Cool. So what’s he gonna do about it? Or was this it?
What can he do about it? We live in a free market society. All he can do is keep talking about it and hope the people get the message. Rebellion will start at the consumer level and go up, not the other way around. Main problem is the millions of people that rely on Fox for their news.
Use the anti monopoly laws we have in place to prevent price gouging from lack of competition
He issued an executive order in 2021 to do just that, among many other things to promote competition. There has definitely been an uptick in antitrust cases since then, and inflation has also decreased significantly.
Sorry to be pedantic on the internet (lol) but it might be more accurate to say inflation has slowed.
Up like a rocket down like a parachute.
Except the unfortunate part is that it is always increasing, it's just a derivative, rate of change. But the massive boost from months of heavy inflation is now here permanently, so we're adding 2-3% on TOP of the already-inflated costs. But that's not telling the full story, it is the value of the US dollar going down primarily. Buying power is lower by definition, but because of that, everyone on the bottom end is getting squeezed beyond anything they are ready for and it's going to eventually cause civil unrest on a larger scale.
That's exactly the point of my analogy. Wtf.
Parachutes come down, Inflation just goes up slower.
He picked two points in time and described a number that was fixed at each instance, so decreased works fine.
But it didn't decrease, the rate of increase is what decreased. Inflation is a measure of acceleration, 7% and 3% are both increasing inflation.
If you're accelerating slower, you've decreased your acceleration.
But you are still moving. The dollar is worth less.
Then the original comment should have been pedantic about the fact that they're clearly talking about the rate of inflation even though they referred to it simply as "inflation". The rest of us got that.
Which would mean it didn't decrease if inflation was a measure of value. But it's not. It's a measure of speed of change in value.
Yeah, this
Inflation is a measure of acceleration
Oh look at that, you accidentally stumbled onto your own answer for why measuring a deceleration counts as a decrease, good for you!
I still think decreased is accurate though, the rate of inflation is significantly smaller today vs then, so the rate has decreased
Yeah if it was deflation that would’ve been a huge deal because our economy is built on an inflationary assumption and deflation would crash it
The bipartisan PPP (passed under Trump) was insane.
lets add taxing the shit out of people who do this to the list.
How would you like the President of the United States to do that? Do you think the President is a dictator that can just unilaterally pass sweeping legislation? How do you think the public would react if the President had the power to directly determine the prices of goods? How do you think that would go in general?
The fact this is even in the negatives a tiny bit really demonstrates the typical political intelligence of your average voter.
You’re of course completely correct, and Biden has indeed done everything he LEGALLY can do, which is probably why we’re suffering far less than a lot of the rest of the developed world economically speaking.
People just like to shout at the wind, it seems.
Damn there is nothing the government can do. Sorry guys :( You'll just have to buy less food, and maybe then the corporations will get the hint!
Regulations? Laws against price gauging? Naw, they can't do that. It's the consumers that are at fault!
Do you think Biden makes the laws? Did you fail civics class? I said nothing about enacting laws making what these companies are doing illegal, I only said Biden can’t do much about it.
He can propose laws to the legislative bramch. He might not be able to pass it himself but he could push and advocate for it
I'm sure the GOP-led house would be very receptive to that
Oh what does it hurt then?
Can’t say anything, because of the GOP.
Super cool having a democrat president who’s got no balls. Can’t offend the house.
You are literally demanding virtue signalling.
What does it hurt? Political capital, for one.
Also, you don't just say, "let's make a law about X", and a 3,000 page bill just appears in front of you. That shit takes TONS of work. Biden can't just materialize a workable plan that both parties (in this political climate? lol) will ever agree on.
That just isn't how this country works. If you want this to change, Congress has to change it.
I love how "political capital" is the neolibs go-to excuse for why the working class can't be helped. Yet there's a never ending amount of "political capital" I help giant corporations make more money. Fucking tools
What? Do you think I like that political capital is a thing? It's fucking gross. I am just acknowledging reality. What do you think the President actually does in the US?
Like, do you even realize that you're advocating for authoritarianism? Or is it OK, as long as it's the person doing the things you want? And we all know situations like that are super sustainable...
“The president of the United States cannot unilaterally implement price controls on goods without the involvement of Congress. Price controls typically involve changes to laws and regulations, which fall under the legislative branch's authority. Congress would need to pass legislation granting such powers or specifically authorizing the president to implement price controls in certain circumstances.”
I hope you direct all that useless anger you have here on the internet for voting time, then.
We just had local elections here nationally in the U.S., whom did you place your vote for to solve this issue?
This is a thread about him saying things.
Price controls are well within the president's powers. It's not that radical of a concept.
It's within congress's powers for sure. I don't think the president. Congress has done it in the past though, so they for sure can again.
Republicans would never allow it.
Why is this upvoted?
No, the president of the United States cannot unilaterally implement price controls on goods without the involvement of Congress. Price controls typically involve changes to laws and regulations, which fall under the legislative branch's authority. Congress would need to pass legislation granting such powers or specifically authorizing the president to implement price controls in certain circumstances.
In what country?
Price controls are an extremely radical concept, themselves. Last thing this economy needs is further distortion.
The sucky thing about inflation is you have to run through it like an illness.
Windfall taxes. Let them share their gains, that's the whole point of taxes since society don't work otherwise.
That's vastly different from a direct price control, in both intent and effect.
I'd love to pass lots more taxes but with the current House that's completely impossible
The US was pretty good about taxing corporations before Reagan
Biden can't set tax rates.
Poor Biden can’t do anything, he doesn’t have any power lol….
ok. but this is factually correct
Do you know basic US Civics, or...? Biden has the bully pulpit (basically what he's doing here), and that's pretty much it. He can issue executive orders (and has in the past about this), but those are often complete bullshit that's unenforceable, and will be removed by the next person in the office.
Take a look at Trump rolling back Obama's EPA purview over waterways in the US for a recent example that has left over 60% of our nation's waterways now unprotected.
Biden is like dog shit on the bottom of FDR’s shoe. He is weak and pathetic and the only thing he cares about are his corporate donors
Lol way to just talk past me. Did you even read the comment?
Yes, bring back the New Deal Democrats! Enough of Third Way neoliberalism.
FDR sicced Federal agencies on a leftist to discredit him.
Oh the irony.
Do you want a dictatorship or something? Congress writes laws, talk to your members of congress.
that was basically it. short of siccing the irs on them there's not a lot the executive branch can do about it... of course that'd kill the golden goose named "campaign contributions", so it wont happen
siccing the IRS on them
Nothing the IRS can do, either.
Windfall taxes is a thing they can use. If companies raise their prices too fast the excess profit gets taxed at a higher rate.
It will be harder to pass new laws in the current Congress, but he still has control over the executive branch. Hopefully some existing laws could be used.
He appointed the most aggressive FTC head in decades who is using the antitrust law we have to currently go after Google and Amazon.
She's also fighting a merger between Kroger and Albertsons, which would drastically raise grocery prices.
The FTC is also fighting the hedge fund buyout of preciously independent healthcare clinics, which has massively ramped up medical costs.
Not to mention breaking the real estate agent fee monopoly.
His executive branch has been busy as hell trying to help people.
Don't tell us facts. We've already decided to believe whatever the fuck we want regardless. /s
Biden should be waving the magic wand! I am mad that he is not doing this!
He'll hire their execs to run various government agencies
I mean, you wouldn't want the politicians to lose their legal bribes generous donations over acting in our interests instead of the corporations, would you?
Will someone please think of the rich folks pockets?
How is it possible that people don't understand the implied "/s" here??? Or am I missing some other reason for the downvotes?
FWIW, I thought your comment was great. Gave me quite a chuckle! :-D
Because this is just more of that “enlightened centrist both sides baaaaaaad” bullshit that dumbasses invoke whenever they want to diminish the power of one side, thus actually strengthening the other side, while claiming that they don’t care about sides at all, even though they just can’t stop themselves from only sputtering it out when it’s the dems doing something.
And after trump if you still believe both sides are the same then you are certifiably brain dead.
How is it possible that people don’t understand the implied “/s” here???
They understand it and are angry because they're being called out.
It's because I said bad things about Biden, even though I was talking about politicians as a whole. But you can't say bad things about Biden or be any kind of critical about the current administration without getting trashed on here.
I mean it was because you’re wrong and your comment was stupid, but enjoy your victimization, I guess!
You know.. He 'hit' them apparently.
Oh and passed an executive order, along with having his justice department pursue more antitrust cases than any other administration.
