You must log in or register to comment.
Fun fact, the article author got laid off too recently
I guess he’ll just have to skip some breakfasts and it’ll be fine.
Did you read the article? The author is showing that breakfast product are the one that suffered the most from inflation, he ‘s not saying poor people should just « deal with it »
His framing and conclusions are absolutely bonkers.
What do we do if we’ve already skipped breakfast but the bourgeois cunts still won’t let us have enough money for lunch?
They’ll keep cutting everything down until people revolt because they’re facing death from starvation.
It’s a gentle balance between making people live with less and starvation. The less common people have the more money the rich make. But the rich know not to go too far because they know it will cause mass panic. They also know that most decent people can do with a lot of misery before they revolt.
The balance is also controlled by us too. How much abuse are we willing to take before acting out or organizing against it all. From the looks of things, we are willing to take a lot of abuse.
The logic and balance game I’m describing are all features that have happened before … it’s the basis of why events like the French Revolution, the American Revolution or the Communist Revolution happened in the past.
It was a choice … either have no choice but die in the old system with nothing … or fight and die for something new and have a chance of living.
The balancing game continues to be played now and the game is simply to keep things on edge but never allow it to go too far and cause people to revolt and change the system.
Historically, revolutions begin when the populace stops being fed consistently
Already do to save time
I do this for years, food is getting too expensive in the country I live
What was the intended logic there? Eating something cheap for breakfast makes sense, but the difference between the cheapest food and no food is very little money but a great deal of well-being.
