertinent example in the discussion. Everyone else seemed to get that.
Also, most people seem to understand what about our world is propaganda. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I’m making no judgements, just wondering.
Not every bad thing. Capitalism has its place, but the extent to which most of the populace idolizes it is unreasonable. My economic philosophy is what is known as Moral Capitalism. Essentially, make money, but don’t do it at the expense or detriment of people or the environment. Don’t abuse employees, don’t abuse customers, don’t abuse the community, don’t abuse the planet. And I am using the dictionary definition of abuse here: to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. We the public are offended by the number of ads we have shoved down our throats every day. We the employees are harmed by the stress that unrealistic deadlines and low wages cause. We the community are injured by the manipulation of legislation such that we are not allowed to protect ourselves from predatory and aggressive contracts that we are forced to sign every day that we have no choice in if we want to continue functioning in society.
And there is 100% a propaganda machine operating in the foreground of our world that is acting on behalf if the amoral capitalist institutions that are in control of everything. Republicans, marketing, PR. Articles being posted telling poor people that if they are struggling to make ends meet they can just start skipping meals instead of demanding fair pay. The whole Avacado Toast misdirect. Anytime you see the working poor being blamed for their existence instead of outrage at employers who siphon off 33-50% of the irreplaceable hours of their employee’s day and don’t pay enough for those hours that said employee is not destitute, that is the Capitalist Propaganda Engine. Everyone who works full time should be making enough that they can survive easily. Not lead a life of luxury, but not have to worry about the next 3 months rent, save for a vacation next year, not have to use food stamps to eat, and not have to skip meals so their child can eat. Period. End of discussion. If an employer can’t pay their employees at least that much, then they should not be in business. This is the floor, the bare minimum. Just because you started a business does not automatically mean it should succeed. The same is not true to be a worker. Just because you work full-time, you should be able to survive with minimal financial stress. If you have additional training, certifications, specialized skills, etc. you can claim you deserve the lap of luxury.
Capitalist propaganda tells us that we don’t “need” anything and that all of those things you’re talking about are luxuries. Food? That’s a luxury. Clothes? That’s a luxury too. Water? You better believe you don’t need that, you selfish little piggie!
(also, tbh they didn’t specify the milk has to come from an animal. plant milk is milk!)
You can still afford to eat cereal?
For now. We’ll see. We’re down to a single income, but we’re going to keep putting milk in our tea as long as we can. Because I’ve been drinking tea with milk almost as long as I have been alive thanks to an English father and grandmother. It’s like heroin for me except with milk and just a little something to sweeten it a bit. I don’t want to go through tea withdrawal.
And don’t tell me I can just drink tea without milk. That’s like non-alcoholic beer. You have to be desperate. I’d rather get the tea shakes.
This is so wholesomely human.
I cut my sugar in half by adding cinnamon and nutmeg. Works for coffee as well.
There are plenty of people for whom this is not a true statement.
That’s because the economy is strong… for the rich.
The problem is shareholders expect infinite growth from a finite space, and that growth has to come from somewhere.
If you’re already producing as many of your product, as cheaply as you can get away with, then the only thing you can do is charge more - but that strategy only works if the worker’s wages don’t go up with the profits.
As a result prices are going up, but worker’s salaries aren’t anywhere near as quickly, because the rich are scooping the extra cash and leaving all the working class to starve.
I’ve been working since the mid 90s and in the corporate sphere since the early 2000s.
From this experience I think we go through cycles. If you remember the 80s we had movies like wall street. “Greed, for want of a better word is good”
I think we’re around about that point again. I received a directive from way up top and it was about priorities. Profit, shareholders, reducing cost and then customers. Customers were last and employees not even in the list. Unironically straight up customers last no mention of employees.
Through the 90s it was quite different, investors in people was a big thing, there was a lot of focus on team dynamic, wage rises were good, fully comped end of year parties. This kind of thing.
Then I watched this very slow drift away from this. Entire departments and then offices being closed. Below inflation payrises becoming the norm and the bare minimum from the company. Legal minimum pension match, no end of year anything comped. If lucky you’ll get lunch at a corporate meeting.
The only thing that keeps me sane is the hope that we’re near the end of the cycle and things turn around. It’s depressing at this point.
deleted by creator
Go for it. We’re following your lead.
