The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.
If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.
But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.
The markets say one thing, but grocery receipts say another. Consumers are still hurting, and most choose not to look beyond today and their own pocketbooks.
But grocery receipts are not an indicator of inflation, only of corporate greed and record profits. The Democrats need to a better job pointing the blame where it really lies.
I think one caveat here (and I’m not disagreeing with you, just adding a bit of clarification) is that the grocery stores aren’t the ones engaging in this. Generally, they have pretty tight profit margins. The massive growth of Aldi and other discount grocers in the USA over the past 10-20 years has made the profit margins remain tight. It’s the upstream producers where you see more of the greed.
Most people reading this probably haven’t even heard of a company like Cargill, even though they control a massive chunk of your meat.
Edit: maybe I should have said they produce most of your meat (or the plurality, not sure the exact numbers. They’re the biggest in North American beef, maybe other meats too)
I work in the corporate office for a grocery, you’re not wrong at all chief.
This entire year one of our biggest corporate goals has been how to either drive down prices for our customers or how to increase value for them so that they’ll feel their dollar went further.
welllll they done gone and shit the bed on that one! Lol prices are higher than ever and I feel like my dollar is worth about as much as a turd these days and it doesn’t seem like it’s getting any better.
You didn’t read the comment above mine at all did you?
Yes I did. And I understand that it’s not really on the grocery stores that the prices are increasing. But it’s still funny when the goal of a company is literally to “drive down prices for our customers or how to increase value for them so that they’ll feel their dollar went further” aaaaamd nothing but the exact opposite is happening. So yes, even tho it may not really be their fault, they’re still dropping the ball on that goal lol c’mon.
not their fault
Dropping the ball
Lol.
Shameless fucks
Most people reading this probably haven’t even heard of a company like Cargill, even though they control a massive chunk of your meat.
Kinda curious what percert do. Fediverse isn’t exactly a random sample. I’d imagine it was be a small minority of the general population who know that. Honestly mostly only became aware of Cargill because of how much of the Venezuela food market they used to control (and the possible abuse of that position).
even though they control a massive chunk of your meat.
Ooo-er……
And the rest of your meat is under the control of a handful of larger consumer goods companies, the five fingers of big tech, and the chubby paws of a few other companies in key industries. Together, they have your meat in a vice.
deleted by creator
Revenue is not profit. You’re quoting revenue to make the situation look more extreme than it is. That number is not profit. You’re also cherrypicking a top performer instead of looking at industry trends. Publix, in my experience (only visit the south, don’t live there), is a higher end store.
Kroger lost money this quarter. Profit was negative.
It’s also not so straightforward for a number of reasons. Grocery consolidation is way up, so operating revenues go up because there are more stores in each brand’s portfolio. YOY growth is misleading, you should look at profit per store to get a better grasp on a trend. You’re also looking at an industry heavily impacted by the pandemic (certain chains like Walmart and Amazon saw more grocery growth during the pandemic for obvious reasons)
But grocery receipts are not an indicator of inflation, only of corporate greed and record profits. The Democrats need to a better job pointing the blame where it really lies.
what do you think “inflation” means to consumers? it’s the increase over time of the cost of the things they buy. Nobody cares if it’s coming from corporate greed or climate change or whatever else. They only care that they’ve already been living pay check to pay check and now they’re cutting back on food into ever more shitty options.
or housing. or any of a dozen other necessary-to-live things.
That’s fine but it has fuck-all to do with Biden’s policies and it’s beyond any President to change those things. It’s like when people judge a president by the price of gas during the administration. The reasons housing and food are expensive as fuck currently is
- lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades
- interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response
- massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people
Maybe “nobody cares if it’s coming from corporate greed” but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid. It’s rather unwise to blame it on Biden, vote him out, and then get a Republican (especially the unholy moron in the lead currently) who will do absolutely worse about the real issues in every way possible.
I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices… he could also direct the US DOJ to go after price gouging and other anti-competitive practices that absolutely are illegal, work out more favorable trade deals (a lot of produce comes up from Mexico, for example avocados and tomatoes); and he could work with congress to bring SNAP benefits to more people; or increase SNAP benefits to people already on it.
lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades
Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage… maybe we could call it a minimum… wage… yeah he’d have to work with congress to get that done. But that’s… kinda part of his job.
interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response the interest rates that were predicated on fucking over the same wages we just talked about? the wages that… for the vast majority of americans… have been stagnant. kinda makes you go… ‘HMMM’, doesn’t it?
massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people
maybe they should make federal laws against price gouging, huh? sounds like something a president might be able to work on (most states have laws against price gouging, however)
The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically, and/or are the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. And true, Democrats could be much better on minimum wage and restraining big business. But so what, as usual - you’re going to elect a Republican instead, when they’re much worse on all of those issues?