All he can do is back out his limp-dick economic policies that are destroying the country and creating this problem...but there's no chance of that.
This damage is literally the point of the policies. What people don't understand is that he's doing this on purpose.
I'm sure I'm going to be sorry for asking, but how in the world are you coming to this conclusion?
So the attorney general can open an investigation on this asshat profiteering off of hand sanitizer but when it comes to companies price gouging in the wake of the pandemic we get this limp dick response? Sure I'm glad he said something but we need more
Apparently a state of emergency needs to have been declared for them to actually do anything about price gouging directly.
I read about it when Southwest airlines went completely down for a week last year over the holidays and I was stranded somewhere. Other airlines had astronomical prices and car rentals were over $500 for one day. It was disgusting. But apparently there was nothing to be done.
They need to change the rules surrounding it because they're not working. But any amount of government intervention in the economy gets conservatives screaming about "communism," or socialism, or whatever scapegoat they're using that day that they don't know the actual definition of. And yet, if there's no government intervention in the economy it's "Biden's not doing enough/Biden is personally raising gas prices every week" etc.
Of course there wasn't a single peep from them when Trump was fucking shit up, other than those "this is Biden's America" memes when Biden hadn't even taken office yet and the photos were a year old. Nothing will get done about it as long as conservatives have any say in congress. But they'll always be the one's complaining and pointing the finger at "the libruls" while profiting.
Corporations: "Make us."
Biden: "no"
How could Biden make them do it?
Why would he even be willing to?
This is a bad faith argument.
Corporations: "or what?"
He'll make a tweet that starts with "Let me be clear...".
Make them, under force of real economic consequences, or this is just begging.
I thought the President doesn't control the price of goods...
They don't. Congress with the President could but won't.
I've no illusions friend. Neither the Republicans nor the Neoliberals aka 90+ percent of Office holding Democrats have the slightest interest in helping anyone, only taking bribes and reinforcing their party's power.
This nation is over. Reaganomics saw to that and Citizens United dashed the last of the faintest of rational hopes for self-repair. This is just leftover momentum. This labor camp we call the US will eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption, but until then, we suffer generationally with zero recourse.
No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock. This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.
Yes, both parties are cancelling school lunches for impoverished children, reverting environmental regulations, overturning Roe v Wade, forcing women to become baby incubators, cutting social safety nets. Yes, they are both the same...
The Neoliberals that coopted the former Republican opposition party helped Reagan and Clinton destroy the social safetynet. Neoliberal Clinton championed destroying the social safetynet, partnering with Nute Gingrich to do it, around the same time neoliberal biden championed draconian sentencing reform to feed for profit prisons.
Modern Democrats are better than Republicans, but if you want to look for politicians that don't work against you? Look to the non-neoliberal Democrats that the Neoliberals revile more than their supposed opposition party. There's about a dozen of them between both Chambers. Most democrats are nice on social issues, but defend this rigged market capitalist hellscape lockstep with republicans.
Clinton at the time was the furthest left that the US as a whole would elect. The third way stuck because it actually worked.
I'm not going to make a snarky comment about how others should've put in more work, because I honestly don't think it would've mattered (and it'd be rude). Leftism just wasn't going to win by any viable margin. You can't squeeze blood from a stone -- when the electorate won't go further, you have to meet them where they are. I'd love it if Sanders would've been elected in the 90s instead of Clinton, but that just wasn't possible.
The fact remains there has been no attempt on the nation's part in living memory to actually run the nation by left wing policies. It hasn't been attempted and yet it is treated in the zeitgeist as if it was repeatedly and was an utter failure. I Consider FDR to be the last remotely progressive President we have attempted.
So when people reduce acknowledging both of our major parties to be varying degrees of economically right wing, center-right(D) to fascist(R) these days as 'both parties are the same' it reeks of bad faith. We can acknowledge both of our parties work against their people economically while not being absolutely interchangeable. It's just an intential tactic to muddy the waters because some prefer to play team sports, which is exactly the distraction it's meant and pushed to be.
And you're right, our people currently have the government they deserve, because they won't entertain one that works for them and protects them from the capitalist's whims, that would be evil buzzwords they never bothered to understand or something.
I think there's still important differences economically even when considering them both to be center right. There's a strong push for higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage among Democrats -- the only reason we didn't see a minimum wage increase is because 1 Democrat opposed it vs the 49 other senators. And while our system still needs work, it doesn't mean there haven't been significant changes.
There's a brilliant provision in the Inflation Reduction Act for instance that ends the corporate tax loophole for the largest corporations. A company above a certain size that makes very high revenue (>1 bil iirc) is required to pay at least 20% in taxes. They can't loophole their way to $0. The big corporations are going to have to pay actual taxes now.
I'm not going to pretend that Democrats are perfect, but I do think there's a messaging problem and a tendency to let good works speak for themselves -- which doesn't work. If you remember the rail worker strike that Congress and Biden stopped, that actually wasn't the end of it. Union leaders have said that the administration continued to work behind the scenes with the unions to pressure the rail companies, and because of that, they've gotten the sick days they were demanding.
I would need to do a lot of research to say more about if leftism ever had a serious shake in the US or not, I'll admit. My assumption is that it was rejected, given the progressivism of the New Deal era didn't persist. But I do need to do more reading.
I hear you, and mostly agree with some of what you say. Though I take issue with the right families, those being the ones benefitting from the power. What I will point out is the gilded age, and how bad it was back then. Many of the same issues we have today, corruption, bribery, the net worth of the robber barons adjusted for inflation was probably about double the net worth of our current crop of scumbag billionaire villains.
I don't subscribe to the hopelessness, and I do believe we can end this second gilded age. I just don't see the ability to do that with either political party's leadership. We have to reject them both equally while recognizing exactly the issues you're pointing out with regards to the power structure and inequality. That is essentially what happened when we ended the first gilded age.
This nation is over.
IMO it's better to phrase it as, "The economic system has already collapsed for the majority of Americans, and it's getting worse. What will happen next?" Because it's not like people will magically disappear overnight, it's not like life is terrible for everyone all the time, and some things have improved over the last few decades.
Some people want to say "If we don't do X, the world will end." or "We didn't do X, and it all went to hell, and we're permanently doomed." Most of the time, though, end-of-the-world stances are oversimplifications.
“bOtH sIdeS ArE tHe SaMe”
dolan pls
They aren't the same, they differ on social issues, but have the same bribers on economic policy.
Your vote has sway on things that don't cost the owner's money.
No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock.
That's an interesting sentence right there. What does that even mean, the "right" families? Are you seriously expecting the people who created the problem to now help solve it?
This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.
No, of course you aren't. But by God, let's also not ask for help from the "wrong" families...
I meant internally right. Goes to the right country clubs. Is on the right museum boards. Is in the little owner's club that starts with having a 9 figure net worth at absolute minimum.
That's what I meant by "right" it was a mocking term for the self-protecting, self-elevating wealth class made up of a few thousand of the right families that lord over all of us and believe they are where ultimate authority belongs, and have used their great wealth to secure generationally. This is their system, by their design, and they will continue to use their vast power to defend it.
Ah yes, if only one of those country club going billionaires would decide to use their power to try and come help us...
Yeah, I think I'm just gonna let you stew and simmer on that one.
I've belabored the point that they won't, have no reason to, literally created such conditions to begin with, and actively defend against any change to it.
Do you have some sort of a point? If so speak it.
I do, but if I said it outright I would just be accused of a lack of empathy and intelligence, plus a whole lot of other things far worse than that, so I won't.
So if you didn't get my broad hint, I'm not going to be upset, and if you do, like I said, perhaps take my advice to stew and simmer over it before posting a response in affect.
I don't think you understood what they were saying, and I don't think we understand what you're saying. You could help by explaining.
That's okay, I can live with that.
And that is how you miss a point, far and wide, because of your own hubris.
Yeah, like I said, I can live with that. If it's important, I'm sure it'll come up again. If not, well, then it wasn't important.
That’s okay, I can live with that.
Kind of selfish of you though to waste everyone's time trying to interpret your secret messages.
Plus you shouldn't be afraid, you should speak out, that's what we're supposed to be having here, conversations.
I've already been banned from an entire server simply because my username apparently contains a secret message of bigotry and hatred, so I hope you'll excuse if I'm gonna try to keep it civil and friendly and try not to rustle too many jimmies during my time here.
He probably went to go buy his own ice cream for the first time in 3 years and said "holy shit."
