- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
If you mean something else please let me know.
Yes, I meant what I wrote.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage “hoarding”, which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For “the rich” as well.
“Tax breaks” are selective bullshit which shouldn’t ever happen.
Having less economic activity but sharing the benefits more fairly seems fine to me, since the other option appears to literally let people starve.
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.
Lmao. No. Rent seeking behavior is economics 101.
Indeed. Actual rent-seeking is, for sure. That’s why it’s kind of weird you’re confused by it.
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.
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.
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
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.
Strong economy == corporate price gouging while everyone else’s wages stagnate.
It’s a great economy if you’re already rich.
Since all elected officials are either rich or grabbing everything they can to become so, they can’t understand what it’s like for people on minimum wage or a fixed income.
We need more attention on stats like “what percentage of people have zero savings”, “what percentage of the median worker’s income is consumed by basic expenses”, “how many people didn’t eat yesterday”…
Some practical advice for donating to food banks: Give money instead of food.
-
They know exactly what they need. You don’t.
-
They have partnerships and buy in bulk which makes that same dollar go further in their hands than in yours.
That article has changed how I give to food banks since I read it.
I remember reading another factor is that food which people donate is often expired, nearly expired, or undesirable and unlikely to be used before it expires, so often ends up getting thrown away anyway.
-
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.
I think that you’re mostly correct about the New Deal in that it was hugely beneficial. There are lots of caveats, for example racist lending laws, but overall it was good for people.
Although the reason it was possible at all is because people were doubting the whole capitalist model. And by “doubting” I mean considering revolution like Russia in 1917. Without a renegotiation between labor and capital the whole fucking house of cards might have collapsed completely. That might have been worse… or maybe not?
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.
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.
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.
Back to work.
Hey, at least some of us get an office pizza party.
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.
That’s capitalism working exactly as expected.
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.
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.
As we all know, the word “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
Removed by mod
Glad people are starting to wake up to this.
Good economy: Rich people get much richer. Poor people stay poor despite the good economy.
Bad economy: Poor people pay to keep rich people rich, despite the bad economy.