The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically
“These things are too complicated” when it’s something that might help people. Not a concern when building Trump’s wall for him or shoveling money to the IDF.
“oh pity poor me, I can’t do ANYTHING!” is a bad look for a president. He’s done a fair bit, most of it is of the ‘taking care of business’ variety.
Yes, he needs to work with congress- that’s part of his job. I’m not asking him to do anything that isn’t part of being… you know… the president. Just because he’s better than a field of alternatives, doesn’t mean he’s not also worse than… I don’t know, a progressive democrat? By and large, the president sets the political course for his party; at least while in office.
but again, there’s things he CAN be doing. Like, going after monopolies; breaking up companies that are much too large- actions that increase competition and bring direct price actions. they can go after people for unfair (or fraudulent) practices in the sectors hurting people most. Instead hes focused on… ticketmaster… and airlines. yeah, they’re scummy companies. they should be dealt with. What about Kroger, Cargill, Nestle. Student loans. predatory landlords.
There’s a lot that Biden could be doing. Or more specifically, directing his federal agencies to be doing.
The FTC just wrapped up a major antitrust suit against Google. Not sure how you missed that one.
But anyway, could Biden be less of a corporate Democrat and work more effectively as a populist? Sure. I’m not sure who you think was disagreeing with that. As far as breaking up large corporations in 5 different industries all at once though, and taking executive action on duties of the legislative branch, I think you’re expecting a bit much, which is not even remotely the same thing as “pity me I can’t do anything”.
Yes, he needs to work with congress- that’s part of his job.
They don’t want to work with him. Or have you forgotten that the only Republican goal anymore is “own the libs?”
lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades
Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage… maybe we could call it a minimum… wage… yeah he’d have to work with congress to get that done. But that’s… kinda part of his job.
1.4% of Americans are on minimum wage so I’m not sure this will have the impact you think it will.
I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices
This is going to need some proof.
Apparently Walmart and Kroger BOTH have a monopoly on grocery retail.
but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid.
Is there something wrong with that? Voters elected Trump with the help of the electoral college. Over the last several decades, they’re the ones who repeatedly voted in people who’ve enacted policies that have lead to the trend of lack of wage increases and increased regulatory capture that has allowed the current inflation problems.
Why can’t the conclusion simply be voters are stupid, so they’ll make decisions based on whims and feels that may not have a strong connection to the policies of the specific person?
The Democrats need to do a better job at giving people the money they need to get what they need, and controlling the out-of-control plutocrats wringing every last bit of spare change from the rest of us.
“Ok GOP, we’ll cut our yearly deficit by 60% just by only giving the welfare queen confederate states $1 back for every dollar they contribute in taxes, instead of the $6 that South Carolina gets. Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and start turning a profit.”
“Hey, Joe Manchin: if you don’t offer your full-throated support to Build Back Better, we’re cutting off all Federal aid and investment in West Virginia, and we’re going to run nonstop ads telling your constituents why. Also, we’re going to break up your daughter’s pharma company.”
Time for some LBJ shit. But they’ll never do it, because they’re actually conservatives too.
A lot of people want prices to return to what they were before the pandemic. But that would be deflation. While the prices would get lower, if you actually managed to push the economy into deflation it would be an economic catastrophe. And the lower prices at the grocery store would be little comfort with massive job losses and the economy in free fall.
What people should want is for inflation to return to its steady slow rate. Which it has. The month to month inflation was 0.2% compared to a month prior on September 2023. Going forward that would imply a rate of 2.4% over the course of the next year, very close to the 2% inflation target. For October the month to month rate was flat or slightly negative. The inflation number reported in the news always is very misleading, that tells you the total amount of inflation that occured over the past 12 months (3.2%). But it was actually 0 from September 2023 to October 2023. When people hear those headlines they think it means prices raised 3.2% again over the last month, which is not the case.
The remarkable thing is that inflation was slowed to this extent without the economy going into freefall with soaring unemployment or other problems that can happen with raised interest rates. They seem to have struck the perfect balance to wrangle inflation but prevent a recession at the same time.
Wage growth has also increased and is now growing faster than inflation. That’s what you want! For the wages to catch up and make the higher prices a moot point. A deflationary spiral that lowered prices would be devestaring for the economy and most people would actually end up way worse off.
Outside of a socialist centrally managed economy with price controls and production control etc which has its own issues, I don’t know how they could have done a better job than this coming out of the inflation problems created by covid and doing it all without going into recession. But the popular perception is just, why isn’t everything cheaper again, I want everything cheaper again, must be Biden’s fault, I guess. Even though things getting cheaper again isnt realistic, and would likely be devestating for lots of other reasons that would hurt people if it actually was happening.