Any legislation to go with that or are you just asking nicely?
I'd be surprised if even saying this didn't have political ramifications. There's nothing, besides; military budget, tax breaks to millionaires, and their own pay raises, that would get through both houses of Congress right now.
Asking nicely is at least virtue signaling, maybe it'll be something we can address if a couple R's ever see the consequences of their illegal actions.
L-O-L
He could threaten to cancel federal contracts with any vendor found to be price gouging. That would have actual ramifications and doesn't require Congress.
The president isn't powerless here. He just wants credit for purely performative actions.
The price gouging is mainly coming from consumer facing markets, not government contracts. Even with discretionary spending there isn't that much that pure executive branch actions can do to dissuade the price gouging that we've been seeing.
Well to be fair, there is A LOT of price gouging from government contracts, but they just print the money for it so they don't REALLY care.
Yup.
If the President threatened to void federal contracts, you'd see immediate change.
But the president doesn't work for us.
void federal contracts
I'm sure Walmart and Chipotle are shaking in their boots. I guess a president DID get McDonald's delivered to the White House once.
Never fails to amuse me the extent to which people make excuses for the leader of the free world.
Not sure what Jens Stoltenberg is gonna do about the price of bread in the USA, or are you confused with "leader of the USA" and "everyone else"?
I agree. Angry orange man was known for pushing every single loophole to make bad things happen.
If Joebob wanted to actually do something about it, he'd find a way to work it through the system. Isn't that the point of politics??
I despise Trump, but yes, I'd love to see a Democratic president who is actually willing to wield power.
Would also be nice to see 49% of voters no longer content to make excuses and vote Green instead.
In presidential systems like the US has legislation originates from congress. The President only has veto power over legislation, and controls the enforcement of existing legislation. They can't force congress to create new legislation, though of course they can propose legislation (anyone can do that). This is very different from parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party of the parliament, and can thus directly propose legislation and get their party to support it.
He added, “come on, man”
Oh shit, he means business.
“My good friends in congress will, well they uh, I mean titwinkle, and corn pop was a bad dude!”
Corporations after seeing how Black Friday netted over $9.8 billion: Uhhhh...no. According to these numbers, people LoVe the prices!
That was $10b in online sales, not total.
That’s almost 10 billion of sale prices though, for products they literally needed to offload.
And while a record amount, it was only 7.5% above normal, coming off all this Covid stuff it’s no wonder people are cutting loose and splurging a bit.
7.5% ... Wasn't that the rate of inflation recently as well? Not sure what it is at now, but we were getting up there. Higher prices wouldn't necessarily mean a new record, I am guessing.
As far as I can tell it’s just people being “savvy” and waiting for the big sale day.
Black Friday e-commerce spending popped 7.5% from a year earlier, reaching a record $9.8 billion in the U.S., according to an Adobe Analytics report, a further indication that price-conscious consumers want to spend on the best deals and are hunting for those deals online.
Not the current rate of inflation. Inflation over the year from October 2022 - October 2023 was 3.2%.
To get to 7.5% you'd have to go back to the year from November 2021 to November 2022.
Our month to month inflation is currently about flat, meaning there was no change in prices from September 2023 to October 2023. But sometimes there's a jump one month or a drop the next, it's a little uneven, which is why people talk about the entire past year summed up. It's a confusing way to phrase it though, because if you just say inflation was 3.2% in October, people often assume that means prices raised 3.2% in October. What it actually means is prices raised 3.2% over the entire past year altogether.
Anyways this is a true new record. People's spending increases for black Friday are outpacing inflation.
Above normal. The data suggests US citizens still have credit limit or not feeling the pinch as all the news articles suggest.
I was expecting a big decrease this year according to what I’ve seen on lemmy. From now on, I’ll read negative news and say “meh, probably not.”
It isn't just lemmy, there's plenty of external evidence showing that people think the economy is in a bad state. Changing your entire perspective because of big spending day on black Friday makes no sense.
Not just a big spending day, an all-time record-breaking spending day, up 7.5%. That’s absolutely insane and doesn’t jive. If everyone is hurting, can’t pay their rent and bills, credit is maxed out, then how did they also crush this record on inflation-priced “sales?”
All I’ve said, I’m choosing to go by data, not news agenda. BF helped me realize our economy is thriving. That’s great!
Or they just know that Americans would rather go into significant debt, than having a lighter Christmas and/or buying less for a year or two.
I'm glad I have friends who can live without needing presents every year to feel validated on keeping a friendship alive.
I keep hearing other people just tear themselves apart because they worry about "ohhh I need to go shopping next week!" or "I can't figure out what this person wants who barely gives a shit about me but I need to gift them SOMETHING!"
Like damn people, is it worth it that much to gift someone things at the cost of your own sustainability?
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is cosponsoring the legislation in the Senate, and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
It won't pass, but if Biden can put the blame of it failing on Republicans it could help win elections.
That's something realistic he could do. For an unrealistic but satisfying option, he could pick the worst offender and make that company an example. Send every OSHA, EPA, and IRS agent they can get to swarm the company and bury them in fines and legal actions.
Using agencies as weapons like that outside of their intended purpose is... despotic.
I don't know that it's wise to take attention away from the Republicans own clusterfuck to place it on something the Dems can't get done.
I'm with you in spirit; I just think there are more layers to this than we tend to give it credit for.
I don't think they meant "use agencies as bully goons."
More like, those agencies are usually left under-resourced and under-staffed, so many companies flagrantly violate safety and employment laws because it's more profitable to just make more money and pay off an unlikely fine if they get caught.
So, if you focused all the existing attention of those agencies on the worst companies, they'd find tons of legitimate lawbreaking going on, and hopefully punish the crap out of said company.
But, you know how it is "You stole how many millions in employee wages?!?... that's $25,000 penalty for you, company. Naughty naughty!"
Exactly, even if they do get caught, the fines are so goddamn low it's barely worth it. A warehouse in my city got caught using 11-year-olds in their labor force, including having them driving forklifts. Their penalty? The kids can't work there anymore and the company that owned the warehouse got a $30k fine.
I shudder to think about the multiples of $30k in net-value generated by the labor of those children.
It still probably cost less to unethically hire them under the table and pay the 30k fine than it would to hire adults legitimately!
"Cost of doing business" at this point.
I thought child exploitation got the book thrown at you, in this country. Geeze.
It's exactly what Republicans would do if they didn't like a company. Playing nice with these people is what got us to this point.
Exactly. With apologies to Michelle Obama, "They go low, we go high!" does not work. It was never intended to work.
Democrats have a ton of sportsmanship trophies, and what do Republicans have? Well, they've got the SCOTUS, the House, and tons of State governments.
It's despotic to direct agencies to perform the tasks they were specifically created to perform? I don't think so.
It's not something that Biden would realistically do or that I think should be done in this situation, but it is far from despotic.
Maybe add a pretty please in front of the request if he isn't going to take any forceful action.
forceful action
like what? Or is the purpose of this just to make people mad, even when it doesn't make sense.
Dude, they are gouging because they want you gone so they can have more tax breaks. Fuck then over already.
Bad corpos!
*slaps them on the wrist
Corpos = "Slap me harder Daddy Biden! Tell me that I am destroying the middle and the working class for pursuit of increaseing shareholder value and increased profits."
Stop slapping and start jailing. No teeth will never stop this.
You generally want laws to do that kind of thing. Good luck trying to get a price fixing law through the House.
We have antitrust laws. Republicans and neoliberals have de-funded the agencies that would enforce those laws to the extent that they can't take action on 99% of what's happening.
Yeah! Say more words, Joe. That'll teach em.
"If only my donors would pretty please stop that would be great. Consequences? We need to keep the elderly out of government, and ban lobbying. Until we do BOTH of those things, nothing will change and will only get worse. VOTE.
Oh thank god, I was worried brows would continue to remain unfurrowed.
MALARKEY DETECTED
Thanks Biden
It's class warfare. The rich exploit the poor and middle class. We need comically large cigar tip cutters again.
Kinda late as always, but I guess better than never.
Well I am glad he finally said something but it's too little too late. How many more suicides were there this year in the US versus say, 2019? I'll bet those numbers have experienced inflation. All so Walmarts stock can go up by a dollar.
You know what’s funny about these kinds of posts is the type of dude you’re replying to literally NEVER comes back to say “shit, my bad”.
Like, I don’t get it, someone corrects me anywhere and I’m like “thanks, bro, appreciate the correction”…but I’ve never seen these dudes do that.
