• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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)

          • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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. 🤡

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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!)

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 1847953620@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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)

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

  • OBG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Biden economy is anything but strong. Even traditional liberal leaning media outlets agree. The American people have done with less under his administration.