I hear about how deflation is supposedly the death knell for an economy, but have never heard an actual explanation for why. Inflation just seems preferred since it gives an invisible paycut to workers and allows holders of assets and debt (e.g. overwhelmingly the rich) to benefit at the expense of the value of money.
The idea is that with inflation, money today is worth more than tomorrow, with deflation it’s the opposite. So, in an inflationary regime, you’ll spend money before it loses value, either by buying things, or buying stocks AKA investing. In a deflationary regime, money gains value, so people keep it, nobody buys, nobody invests, and the economy starts shutting down.
Okay but I’m still gonna buy groceries if they’re cheaper because I need to eat
Sure, but you’ll buy them even if they’re not cheap, because you need to eat. But on a large enough scale, the effects are, well, large.
Pretty sure everybody needs to eat.
…I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say.
Technology gets cheaper and better every year. It’s inherently deflationary and yet people still buy computers, TVs, phones, etc.
Because new models come out constantly. If they didn’t, nobody would rush to buy. In fact even now the most common dillema is “Do I buy now, or wait for the next gen to come out?”
Alright, then what would people be waiting on to buy in a deflationary environment that they don’t wait for in an inflationary environment?
“Econ 101”? Anything that I can get you to not buy by convincing you it’ll be on sale in a month or two. New car, a house, electronics, IDK, cookware?
Actual stock market example? Investment is when you put money in now, in the hope that what you get in the future will be worth more than the money. If the value of money goes down, anything that doesn’t follow the money as it falls is a good investment. If the value of money goes up, any investment has to not only rise, it has to outperform the currency to be worth it. The idea is that inflation makes saving pointless, so money moves from the piggy-bank into the economy, and is spun into growth, while deflation makes saving pretty smart, and pulls money from the economy into savings. That’s why the recession in the seventies was such a big deal: “stag-flation” saw both inflation, and stagnation of the market, which is not typical.
Inflation is better for people in debt since it makes it easier to pay back; a lot of farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century pushed for inflationary policies in part to make it easier to pay off bank loans.
Deflation is bad for two reasons. First, as mentioned, is that it doesn’t encourage people to spend sooner in the market. Second is that it encourages investors to pull out their money from the market, since they may get better returns stuffing it in their mattress.
That only works for loans already taken out. A fresh loan will adjust to whatever the inflation/deflation rate is. Juicing the economy by helping out people who took out more money than what allows for a margin of error means we’re just encouraging risky behavior. The reason for taking out a loan is that you expect that the money now will give better returns that just letting it sit. Let’s say the deflation rate is 2% and you take out a loan at 1% interest. If you can’t put that money to use better than growing at 3%, then it sounds like your business isn’t viable anyway. It’d be like taking out a 5% loan at 2% inflation rate and failing to beat that.
If I buy stocks, I’m not technically investing in a company unless it was an initial sale of stock by the company and that usually isn’t the case. Instead it’s just speculation. So how is that different from letting it sit under a mattress economy-wise? Also, if you buy a stock and it goes nowhere, you’ve actually gained by whatever the deflation rate is, but under inflation, you’ve lost by however much the inflation rate is. Seems like inflation would only encourage people to pursue more aggressive (i.e. risky) returns.
Let’s say the deflation rate is 2% and you take out a loan at 1% interest
No one is going to lend you money at an interest rate lower than the deflation rate, ever.
If I buy stocks, I’m not technically investing in a company unless it was an initial sale of stock by the company and that usually isn’t the case. Instead it’s just speculation.
Every stock purchase is an investment in a company, always. That’s literally what you’re buying
So how is that different from letting it sit under a mattress economy-wise?
The money then gets spent, which does not happen under your mattress.
You’ve got some very foundational aspects of this entire process quite wrong.
Why wouldn’t they lend you money at 1% when the deflation rate is 2%? Their money is worth 2% more plus they get 1% more from you.
Not every every stock purchase is an investment in a company, because you’re buying off someone who is not the company. The company doesn’t make that money. It’s kind of like used sales vs new sales. Again, only when the company issues new shares or does an IPO do they make money off stock sale.
If I buy a stock and sit on it, that’s essentially money sitting there. Whether it’s cash or a digital record claiming I own X number of shares in a company, it’s not doing much.
If I’ve gotten foundational aspects of this process wrong, you’ve yet to demonstrate how.
There are only a set amount of shares. Shares being in demand increases their price. I am sure you can see him w this does financially benefit the company.