Wonder why?
Because this is how they all operate
someone corrects me anywhere and I’m like “thanks, bro, appreciate the correction”
If you regularly respond this way, you're in the minority. Most people respond to a correction emotionally, as if their authority or competence were being attacked when one mistake was pointed out.
I think you're right on the money. And knowing this often makes it very obvious when somebody responds artificially in order to try to feed you some kinda propaganda.
Thank god for my ADHD stunting my ability to regulate and understand emotions, then!
At least I can mostly control that shit from a distance.
What are YOU doing about it? Not Biden -- YOU: the person reading this comment.
I can tell you my overall cost of living since 2020 has plummeted, not because I haven't faced inflation like everyone else, but because I stopped spending on most extra things. For example: not eating out anymore, cancelled all streaming subscriptions, flexed what I eat based upon coupons and deals at the grocery store (still healthy), I drive much less, etc..
If you keep buying stuff when prices go up, this keeps demand high and, therefore, prices high.
Edit: So far people are saying they are doing nothing different... just continuing to blame corporations. It's both greedy corporations and people's fault. If the costs for basic goods and shelter go up, why wouldn't you adjust?
The prices for fixed costs have gone up, too. People need a place to live, the health to keep living, and ways of ensuring access to both, and the costs of all of those have gone up as well. A not insignificant chuck of people don't have discretionary spending to cut (not to mention how stressful living paycheck-to-paycheck on the bare essentials can be). Yes, it is certainly worth reevaluating budgets and determining where expenses can be lowered, but those margins have been getting thinner for a long while.
No, you don't get it. Corporations aren't greedy, you're at fault for needing food and shelter.
I agree many things have gone up, BUT over the last couple years people kept purchasing without adjustment. I've adjusted my grocery purchases (and I'm a nerd who tracks this in spreadsheets) to the point where my monthly costs have gone up 4% over the last 3 years.
New vehicles have shot up in price and people were still waiting in line to buy more! Trillion+ in car loan debt in the U.S.. Many of these folks could have bought a used car, fixed their old car, or just waited and purchased later. The numbers are there and support what I'm saying. I'm still driving a very old car (> 15 years old) because I think it's idiotic to buy another one right now. It sucks, but better than blowing my hard earned cash. This is coming from someone who can afford to ignore interest rates and pay cash and I still won't do it.
At the end of the day corporations will always be greedy, but only if they can. If people stop buying they can no longer be greedy (supply vs demand). We may be at the point now where people have over extended themselves so much that they simply can't afford the dumb purchases anymore which means corporations have extracted the maximum from people's wallets. Sad situation, but I blame both corporations and people.
I spent thousands on Black Friday sales to have a good Christmas as a family for the first time in what, four years?
So I guess you can say I’m doing my part to stimulate the economy.
Also I dunno about you, but I think my wife would get depressed if I told her there was no more eating out.
Black Friday purchases are a good idea. It tells corporations, "I'm willing to spend at this lower price point."
Maybe try and cook your wife her favorite meal at home or just go out less often? If going out to eat is the only way to keep your wife happy then you could look elsewhere to cut costs if you need to.
I stopped spending on extra things too, and it's really helped. I sold my house so I didn't have to pay a mortgage and moved into my car which I never drive because buying gasoline will keep the price high. I also cancelled all of my streaming services, so I stare at the ceiling to entertain myself. I eat exclusively organic dirt that's on sale because I stopped splurging on food. Why don't people just spend less money?
This comment made me think I accidentally posted on Reddit. My edit still stands (I was pretty confident it would for a while).
"Stop the price-gouging...", the unspoken bit after is "... they're starting to catch on"
Capital is king, and Joe kneels at the throne at the end of the day.
He doesn't kneel, he's the dad that fucking shoots you if you try to play with his kid's toys
Yeah, it's totally nothing to do with his policies.
You are correct. Most of the world is experiencing price gouging and inflation.
Its just something that happens and there is nothing we can do about it. The market is like the weather sometimes it rains sometimes it pours.
You almost sound like you're in favor of market regulation. Yet, somehow I very much doubt that is true.
Why do you think I wouldn't be in favor of market regulation?
Well, to be honest, "nothing we can do about it".
My bad.
Ah sorry that was supposed to be sarcasm poking fun of the other commenters dismissal of the problem because "the entire world is experiencing this"
so no one can influence the "weather" here?
Give us one fucking Biden policy that caused this
🦗
Shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and restricting domestic oil leases almost immediately increased the price of gas by 20 or so cents.
How the fuck is that related to price gouging? Are you having a stroke?
Making gas more expensive to produce will drive up the price you pay at the pump. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?
That's not price gouging though is it you dumb fuck? Have you even read the fucking article? It's always hilarious when an absolute buffoon tries to be ironic.
Alright, while your crude behavior doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about your receptivity for reason and evidence, let's take a look how Biden actually defines "price gouging":
"Any corporation that has not brought their prices back down, even as inflation has come down, even as the supply chains have been rebuilt, it's time to stop the price gouging"
This is either another one of his classic faux pas, or it's used as a propaganda term here, because on closer examination, this sentence reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between prices and inflation. Stay with me here, and I'll explain why, but I'm afraid it's going to require just a little of high school math.
Inflation is defined as the rate that prices rise, i.e. higher inflation = prices rise faster, lower inflation = prices rise slower. Read that last part again, because that means specifically that lower inflation does not mean prices go down. It means they go up more slowly. In order for prices to actually go down, inflation would have to be negative, which it currently isn't. Hence, Biden is either making a mathematical error here, or he is deliberately misleading people about the nature of the relationship between prices and inflation.
There you go, I hope that was clear enough. Now feel free to continue your verbal abuse, but I think it's amply clear who's the buffoon here.
You are correct
What policies, specifically?
Sending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war in Ukraine, for instance.
What, you thought we actually HAD hundreds of billions of dollars? They're all just printed from thin air and added to the national debt, and then inflation goes up as a result of the increased money supply.
Could you share where you got your number? The most recent source I found on google showed $44.2 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the invasion began. From what I can tell this doesn't include other humanitarian aid, so I wonder if that makes up the difference?
Whatever the case, if you have more info I'd appreciate it if you could share
Hm, I was under the impression there recently was a package of $100 billion being discussed, but it appears that at least some of that money was supposed to go to Israel, not to Ukraine, and I'm not entirely sure if it ever made it through the house.
Of the bill mentioned in the first paragraph, $61 billion would supposedly go to Ukraine, so if passed, this would definitely bring the total to over $100 billion. So I regretfully admit to having slightly exaggerated my figures for dramatic effect, and humbly beg for your forgiveness, but least I only missed the mark by a single order of magnitude, and we're still somewhere in the right ballpark.
Thanks for your reply! Some people on the internet don't respond to criticism well, I'm sure you know what I mean, so it's always nice when someone is chill about it.
I honestly don't follow politics too closely, so I wasn't aware of the bill you referenced. Thanks for filling me in!
And yeah, your point still stands regardless of the number. I don't personally know much about how the federal budget works, so I'm just here to learn.
If you don't mind telling me, what would be the ideal response by the US in your opinion? Would you have wanted us to send less (or zero) aid to Ukraine?
I honestly don't know, since I'm neither a politician nor a foreign policy expert, but it certainly seems to me that the critics were right on this one, and it was mostly a useless proxy war designed to fill the coffers of the morally ambiguous and well-connected elite at the cost of thousands of innocent human lives, so it seems that either preventing it from the getgo or not funding it all would have been the better choice. But hindsight is always 20/20.
Yes, if Putin had invaded and we had done nothing at all, some lives would have still been lost, but most likely the Ukrainian army would have folded much quicker and the death toll would have been much lower than it stands now. And let's not forget, the whole thing only started because Biden greenlit that Nordstream Two pipeline that Trump had spent his entire four years blocking for fear of precisely this incident. Literally within a week of the pipeline's approval, the first Russian boots were on Ukrainian soil, so whatever you think of the orange cheeto, it seems he was 100% on the money on this one.
Cool. So what’s he gonna do about it? Or was this it?
What can he do about it? We live in a free market society. All he can do is keep talking about it and hope the people get the message. Rebellion will start at the consumer level and go up, not the other way around. Main problem is the millions of people that rely on Fox for their news.
Use the anti monopoly laws we have in place to prevent price gouging from lack of competition
He issued an executive order in 2021 to do just that, among many other things to promote competition. There has definitely been an uptick in antitrust cases since then, and inflation has also decreased significantly.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings
Sorry to be pedantic on the internet (lol) but it might be more accurate to say inflation has slowed.
Up like a rocket down like a parachute.
Except the unfortunate part is that it is always increasing, it's just a derivative, rate of change. But the massive boost from months of heavy inflation is now here permanently, so we're adding 2-3% on TOP of the already-inflated costs. But that's not telling the full story, it is the value of the US dollar going down primarily. Buying power is lower by definition, but because of that, everyone on the bottom end is getting squeezed beyond anything they are ready for and it's going to eventually cause civil unrest on a larger scale.
That's exactly the point of my analogy. Wtf.
Parachutes come down, Inflation just goes up slower.
He picked two points in time and described a number that was fixed at each instance, so decreased works fine.
But it didn't decrease, the rate of increase is what decreased. Inflation is a measure of acceleration, 7% and 3% are both increasing inflation.
If you're accelerating slower, you've decreased your acceleration.
But you are still moving. The dollar is worth less.
Then the original comment should have been pedantic about the fact that they're clearly talking about the rate of inflation even though they referred to it simply as "inflation". The rest of us got that.
Which would mean it didn't decrease if inflation was a measure of value. But it's not. It's a measure of speed of change in value.
Yeah, this
Oh look at that, you accidentally stumbled onto your own answer for why measuring a deceleration counts as a decrease, good for you!
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." (p. 1108)
Burn the pedant!
I still think decreased is accurate though, the rate of inflation is significantly smaller today vs then, so the rate has decreased
Yeah if it was deflation that would’ve been a huge deal because our economy is built on an inflationary assumption and deflation would crash it
The bipartisan PPP (passed under Trump) was insane.
lets add taxing the shit out of people who do this to the list.
How would you like the President of the United States to do that? Do you think the President is a dictator that can just unilaterally pass sweeping legislation? How do you think the public would react if the President had the power to directly determine the prices of goods? How do you think that would go in general?
The fact this is even in the negatives a tiny bit really demonstrates the typical political intelligence of your average voter.
You’re of course completely correct, and Biden has indeed done everything he LEGALLY can do, which is probably why we’re suffering far less than a lot of the rest of the developed world economically speaking.
People just like to shout at the wind, it seems.
Damn there is nothing the government can do. Sorry guys :( You'll just have to buy less food, and maybe then the corporations will get the hint!
Regulations? Laws against price gauging? Naw, they can't do that. It's the consumers that are at fault!
Do you think Biden makes the laws? Did you fail civics class? I said nothing about enacting laws making what these companies are doing illegal, I only said Biden can’t do much about it.
He can propose laws to the legislative bramch. He might not be able to pass it himself but he could push and advocate for it
I'm sure the GOP-led house would be very receptive to that
Oh what does it hurt then?
Can’t say anything, because of the GOP.
Super cool having a democrat president who’s got no balls. Can’t offend the house.
You are literally demanding virtue signalling.
What does it hurt? Political capital, for one.
Also, you don't just say, "let's make a law about X", and a 3,000 page bill just appears in front of you. That shit takes TONS of work. Biden can't just materialize a workable plan that both parties (in this political climate? lol) will ever agree on.
That just isn't how this country works. If you want this to change, Congress has to change it.
I love how "political capital" is the neolibs go-to excuse for why the working class can't be helped. Yet there's a never ending amount of "political capital" I help giant corporations make more money. Fucking tools
What? Do you think I like that political capital is a thing? It's fucking gross. I am just acknowledging reality. What do you think the President actually does in the US?
Like, do you even realize that you're advocating for authoritarianism? Or is it OK, as long as it's the person doing the things you want? And we all know situations like that are super sustainable...
“The president of the United States cannot unilaterally implement price controls on goods without the involvement of Congress. Price controls typically involve changes to laws and regulations, which fall under the legislative branch's authority. Congress would need to pass legislation granting such powers or specifically authorizing the president to implement price controls in certain circumstances.”
I hope you direct all that useless anger you have here on the internet for voting time, then.
We just had local elections here nationally in the U.S., whom did you place your vote for to solve this issue?
This is a thread about him saying things.
Price controls are well within the president's powers. It's not that radical of a concept.
It's within congress's powers for sure. I don't think the president. Congress has done it in the past though, so they for sure can again.
Republicans would never allow it.
Why is this upvoted?
In what country?
Price controls are an extremely radical concept, themselves. Last thing this economy needs is further distortion.
The sucky thing about inflation is you have to run through it like an illness.
Windfall taxes. Let them share their gains, that's the whole point of taxes since society don't work otherwise.
That's vastly different from a direct price control, in both intent and effect.
I'd love to pass lots more taxes but with the current House that's completely impossible
The US was pretty good about taxing corporations before Reagan
Biden can't set tax rates.
Poor Biden can’t do anything, he doesn’t have any power lol….
ok. but this is factually correct
Do you know basic US Civics, or...? Biden has the bully pulpit (basically what he's doing here), and that's pretty much it. He can issue executive orders (and has in the past about this), but those are often complete bullshit that's unenforceable, and will be removed by the next person in the office.
Take a look at Trump rolling back Obama's EPA purview over waterways in the US for a recent example that has left over 60% of our nation's waterways now unprotected.
Biden is like dog shit on the bottom of FDR’s shoe. He is weak and pathetic and the only thing he cares about are his corporate donors
Lol way to just talk past me. Did you even read the comment?
Yes, bring back the New Deal Democrats! Enough of Third Way neoliberalism.
FDR sicced Federal agencies on a leftist to discredit him.
Oh the irony.
Do you want a dictatorship or something? Congress writes laws, talk to your members of congress.
that was basically it. short of siccing the irs on them there's not a lot the executive branch can do about it... of course that'd kill the golden goose named "campaign contributions", so it wont happen
Nothing the IRS can do, either.
Windfall taxes is a thing they can use. If companies raise their prices too fast the excess profit gets taxed at a higher rate.
Need the House for that tho.
No. Just stop with the disinformation.
It will be harder to pass new laws in the current Congress, but he still has control over the executive branch. Hopefully some existing laws could be used.
He appointed the most aggressive FTC head in decades who is using the antitrust law we have to currently go after Google and Amazon.
She's also fighting a merger between Kroger and Albertsons, which would drastically raise grocery prices.
The FTC is also fighting the hedge fund buyout of preciously independent healthcare clinics, which has massively ramped up medical costs.
Not to mention breaking the real estate agent fee monopoly.
His executive branch has been busy as hell trying to help people.
Don't tell us facts. We've already decided to believe whatever the fuck we want regardless. /s
Biden should be waving the magic wand! I am mad that he is not doing this!
He'll hire their execs to run various government agencies
I mean, you wouldn't want the politicians to lose their
legal bribesgenerous donations over acting in our interests instead of the corporations, would you?Will someone please think of the rich folks pockets?
How is it possible that people don't understand the implied "/s" here??? Or am I missing some other reason for the downvotes?
FWIW, I thought your comment was great. Gave me quite a chuckle! :-D
Because this is just more of that “enlightened centrist both sides baaaaaaad” bullshit that dumbasses invoke whenever they want to diminish the power of one side, thus actually strengthening the other side, while claiming that they don’t care about sides at all, even though they just can’t stop themselves from only sputtering it out when it’s the dems doing something.
And after trump if you still believe both sides are the same then you are certifiably brain dead.
They understand it and are angry because they're being called out.
It's because I said bad things about Biden, even though I was talking about politicians as a whole. But you can't say bad things about Biden or be any kind of critical about the current administration without getting trashed on here.
I mean it was because you’re wrong and your comment was stupid, but enjoy your victimization, I guess!
You know.. He 'hit' them apparently.
Oh and passed an executive order, along with having his justice department pursue more antitrust cases than any other administration.
All he can do is back out his limp-dick economic policies that are destroying the country and creating this problem...but there's no chance of that.
This damage is literally the point of the policies. What people don't understand is that he's doing this on purpose.
I'm sure I'm going to be sorry for asking, but how in the world are you coming to this conclusion?
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-doing-way-better-than-rest-of-rich-world-2023-7
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-reasons-the-u-s-economy-is-among-the-strongest-in-the-g7/
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/04/13/the-lessons-from-americas-astonishing-economic-record
So the attorney general can open an investigation on this asshat profiteering off of hand sanitizer but when it comes to companies price gouging in the wake of the pandemic we get this limp dick response? Sure I'm glad he said something but we need more
Apparently a state of emergency needs to have been declared for them to actually do anything about price gouging directly.