Yes an IPO is when the most stock is sold, but new shares happen all the time. It’s disingenuously pedantic to suggest purchasing stock is not an investment in a company, by both literal and figurative definitions.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1888/economics/deflationary-spiral/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deflationary-spiral.asp
This is a good explanation. And the great depression involved deflation if that gives you an idea of how bad it can be. What happens basically is if you need something in an inflationary environment, it’s best to buy it now. It’s likely going to be slightly more expensive over time anyways.
In a deflationary environment, the logical thing for any one person to do is to wait as long as possible to make any purchase of an item or service. Why should I buy it if it’ll get cheaper over time? I’ll just wait. So this is a problem, any transaction that involves the transfer of money, people are avoiding if possible. So revenue to employers is plummeting, they start firing people, they don’t need as many now. People have even less money than before, prices sink lower to try and attract business because everyone is running low on cash now, and around and around it goes. Businesses are going bankrupt and closing up, leading to more job losses. There’s tons of people looking for work and not many jobs, so pay decreases because there’s way more workers than needed.
If you have any sort of debt (face it most of us do), deflation is also devastating. Normally inflation helps with debt by making the debt value decrease relatively over time, it gets easier to pay. In deflation the opposite is true, and it gets harder and harder to pay over time. If deflation was like 4%, well then add another effective 4% interest to any rate to get the true interest rate on debt you already own or any new debt you take out. So now it’s extremely difficult to get credit or loans. People are mass defaulting on loans. More people losing jobs. Housing, cars, new businesses, storefronts, retail space, building projects, government projects, anything that relies on financing collapsing because no one can afford the debt. Even less money flowing into economy, etc etc. There’s more problems that crop up too.
It’s a feedback loop of an economic death spiral that can be hard to break out of, as seen in the great depression. Barring a radical restructuring of the entire world economic system or something, the best place to be in for most people is where we are now, a small amount of yearly inflation (~2%) with workers highly in demand so wages are rising.
Any economic downturn will involve the risk of deflation because lack of demand will cause prices to go down, but that is merely a symptom, not the cause of the great depression. While you talk about the logical choice of waiting for purchases, this doesn’t work out the same way in real life because people generally just buy when they want something. A key example is technology. Technology is inherently deflationary because it’s designed to be cheap to manufacture, so initial high prices are mainly to recoup R&D costs plus profits and it should only get cheaper from there, plus technological advances mean that you get a better product than before. However, people and businesses don’t just wait around forever to purchase computers, TVs, phones, etc. Technology is the largest sector of the S&P 500.
As for debt, if deflation is expected then it’ll be factored into the interest rate. What’s the difference between a 4% loan at 2% inflation and a 0% interest rate at 2% deflation? The 2% inflation rate target is completely arbitrary, so why not target a 2% deflation rate? Consistency is key.
You pointed it out yourself, deflation is a symptom of bad economic downturns. How would you propose causing deflation without an economic downturn or some kind of intrusive economy wide price controls and rationing? A deflationary environment is deflationary because no one can afford to buy anything so prices are dropping to try and compensate. And once deflation is established it’s very hard to break out again (see how long the great depression lasted). It’s a terrible situation.
If they kept driving interest rates even higher until they got deflation, the reason would be because they got interest rates so high the entire economy has gone into a giant recession. You can’t just “set a 2% deflation target.” When the fed is talking about an inflation target, it’s adjusting the interest rate to get there. I mean you could set that target, but you’d be waiting until the interest rate got so high the entire economy had crashed before you got there. You’d be shooting yourself in the head to fix a headache.
You’re also ignoring all the many existing debts with fixed interest rates, a deflationary environment would be devastating for student loans. The corona virus period inflation has actually helped them and devalued any debt from prior to this period, making it easier to pay off in the future.
You can cause deflation through tighter controls on the monetary supply. The fed is so scared of deflation that they had been lending out money to banks very cheaply and this has caused the crazy asset bubbles we’re grappling with now. You’ll get spiraling deflation because of crazy heights of inflation. A more controlled process would temper risky behaviors and smooth things out instead of having to deal with stark boom and bust cycles. Cheap money is actually how the great depression happened. Banks would lend money willy nilly and people would throw it at the stock market or other frivolous purchases. These risky “investments” set up the deflation spiral as things had to come back to reality. Deflation was the medicine and you’re pointing at it as if it was the cause. Yes, the transition will be painful, but putting it off will only make it more painful when the piper comes to collect.
Inflation only helps you pay down debts if you make more money to match that inflation. Instead, people are paying 50-100% more for groceries, housing, and vehicles, among many other things. Meanwhile their paychecks are not necessarily matching inflation.
Yeah, they decrease the money supply by rasing interest rates, that’s what they’re doing. And if they go too far they’ll cause a recession. It would be the recession that causes deflation. But now you have a recession. And 50-100% inflation is just simply untrue. And it’s also untrue paychecks aren’t matching inflation right now. Wages have been growing faster than inflation since January.