I read about it when Southwest airlines went completely down for a week last year over the holidays and I was stranded somewhere. Other airlines had astronomical prices and car rentals were over $500 for one day. It was disgusting. But apparently there was nothing to be done.
They need to change the rules surrounding it because they're not working. But any amount of government intervention in the economy gets conservatives screaming about "communism," or socialism, or whatever scapegoat they're using that day that they don't know the actual definition of. And yet, if there's no government intervention in the economy it's "Biden's not doing enough/Biden is personally raising gas prices every week" etc.
Of course there wasn't a single peep from them when Trump was fucking shit up, other than those "this is Biden's America" memes when Biden hadn't even taken office yet and the photos were a year old. Nothing will get done about it as long as conservatives have any say in congress. But they'll always be the one's complaining and pointing the finger at "the libruls" while profiting.
Corporations: "Make us."
Biden: "no"
How could Biden make them do it?
Why would he even be willing to?
This is a bad faith argument.
Corporations: "or what?"
He'll make a tweet that starts with "Let me be clear...".
Make them, under force of real economic consequences, or this is just begging.
I thought the President doesn't control the price of goods...
They don't. Congress with the President could but won't.
I've no illusions friend. Neither the Republicans nor the Neoliberals aka 90+ percent of Office holding Democrats have the slightest interest in helping anyone, only taking bribes and reinforcing their party's power.
This nation is over. Reaganomics saw to that and Citizens United dashed the last of the faintest of rational hopes for self-repair. This is just leftover momentum. This labor camp we call the US will eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption, but until then, we suffer generationally with zero recourse.
No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock. This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.
Yes, both parties are cancelling school lunches for impoverished children, reverting environmental regulations, overturning Roe v Wade, forcing women to become baby incubators, cutting social safety nets. Yes, they are both the same...
The Neoliberals that coopted the former Republican opposition party helped Reagan and Clinton destroy the social safetynet. Neoliberal Clinton championed destroying the social safetynet, partnering with Nute Gingrich to do it, around the same time neoliberal biden championed draconian sentencing reform to feed for profit prisons.
Modern Democrats are better than Republicans, but if you want to look for politicians that don't work against you? Look to the non-neoliberal Democrats that the Neoliberals revile more than their supposed opposition party. There's about a dozen of them between both Chambers. Most democrats are nice on social issues, but defend this rigged market capitalist hellscape lockstep with republicans.
Clinton at the time was the furthest left that the US as a whole would elect. The third way stuck because it actually worked.
I'm not going to make a snarky comment about how others should've put in more work, because I honestly don't think it would've mattered (and it'd be rude). Leftism just wasn't going to win by any viable margin. You can't squeeze blood from a stone -- when the electorate won't go further, you have to meet them where they are. I'd love it if Sanders would've been elected in the 90s instead of Clinton, but that just wasn't possible.
The fact remains there has been no attempt on the nation's part in living memory to actually run the nation by left wing policies. It hasn't been attempted and yet it is treated in the zeitgeist as if it was repeatedly and was an utter failure. I Consider FDR to be the last remotely progressive President we have attempted.
So when people reduce acknowledging both of our major parties to be varying degrees of economically right wing, center-right(D) to fascist(R) these days as 'both parties are the same' it reeks of bad faith. We can acknowledge both of our parties work against their people economically while not being absolutely interchangeable. It's just an intential tactic to muddy the waters because some prefer to play team sports, which is exactly the distraction it's meant and pushed to be.
And you're right, our people currently have the government they deserve, because they won't entertain one that works for them and protects them from the capitalist's whims, that would be evil buzzwords they never bothered to understand or something.
I think there's still important differences economically even when considering them both to be center right. There's a strong push for higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage among Democrats -- the only reason we didn't see a minimum wage increase is because 1 Democrat opposed it vs the 49 other senators. And while our system still needs work, it doesn't mean there haven't been significant changes.
There's a brilliant provision in the Inflation Reduction Act for instance that ends the corporate tax loophole for the largest corporations. A company above a certain size that makes very high revenue (>1 bil iirc) is required to pay at least 20% in taxes. They can't loophole their way to $0. The big corporations are going to have to pay actual taxes now.
I'm not going to pretend that Democrats are perfect, but I do think there's a messaging problem and a tendency to let good works speak for themselves -- which doesn't work. If you remember the rail worker strike that Congress and Biden stopped, that actually wasn't the end of it. Union leaders have said that the administration continued to work behind the scenes with the unions to pressure the rail companies, and because of that, they've gotten the sick days they were demanding.
I would need to do a lot of research to say more about if leftism ever had a serious shake in the US or not, I'll admit. My assumption is that it was rejected, given the progressivism of the New Deal era didn't persist. But I do need to do more reading.
I hear you, and mostly agree with some of what you say. Though I take issue with the right families, those being the ones benefitting from the power. What I will point out is the gilded age, and how bad it was back then. Many of the same issues we have today, corruption, bribery, the net worth of the robber barons adjusted for inflation was probably about double the net worth of our current crop of scumbag billionaire villains.
I don't subscribe to the hopelessness, and I do believe we can end this second gilded age. I just don't see the ability to do that with either political party's leadership. We have to reject them both equally while recognizing exactly the issues you're pointing out with regards to the power structure and inequality. That is essentially what happened when we ended the first gilded age.
IMO it's better to phrase it as, "The economic system has already collapsed for the majority of Americans, and it's getting worse. What will happen next?" Because it's not like people will magically disappear overnight, it's not like life is terrible for everyone all the time, and some things have improved over the last few decades.
Some people want to say "If we don't do X, the world will end." or "We didn't do X, and it all went to hell, and we're permanently doomed." Most of the time, though, end-of-the-world stances are oversimplifications.
dolan pls
They aren't the same, they differ on social issues, but have the same bribers on economic policy.
Your vote has sway on things that don't cost the owner's money.
That's an interesting sentence right there. What does that even mean, the "right" families? Are you seriously expecting the people who created the problem to now help solve it?
No, of course you aren't. But by God, let's also not ask for help from the "wrong" families...
I meant internally right. Goes to the right country clubs. Is on the right museum boards. Is in the little owner's club that starts with having a 9 figure net worth at absolute minimum.
That's what I meant by "right" it was a mocking term for the self-protecting, self-elevating wealth class made up of a few thousand of the right families that lord over all of us and believe they are where ultimate authority belongs, and have used their great wealth to secure generationally. This is their system, by their design, and they will continue to use their vast power to defend it.
Ah yes, if only one of those country club going billionaires would decide to use their power to try and come help us...
Yeah, I think I'm just gonna let you stew and simmer on that one.
I've belabored the point that they won't, have no reason to, literally created such conditions to begin with, and actively defend against any change to it.
Do you have some sort of a point? If so speak it.
I do, but if I said it outright I would just be accused of a lack of empathy and intelligence, plus a whole lot of other things far worse than that, so I won't.
So if you didn't get my broad hint, I'm not going to be upset, and if you do, like I said, perhaps take my advice to stew and simmer over it before posting a response in affect.
I don't think you understood what they were saying, and I don't think we understand what you're saying. You could help by explaining.
That's okay, I can live with that.
And that is how you miss a point, far and wide, because of your own hubris.
Yeah, like I said, I can live with that. If it's important, I'm sure it'll come up again. If not, well, then it wasn't important.
Kind of selfish of you though to waste everyone's time trying to interpret your secret messages.
Plus you shouldn't be afraid, you should speak out, that's what we're supposed to be having here, conversations.
I've already been banned from an entire server simply because my username apparently contains a secret message of bigotry and hatred, so I hope you'll excuse if I'm gonna try to keep it civil and friendly and try not to rustle too many jimmies during my time here.
I gotta say, that was an impressive amount of words to say nothing.
Thank you. I did put some effort into it.
You've already clearly demonstrated a significant lack of intelligence, might as well be out with it and say what you want to say.
Corporations: lol no
He probably went to go buy his own ice cream for the first time in 3 years and said "holy shit."
Any legislation to go with that or are you just asking nicely?
I'd be surprised if even saying this didn't have political ramifications. There's nothing, besides; military budget, tax breaks to millionaires, and their own pay raises, that would get through both houses of Congress right now.
Asking nicely is at least virtue signaling, maybe it'll be something we can address if a couple R's ever see the consequences of their illegal actions.