Outside of a socialist centrally managed economy with price controls and production control etc which has its own issues
Boy are you underselling those problems.
Oh I know, tons of issues. It wasn’t supposed to be the primary topic of the comment, was just pre empting the “well actually” comments from the relatively high amount of communism and socialism proponents on lemmy. I’m speaking about how this all works within our current capitalist economy and system. I don’t think instituting price controls is a good idea. There are better ways.
deleted by creator
The economy is not even close to being the main priority for me when I vote. I’m pissed about things like Roe and Jan 6.
And I’m pissed that the US does not offer universal healthcare, universal college-level education, universal PTO, universal family leave, etc.
You know, basic things in every other developed country in this world.
Zero chance I’m ever voting for a Republican. Democrats down the ballot for me.
I’m voting D too for the time being, but the Dems are never going to give us those things either.
The best Dems will offer is BS like means-tested limited family leave if you work for 3 years in an underprivileged school district first and then apply for a special program that will offset 25.7% of your lost wages via tax credits that can only be applied to the first $34,000 of income including HSA contributions but crediting back via deduction the first $500 spent on diapers as long as the diapers were 70% manufactured in the US blah blah blah
This Democratic party does not want universal healthcare. At best, they will grudgingly support universal “access” to healthcare. They do not want universal free college, nor free PTO, because that runs counter to the interests of their largest donors.
The best we can say about the current Democratic party is that they will, at times, pause the active arson that the GOP is inflicting on this country… maybe, sort of. They could have added DC and PR as states in the 2021-2022 session and given themselves a fighting chance in the Senate, but I guess they just kinda forgot to get around to it.
They exist to be a placeholder for whenever the GOP loses power, and a continuous fundraising lifestyle brand the rest of the time.
I don’t think that’s true. Lots of Dems support Medicare for All, which would be a good step in the right direction toward universal healthcare.
I also see the Biden admin do everything it can to get as much student loan relief as possible. But they are blocked at every turn by Republicans and Trump’s Supreme Court. I appreciate Biden’s efforts.
They also attempted to instate family leave and a child credit during covid. Again blocked by Republicans.
I hope to see them continue their attempts and hopefully succeed sooner rather than later.
I think most Democratic party voters want universal healthcare. I think most Democratic party politicians do not.
I don’t think cynicism will bring us any further. I believe it can be done if we vote for people who share the vision. And there are lots of people who share that vision.
But, of course, it’s not going to happen if people end up voting for someone else on election day because “gas prices are a little high for my taste right now.”
The best bet is to vote for enough progressive democrats that will support ranked choice voting and we get it. Once that happens we can build actual progressive platforms and parties but as it sits your not going to change the foundation of the democrat or republican parties. We need new ones and for the time being the democrats are allowing us to vote in more younger progressives and that may be the ticket to finally getting out of the US’s trapped two party system.
I think you’re right in the issue, prices are higher now vs recent history and that feels bad, but there is an aspect to that which is more perception than reality.
Wages have been rising faster than inflation for a year and a half straight now, and real wages are currently higher than they were in Q4 2019.
So yes things cost more, but as a percentage of typical wage, they actually cost less vs 2019. Just doesn’t feel that way.
The Fed’s job is to defend and grow the owner class’s wealth at everyone else’s expense, full stop.
The problem is that Wall Street Wealth is not Voters Wealth. “Economy” has become “Riches Economy” - In a good economy, the rich profit more, in a bad one, the rich profit less (but thy still profit, if they are not terminally stupid). All the rest just pays for it, regardless in what state the economy is.
For normal people, the economy is, as always, in a very bad shape.
This is high-schooler thinking. Yeah rich people benefit more from the stock market and are more able to weather the dips, but the overall health of the economy is still closely coupled to the average person’s quality of life and employment opportunities.
The stock market is not the economy. Just because stocks have had a soft landing doesn’t mean that that’s translated to people’s lives experiences.
A company making higher profit has a higher stock price.
A company that can pay its workers less for what they produce will have higher profits.
Therefore the stock market is a measure of how effectively workers are being exploited.
Not true. It’s also a measure of how effectively customers are being gouged.
Both can be true…
Hence the “also”.
“that’s not true but it’s also true”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The markets are reacting to what they think means the economy is making a soft landing. The fed was battling inflation, which usually means they press on the lever too hard and we have end up in a recession with high unemployment.
But we haven’t entered into a recession, employment is still very high and wages are currently out pacing inflation.
We still have catching up to do due to how much people fell behind during the period of high inflation, but this landing is way better than any other we’ve seen and certainly better for most people who may have otherwise been just unemployed rather than just struggling to stretch their current income.
What did you think a soft landing meant?
For the markets daily volume 90% is traded off market without affecting the price due to pfof and bs exemptions from market makers that allows them to very effectively naked short stock for “liquidity”. Couple that up with nearly every big firm using the Aladin algorithm and you can make the market do what ever you want granted a story is going which supports your narrative. I’ll believe we had a soft landing when equity swap data reporting is not getting continuously delayed hiding true market positions. Also don’t forget we have a plunge protection team who’s job is to short or buy stocks with taxpayer dollars to pretend the market is stable. Also don’t forget this started before covid.
Do you work in finance?
But what does this have to do with the rest of what I said? You seem to be arguing that the market is a reflection of the economy, just some secret market that no one knows about.
I’m explaining that the market you base your health of an economy on is manipulated to all hell. Has abandoned most of the principles that made it a reflection of the economy and is still being paraded as if it’s some useful metric. Aladin and most other market algos are trained on prior patterns and predict their reappearance, have enough firms using that system and its able to predict its own moves. I.e the reason they can predict some semblance of the market is because most of your market works on the same trading signals and data points. Allowing it to react to its own interpretation of the market that was created by its own signals. Allow market makers exemptions to short selling for liquidity purposes and the ability to print to the tape the trades that are favorable to them, and you can swing a market any which way you want.
You seem to be arguing that the market is a reflection of the economy, just some secret market that no one knows about.
No I’m pointing out that the metric in which we base our economies health is pretty much a show built on confirmation bias from using systems that predict and reinforce biased data points.
No one here is basing the health of the economy on the market. This has never been true, even pre automated trading. However, sometimes the markets do react to good news in the general economy, as they are not completely decoupled, and this is what I’m talking about.
I’ll try again, do you work in finance?
Wow. Someone actually bought the trickle down theory.
Removed by mod
But according to the article, there’s no evidence that this means anything is wrong with the economy…
You just conflated the stock market and the overall health of the economy without so much as a hint of a logical step.
Next you’re gonna tell us that when the rich benefit the whole system benefits because the wealthy will recirculate their wealth back into the system
Like horses and sparrows.
Or some kind of liquid trickling down.
Hahahahahaha
sure, buddy, keep telling yourself that
Is this English?
Exactly. Your downvotes here only prove the financial illiteracy/intentional misinformation rampant across lemmy.
Not to mention that the average person should be putting their retirement savings mostly into mutual funds, so when the market goes up it should benefit the average person directly as well as indirectly.
And do you have any criticism for the rampant misinformation being spread by major politicial parties, for-profit media empires, exclusive schools and giant corporations the world over, as they promise “this time, neoliberalism is really going to work”, even as they stake their fortunes on it failing yet again?
Do you have anything relevant to the conversation to say, or just typical whataboutism?
Relevant username.
That is completely relevant to the conversation. If you can’t even manage a token “trickle down is bullshit” then we know the “knowledge” you’re about to bless us poor idiots with is just self-serving garbage.
The average person doesn’t have retirement savings dude, that’s the whole problem. 80% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck.
A quick glance at his profile should be all you need to know that facts aren’t going to change his opinions.
Not because he’s one of the usual fascists, reactionaries, or idiots, but because chances are he’s a neoliberal, groomed from birth to defend the rich.
It’s unlikely he’ll actually admit it, because the piss-covered graves of Thatcher and Reagan made it clear it was best to stay mask on. Instead they communicate through dog-whistles, flashing just enough of their bullshit theories like “trickle down economics” and “deregulation is better for everyone” to let other neoliberals know the feeding trough will soon open and filled with other people’s money.
The giveaway is that whenever he decides to be critical of other peoples opinions, they’re almost always opinions that are a threat to someones profits.
People upset about the spiralling cost of living while the executives of the companies milking them for every cent get multi-million dollar bonuses? They just don’t understand economics.
Whistleblowers exposing the horrific animal abuse thats rife within the multi-billion dollar meat industry? They’re just petty criminals.
It’s the game they’ve all been taught to play. You’re allowed to tussle for market share (such as the “left wing” and “right wing” media empires and political parties) but you’re never, ever to tolerate a genuine threat to the systems they’ve built.
The moment a politician suggests making the rich pay their share, all of these “competitors” suddenly unify with a class solidarity we can only dream of.
Which is a lot of words to call out a single person living in his greedy little bubble, but it’s important that people are able to identity neoliberalism in the wild, because its well on its way to killing us all.
Mutual funds generally underperform the SP500 as a whole, as well as most broad-spectrum ETFs, and carry an expense ratio 5x higher than VG/Schwab ETFs just for fun. And that’s not even accounting for the class-A shares that a lot of financial advisors steer their retail clients into.