L-O-L
He could threaten to cancel federal contracts with any vendor found to be price gouging. That would have actual ramifications and doesn't require Congress.
The president isn't powerless here. He just wants credit for purely performative actions.
The price gouging is mainly coming from consumer facing markets, not government contracts. Even with discretionary spending there isn't that much that pure executive branch actions can do to dissuade the price gouging that we've been seeing.
Well to be fair, there is A LOT of price gouging from government contracts, but they just print the money for it so they don't REALLY care.
Yup.
If the President threatened to void federal contracts, you'd see immediate change.
But the president doesn't work for us.
I'm sure Walmart and Chipotle are shaking in their boots. I guess a president DID get McDonald's delivered to the White House once.
Never fails to amuse me the extent to which people make excuses for the leader of the free world.
Not sure what Jens Stoltenberg is gonna do about the price of bread in the USA, or are you confused with "leader of the USA" and "everyone else"?
I agree. Angry orange man was known for pushing every single loophole to make bad things happen.
If Joebob wanted to actually do something about it, he'd find a way to work it through the system. Isn't that the point of politics??
I despise Trump, but yes, I'd love to see a Democratic president who is actually willing to wield power.
Would also be nice to see 49% of voters no longer content to make excuses and vote Green instead.
In presidential systems like the US has legislation originates from congress. The President only has veto power over legislation, and controls the enforcement of existing legislation. They can't force congress to create new legislation, though of course they can propose legislation (anyone can do that). This is very different from parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party of the parliament, and can thus directly propose legislation and get their party to support it.
He added, “come on, man”
Oh shit, he means business.
“My good friends in congress will, well they uh, I mean titwinkle, and corn pop was a bad dude!”
Corporations after seeing how Black Friday netted over $9.8 billion: Uhhhh...no. According to these numbers, people LoVe the prices!
That was $10b in online sales, not total.
That’s almost 10 billion of sale prices though, for products they literally needed to offload.
And while a record amount, it was only 7.5% above normal, coming off all this Covid stuff it’s no wonder people are cutting loose and splurging a bit.
7.5% ... Wasn't that the rate of inflation recently as well? Not sure what it is at now, but we were getting up there. Higher prices wouldn't necessarily mean a new record, I am guessing.
As far as I can tell it’s just people being “savvy” and waiting for the big sale day.
Not the current rate of inflation. Inflation over the year from October 2022 - October 2023 was 3.2%.
To get to 7.5% you'd have to go back to the year from November 2021 to November 2022.
Our month to month inflation is currently about flat, meaning there was no change in prices from September 2023 to October 2023. But sometimes there's a jump one month or a drop the next, it's a little uneven, which is why people talk about the entire past year summed up. It's a confusing way to phrase it though, because if you just say inflation was 3.2% in October, people often assume that means prices raised 3.2% in October. What it actually means is prices raised 3.2% over the entire past year altogether.
Anyways this is a true new record. People's spending increases for black Friday are outpacing inflation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/cpi-inflation-report-october-2023.html
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Above normal. The data suggests US citizens still have credit limit or not feeling the pinch as all the news articles suggest.
I was expecting a big decrease this year according to what I’ve seen on lemmy. From now on, I’ll read negative news and say “meh, probably not.”
It isn't just lemmy, there's plenty of external evidence showing that people think the economy is in a bad state. Changing your entire perspective because of big spending day on black Friday makes no sense.
Not just a big spending day, an all-time record-breaking spending day, up 7.5%. That’s absolutely insane and doesn’t jive. If everyone is hurting, can’t pay their rent and bills, credit is maxed out, then how did they also crush this record on inflation-priced “sales?”
All I’ve said, I’m choosing to go by data, not news agenda. BF helped me realize our economy is thriving. That’s great!
Or they just know that Americans would rather go into significant debt, than having a lighter Christmas and/or buying less for a year or two.
I'm glad I have friends who can live without needing presents every year to feel validated on keeping a friendship alive.
I keep hearing other people just tear themselves apart because they worry about "ohhh I need to go shopping next week!" or "I can't figure out what this person wants who barely gives a shit about me but I need to gift them SOMETHING!"
Like damn people, is it worth it that much to gift someone things at the cost of your own sustainability?
Actually do something about it you crypt keeper lookin ass fuck
Like what?
This would be a start.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-introduces-legislation-to-reinstate-the-wwii-windfall-profit-tax-to-combat-rising-inequality-inflation-and-corporate-profiteering/
Oh cool. When is that passing the Senate?
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is cosponsoring the legislation in the Senate, and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
It won't pass, but if Biden can put the blame of it failing on Republicans it could help win elections.
That's something realistic he could do. For an unrealistic but satisfying option, he could pick the worst offender and make that company an example. Send every OSHA, EPA, and IRS agent they can get to swarm the company and bury them in fines and legal actions.
Using agencies as weapons like that outside of their intended purpose is... despotic.
I don't know that it's wise to take attention away from the Republicans own clusterfuck to place it on something the Dems can't get done.
I'm with you in spirit; I just think there are more layers to this than we tend to give it credit for.
I don't think they meant "use agencies as bully goons."
More like, those agencies are usually left under-resourced and under-staffed, so many companies flagrantly violate safety and employment laws because it's more profitable to just make more money and pay off an unlikely fine if they get caught.
So, if you focused all the existing attention of those agencies on the worst companies, they'd find tons of legitimate lawbreaking going on, and hopefully punish the crap out of said company.
But, you know how it is "You stole how many millions in employee wages?!?... that's $25,000 penalty for you, company. Naughty naughty!"
Exactly, even if they do get caught, the fines are so goddamn low it's barely worth it. A warehouse in my city got caught using 11-year-olds in their labor force, including having them driving forklifts. Their penalty? The kids can't work there anymore and the company that owned the warehouse got a $30k fine.
I shudder to think about the multiples of $30k in net-value generated by the labor of those children.
It still probably cost less to unethically hire them under the table and pay the 30k fine than it would to hire adults legitimately!
"Cost of doing business" at this point.
I thought child exploitation got the book thrown at you, in this country. Geeze.
It's exactly what Republicans would do if they didn't like a company. Playing nice with these people is what got us to this point.
Exactly. With apologies to Michelle Obama, "They go low, we go high!" does not work. It was never intended to work.
Democrats have a ton of sportsmanship trophies, and what do Republicans have? Well, they've got the SCOTUS, the House, and tons of State governments.
It's despotic to direct agencies to perform the tasks they were specifically created to perform? I don't think so.
It's not something that Biden would realistically do or that I think should be done in this situation, but it is far from despotic.
Maybe add a pretty please in front of the request if he isn't going to take any forceful action.
like what? Or is the purpose of this just to make people mad, even when it doesn't make sense.
Pick the worst offender corporation, invite their whole executive board to DC, and when they arrive, guillotine them on the white house lawn.
...then repeat this request.
Windfall taxes
Dude, they are gouging because they want you gone so they can have more tax breaks. Fuck then over already.
Bad corpos!
*slaps them on the wrist
Corpos = "Slap me harder Daddy Biden! Tell me that I am destroying the middle and the working class for pursuit of increaseing shareholder value and increased profits."
Stop slapping and start jailing. No teeth will never stop this.
You generally want laws to do that kind of thing. Good luck trying to get a price fixing law through the House.
We have antitrust laws. Republicans and neoliberals have de-funded the agencies that would enforce those laws to the extent that they can't take action on 99% of what's happening.
Yeah! Say more words, Joe. That'll teach em.
"If only my donors would pretty please stop that would be great. Consequences? We need to keep the elderly out of government, and ban lobbying. Until we do BOTH of those things, nothing will change and will only get worse. VOTE.
Oh thank god, I was worried brows would continue to remain unfurrowed.
MALARKEY DETECTED
Thanks Biden
It's class warfare. The rich exploit the poor and middle class. We need comically large cigar tip cutters again.
Kinda late as always, but I guess better than never.
Well I am glad he finally said something but it's too little too late. How many more suicides were there this year in the US versus say, 2019? I'll bet those numbers have experienced inflation. All so Walmarts stock can go up by a dollar.
Corporations: https://youtu.be/yWULCfJ2PGA?si=0kL1gFxcjR6HMN1S
Reminds me of this classic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ9K9kpgkzg
I was saying boourns.
I haven't found a comment talking about inflation
If the inflation is even close to the price hike on groceries, we are fucked.
Inflation rate is the government talking about themselves. So...
They were probably all deleted.
Biden blames someone else for inflation under his administration. I fixed it.
'Stop the money printing': Biden hits Federal Reserve over excessive inflation...
Is what it should say.
A year too late
December 2021
November 2021
July 2021
You know what’s funny about these kinds of posts is the type of dude you’re replying to literally NEVER comes back to say “shit, my bad”.
Like, I don’t get it, someone corrects me anywhere and I’m like “thanks, bro, appreciate the correction”…but I’ve never seen these dudes do that.
Wonder why?
Because this is how they all operate
If you regularly respond this way, you're in the minority. Most people respond to a correction emotionally, as if their authority or competence were being attacked when one mistake was pointed out.
I think you're right on the money. And knowing this often makes it very obvious when somebody responds artificially in order to try to feed you some kinda propaganda.
Thank god for my ADHD stunting my ability to regulate and understand emotions, then!
At least I can mostly control that shit from a distance.
What are YOU doing about it? Not Biden -- YOU: the person reading this comment.
I can tell you my overall cost of living since 2020 has plummeted, not because I haven't faced inflation like everyone else, but because I stopped spending on most extra things. For example: not eating out anymore, cancelled all streaming subscriptions, flexed what I eat based upon coupons and deals at the grocery store (still healthy), I drive much less, etc..
If you keep buying stuff when prices go up, this keeps demand high and, therefore, prices high.
Edit: So far people are saying they are doing nothing different... just continuing to blame corporations. It's both greedy corporations and people's fault. If the costs for basic goods and shelter go up, why wouldn't you adjust?
The prices for fixed costs have gone up, too. People need a place to live, the health to keep living, and ways of ensuring access to both, and the costs of all of those have gone up as well. A not insignificant chuck of people don't have discretionary spending to cut (not to mention how stressful living paycheck-to-paycheck on the bare essentials can be). Yes, it is certainly worth reevaluating budgets and determining where expenses can be lowered, but those margins have been getting thinner for a long while.
No, you don't get it. Corporations aren't greedy, you're at fault for needing food and shelter.
I agree many things have gone up, BUT over the last couple years people kept purchasing without adjustment. I've adjusted my grocery purchases (and I'm a nerd who tracks this in spreadsheets) to the point where my monthly costs have gone up 4% over the last 3 years.
New vehicles have shot up in price and people were still waiting in line to buy more! Trillion+ in car loan debt in the U.S.. Many of these folks could have bought a used car, fixed their old car, or just waited and purchased later. The numbers are there and support what I'm saying. I'm still driving a very old car (> 15 years old) because I think it's idiotic to buy another one right now. It sucks, but better than blowing my hard earned cash. This is coming from someone who can afford to ignore interest rates and pay cash and I still won't do it.
At the end of the day corporations will always be greedy, but only if they can. If people stop buying they can no longer be greedy (supply vs demand). We may be at the point now where people have over extended themselves so much that they simply can't afford the dumb purchases anymore which means corporations have extracted the maximum from people's wallets. Sad situation, but I blame both corporations and people.
I spent thousands on Black Friday sales to have a good Christmas as a family for the first time in what, four years?
So I guess you can say I’m doing my part to stimulate the economy.
Also I dunno about you, but I think my wife would get depressed if I told her there was no more eating out.
Black Friday purchases are a good idea. It tells corporations, "I'm willing to spend at this lower price point."
Maybe try and cook your wife her favorite meal at home or just go out less often? If going out to eat is the only way to keep your wife happy then you could look elsewhere to cut costs if you need to.
I stopped spending on extra things too, and it's really helped. I sold my house so I didn't have to pay a mortgage and moved into my car which I never drive because buying gasoline will keep the price high. I also cancelled all of my streaming services, so I stare at the ceiling to entertain myself. I eat exclusively organic dirt that's on sale because I stopped splurging on food. Why don't people just spend less money?
This comment made me think I accidentally posted on Reddit. My edit still stands (I was pretty confident it would for a while).
"Stop the price-gouging...", the unspoken bit after is "... they're starting to catch on"
Capital is king, and Joe kneels at the throne at the end of the day.
He doesn't kneel, he's the dad that fucking shoots you if you try to play with his kid's toys
Yeah, it's totally nothing to do with his policies.
You are correct. Most of the world is experiencing price gouging and inflation.
Its just something that happens and there is nothing we can do about it. The market is like the weather sometimes it rains sometimes it pours.
You almost sound like you're in favor of market regulation. Yet, somehow I very much doubt that is true.
Why do you think I wouldn't be in favor of market regulation?
Well, to be honest, "nothing we can do about it".
My bad.
Ah sorry that was supposed to be sarcasm poking fun of the other commenters dismissal of the problem because "the entire world is experiencing this"
so no one can influence the "weather" here?
Give us one fucking Biden policy that caused this
🦗
Shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and restricting domestic oil leases almost immediately increased the price of gas by 20 or so cents.
How the fuck is that related to price gouging? Are you having a stroke?
Making gas more expensive to produce will drive up the price you pay at the pump. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?
That's not price gouging though is it you dumb fuck? Have you even read the fucking article? It's always hilarious when an absolute buffoon tries to be ironic.
Alright, while your crude behavior doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about your receptivity for reason and evidence, let's take a look how Biden actually defines "price gouging":
This is either another one of his classic faux pas, or it's used as a propaganda term here, because on closer examination, this sentence reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between prices and inflation. Stay with me here, and I'll explain why, but I'm afraid it's going to require just a little of high school math.
Inflation is defined as the rate that prices rise, i.e. higher inflation = prices rise faster, lower inflation = prices rise slower. Read that last part again, because that means specifically that lower inflation does not mean prices go down. It means they go up more slowly. In order for prices to actually go down, inflation would have to be negative, which it currently isn't. Hence, Biden is either making a mathematical error here, or he is deliberately misleading people about the nature of the relationship between prices and inflation.
There you go, I hope that was clear enough. Now feel free to continue your verbal abuse, but I think it's amply clear who's the buffoon here.
You are correct
What policies, specifically?
Sending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war in Ukraine, for instance.
What, you thought we actually HAD hundreds of billions of dollars? They're all just printed from thin air and added to the national debt, and then inflation goes up as a result of the increased money supply.
Could you share where you got your number? The most recent source I found on google showed $44.2 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the invasion began. From what I can tell this doesn't include other humanitarian aid, so I wonder if that makes up the difference?
Whatever the case, if you have more info I'd appreciate it if you could share
Hm, I was under the impression there recently was a package of $100 billion being discussed, but it appears that at least some of that money was supposed to go to Israel, not to Ukraine, and I'm not entirely sure if it ever made it through the house.
As far as what's already been spent, the BBC has reported a total of $46.6 billion as of February 21 this year, and the Council of Foreign Relationships claims a total of $76.8 billion, of which the aforementioned $46.6 billion constitute the direct military aid.
Of the bill mentioned in the first paragraph, $61 billion would supposedly go to Ukraine, so if passed, this would definitely bring the total to over $100 billion. So I regretfully admit to having slightly exaggerated my figures for dramatic effect, and humbly beg for your forgiveness, but least I only missed the mark by a single order of magnitude, and we're still somewhere in the right ballpark.
Thanks for your reply! Some people on the internet don't respond to criticism well, I'm sure you know what I mean, so it's always nice when someone is chill about it.
I honestly don't follow politics too closely, so I wasn't aware of the bill you referenced. Thanks for filling me in!
And yeah, your point still stands regardless of the number. I don't personally know much about how the federal budget works, so I'm just here to learn.
If you don't mind telling me, what would be the ideal response by the US in your opinion? Would you have wanted us to send less (or zero) aid to Ukraine?
I honestly don't know, since I'm neither a politician nor a foreign policy expert, but it certainly seems to me that the critics were right on this one, and it was mostly a useless proxy war designed to fill the coffers of the morally ambiguous and well-connected elite at the cost of thousands of innocent human lives, so it seems that either preventing it from the getgo or not funding it all would have been the better choice. But hindsight is always 20/20.
Yes, if Putin had invaded and we had done nothing at all, some lives would have still been lost, but most likely the Ukrainian army would have folded much quicker and the death toll would have been much lower than it stands now. And let's not forget, the whole thing only started because Biden greenlit that Nordstream Two pipeline that Trump had spent his entire four years blocking for fear of precisely this incident. Literally within a week of the pipeline's approval, the first Russian boots were on Ukrainian soil, so whatever you think of the orange cheeto, it seems he was 100% on the money on this one.