No, the “average” person should be putting whatever retirement money they can scrape together into index funds via Roth and/or traditional IRA, then regular retirement investments. But most “average” people can’t afford to even sock away 6 months’ worth of expenses in an emergency fund because healthcare costs and anything associated with raising kids has gone up a gazillion percent in the last 40 years while real wages have stayed stagnant.
Oh, also try buying a house while facing all of that AND student loans that Republicans are too pig-headed to let the government forgive even a fraction of.
“Financial illiteracy” isn’t the problem here, reality is.
What the poors really need to do is hire better accountants!
You have savings?
Lmao
High stock prices don’t get people food, housing or healthcare.
It’s great news if you own a hedge fund, but completely fucking worthless if you can’t feed your kids.
Any time someone talks about “the economy”, you can freely substitute “rich people’s yacht money”.
The main problem is, that most of the things you need to help people are in the power of Congress, not the president.
The first two years, Manchin and Sinema blocked meaningful reform in the Senate. And now there is a republican shit show in the house.
“but hey, the rich people are doing fabulously” is pretty fucking cold comfort for the people that they’re unable to help. Read the goddamn room.
Also, if the government isn’t capable of helping me, why bother voting?
Yeah, I don’t think this article is meant for us Normans, this is a nod to the donor class that Biden is worth re-investment for ‘24.
I’m so fucking tired of hearing about Manchin and Sinema.
The economy doing well helps you feed your kid because you can, ya know, have a job.
Having a job is infinitely preferable to not, so… Pretty well.
And Trump, the self-professed billionaire who cut the taxes of other billionaires, is going to be SO much more beneficial for the middle and lower class.
Or you know maybe we could raise the bar just a teeny little bit above ‘at least he isn’t as bad as trump’.
Yeah, neither is a shit sandwich and a rubdown with a cheese grater, but that doesn’t mean you have to want it.
I’m really sick of this line of reasoning that functionally goes:
- Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s fine, everything’s fine, and despite what your lived experience is telling you, you’re doing great because just look at the charts and the stonks. Yes, okay, you had to cut back on groceries, but did you see the charts? The economy is doing great.
And when somebody says “hey, this doesn’t align with my experience, can we just acknowledge that things aren’t actually that great and work towards fixing them?” The response is
- Ugh, why would you want to vote for Trump?!
MF, I don’t, but if the people don’t feel seen by Biden, they might not vote for him specifically because of all the tone-deaf paternalistic “stop whining about my economy, you’re fine actually” messaging. It’s kind of a similar vibe to answering “can we not support genocide in Gaza, please?” With “why do you hate Jews?!”. It’s just an attempt to avoid dealing with legitimate criticism while deflecting it back onto the asker. The clinton campaign already tested this strategy in 16, and we all saw how that turned out.
Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s fine, everything’s fine
This is, generally, true on all counts.
Anyone who doesn’t think avoiding a recession is better than the alternative is not a serious person worth listening to, and there is probably a link between their understanding of economics and their poverty.
I kinda get the vibe you’re trying to be smarmy. Look, saying “you should be happy you’re not in a recession, stupid” is not effective messaging. If it’s going to take losing this election for you and the DNC to learn that, I’m going to be awfully fucking cross.
Democrats literally just had a massive series of electoral victories, this month.
I mean, it’s not like Democrats have never managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. I’m just saying, this is shit tier messaging, and when the whole ass republic is at stake, it sure would be nice to see them actually trying instead of phoning it in with shitty messaging because “the other guy is basically Hitler and we’ve been doing pretty well”.
Dude the other side couldnt get it’s shit together enough to keep a speakership in place. What do you expect the Democrats to be doing? It’s a miracle the government is funded at all.
This is a result of them trying. Biden’s “contribution” here was primarily from democrat-pushed legislation.
The Democrats’ propaganda game is miserable in 2023. The big difference is that Clinton promoted himself effectively. Remember when George Stephenopolous called George HW Bush on Larry King’s show back in 1992, just to humiliate him? Remember Clinton’s bulldog communications officer, James Carville? Back in the 1990s, Democrats knew how to puff up their accomplishments and tear down their opponents. Now, they’re too timid to try. Time to drop this pathetic facade of objectivity and civility and fight, HARD. Their lives as a political party depend on it. OUR lives depend on it.
I never thought I’d see the day when carville is propped up as the paradigm of what a Democrat should be.
Bernie Sanders is what a Democrat should be and he’s been fighting basically alone since the 60s.
You’re right about their messaging tho. This is a direct reflection of rejecting the progressive wing which is mostly young people.
If the Dems would get their shit together and brace the next generation thos would be no contest.
It’s not that Carville is a hero. It’s just that he did what our current Dems won’t. I wish our team would be half as aggressive as the GOP. We would have a more solid standing with less effort. “Humans > corporations.” Done.
I don’t think most of the establishment actually believes that, is the problem.
They don’t. But you answer the problem in your statement when you say “the establishment.”
It should be abolished somehow.
I am hopeful that with things like unionization movements gaining steam, and the ease of communication of social media, that some capable young people will be spurred into running for office this decade. It really needs to be a grassroots movement IMO.
Their donors with deep pockets don’t like that message, best we can do is Humans >= Corporations.
It’s not popular to say, but when people like Pelosi who make millions on insider trading stay in office for decades, it’s not because of their policy. It’s how much money they generate for the party.
I want a party for the people which protects our rights to healthcare, education, housing, wages, and food. The rest is up to us.
Also because committee memberships are determined by how long you’ve been in office. Hence Feinstein.
I wish our team would be half as aggressive as the GOP.
They are. They just direct that aggression at the left of their own party instead of to the right.
“Humans > corporations.” Done.
Not in Carville’s party.
The Democrats have been bringing spoons to a gunfight since the 70s.
The current Democratic party doesn’t want to fight. It’s pathetic, and it is difficult to vote for “pathetic” even when the alternative is… well… you know.
You mean there is a flaw to the strategy of repeating, “listen, Jack, the economy has never been better, and you’re an idiot if you don’t see that”?
y’all can quote me economic statistics all day, what I know is that in the last few years I’ve gotten two promotions with raises and I still have less left over at the end of the month than I did before covid.
This is the truth. The fact that this is all due to inflation that was caused by Federal Reserve money printing during the Trump administration will be lost on most people.
Granted that was all due to COVID (and exasperated by ignoring it for a time), but still, Biden will be blamed.
Biden does bear some blame though. He repaired the economy for the top 10 percent. Even an acknowledgement that it’s not done or that Congress is blocking things that would help the rest of us would help him.
Instead it’s another round of, “my rich friends are happy, why aren’t the people voting for me?”
Because to him and everyone else at the top it’s just them in their walled gardens and we really are just numbers. It’s basically impossible to really comprehend our lives from theirs.
Granted that was all due to COVID (and exasperated by ignoring it for a time), but still, Biden will be blamed.
Worse most of it came from over 17trillion given to the banks before covid during trumps administration. This started the inflation climb which was then exacerbated by covid and supply chain issues. And you have the cftc prolonging swap reports almost endlessly to hide short positions being built in equity swaps with those banks. But no one will look to the fed reserve because it was “Biden’s fault” not wall street making bad bets again and getting another handout to balance collateral.
deleted by creator
Clearly a signal that you can switch jobs.
“the market has spoken”
Probably because 90 percent of voters don’t live off of stock dividends or stock backed low interest loans.
Maybe it’s time to stop pretending the stock market is the economy?
I heard your comment in my head in the voice of Kai Ryssdal.
I don’t know if that’s meant as a compliment or not but I like the idea of having a radio voice so I’ll go with it.
The “soft landing” narrative is settled? That’s news to me! There were a number of things that people could point at before 2008 about how peachy the economy was… until it suddenly wasn’t. I would be interested in hearing what specifically Biden did to create this “soft landing” but in general presidents don’t actually have that kind of control, and tying your name to the market makes you more susceptible to its fickle nature. The numbers were doing well for Trump, and he wouldn’t shut up about how he supposedly achieved it, until covid smacked it all down.
Market is holding on for dear life, banks getting bailou- I mean emergency loans. Bond markets are shit, it’s all just show. China has been collapsing too ever since evergrande went bankrupt in like 2021.
And it all started when they shot that damn gorilla… drags cigarette
I’m in Cincinnati with my dick out.
one true patriot
He turned the economy dial to “better”. Now if only he turned his gas dial to “cheaper”./s
Stock market ≠ the economy
In a just world the news shows would have a real income ticker instead of the Dow.
Or some other tracker that shows values actually relevant to the average American.
But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape.
Just be happy! The rich assholes who raised the price of everything are doing great!
This is my happy face: 🙃
I’m voting for that Dark Brandon guy.
I’d write in dark brandon as a bit if joe wasn’t running against the ronald mcdonald of fascism
That is a wonderful description.
Lets not forget that while the stock market doesn’t define the economy it certainly affects it. When stocks are down, companies freeze or lay off employees, raise prices or change their products. Everyone’s still complaining about grocery prices but the real win here is that it’s not worse, which it was predicted to be over and over
He does genocide BUT the stock market went up!
One doesn’t do genocide. One commits genocide.
Also no, Joe Biden does not commit genocide lol
