There’s nothing that you can explain with that fact. Inflation is a measure of dollar value in relation to goods… including goods that you don’t actually need. Simply knowing that wages outpaced inflation tells you nothing about the economic conditions of individual people.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown, which DOES emphasize the things that everyone needs:
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/comparing-the-costs-of-generations.html
“Why techer onion are bad”
Given the global response to the situation, I would bet they probably realize that you don’t think they’re significant.
Then again, there’s a chance they’re just focusing on food and water and shelter and medicine and not-getting-blown-up… rather than worrying about the opinions of people who couldn’t even pretend to be significant.
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
It’s not a rebuttal of the article, no… but it IS definitely in the same topic as the article.
Twitter is a microblogging platform… not a debate platform. If you assume that she is trying to provide a counterargument in 140 characters or less, then yes, it would seem idiotic.
Are we making that assumption?
EDIT: Just to acknowledge that I read your response, and I don’t wish to respond to it.
The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn’t read the article
Let’s assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?
If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing… “Oh no, not my military industrial complex…”
If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market… “Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need…”
I understand that these things would have major financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn’t criticizing that analysis. She’s criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,
Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?
I struggle to rationalize this for countries not already in armed conflict.
Legally, practically, or morally?
Practically, armed conflict is way more expensive, and it’s riskier. If you had two strategies for changing someone’s behavior: 1) Punch them until they agree to change, 2) Tell them they can’t borrow any more money from you until they agree to change… you would probably prefer number two because it’s less risky.
Legally… we only have 80 years of precedent for the USD being the world’s reserve currency, amd 50 years of weaponizing that power with the IEEPA. Rules for armed conflicts, on the other hand, are ancient. We have a lot of examples for acts of war in armed conflicts, and we can quickly define them and recognize them. For defining and regulating financial “attacks”… we have basically nothing.
Morally… you and I have different moral systems from the people in charge. People can rationalize some truly heinous shit.
We would need a LOT of new international guidelines for this.
It’s not clear to me where we would draw the line, since there’s not really an enforceable difference between, “Allowing you to use our financial system is causing us harm, so you can’t do that anymore,” and “You can’t use our financial system until you <insert demands here>.”
While a blockade is recognized as an act of war, an embargo is not. The US sanctions usually operate like a specific, services-based embargo, so there’s no interpretation of CURRENT international law rendering it an act of war. Again, we would need new guidelines to meet your goal.
I think shared ownership goes against human nature
I think the vast majority of things are shared. Air, water, soil… roads, schools… your education… the bathrooms at the supermarket… the murals/sculptures that make your town look less like a shithole…
It’s perfectly in line with human nature, actually, to share things. People who amass hoards of wealth and fight for power and control… those are the weirdos.
People, generally, are paranoid morons. Calmly processing the facts and assessing risk are the rare exception. Even people who are good at that kind of thing are first making an irrational decision, and then justifying it after the fact.
The solution isn’t to fact-check them about Flock having no impact on their safety. The solution is to fear-monger even harder about cameras seeing into their houses, and a private company selling their data to telemarketers.
Show me the counterfactual proving those people would have survived under a non-capitalist system.
Are you going to apply the same standard to your original claim? How many of the alleged 200 million would have survived under a non-communist system?
Data’s messy… I get it. The actual mechanics of tallying all of this don’t matter quite as much as applying those rules consistently. It would be a bit unreasonable for you to ask for a counterfactual tally of deaths under capitalism if you’re unable to provide one for deaths under communism.
Is there one centrist dem a majority of people even like?
The people voting in the primary are the people who would vote for a Democrat in the general… and this is who they chose.
Who we trust more: the people who vote, or the establishment Democratic Party leaders?
A progressive wealth tax has benefits as well. I just think there’s value in pointing out the impact that such a small percentage has. Implementing even a fraction of a percentage would make a serious impact; we don’t need to go whole hog right here, right now.
My ideal starting point for a progressive wealth tax would max out at 2%, because that’s within a standard deviation of annual S&P growth.
I understand the perspective that the extreme wealth taxes wouldn’t change the quality of life of the ultra-rich… but do you know what the long term impact on the economy would be?
I don’t. And I study this kind of thing. This is not the kind of system that responds well to massive, overnight changes. Most Americans get their food by buying it… if we fuck up, and the economy irretrievably crumbles without a backup, people will starve.
As desperate as people may be for radical change, it is worth it to make these proposals in a responsible way, and ensure that we’re not doing more harm than good.
Yeah, their budget is now 90% secret police activities, and only 10% the kinds of things that are actually important… like interfacing with INTERPOL, and acting as a barrier to arms dealing and human trafficking.
Since we can’t abolish something 90%, we need to assign those duties to another organization, until ICE is left with nothing except evil/redundant duties, and THEN abolish it.
I third Linux mint.
For jalapeños and other peppers, the pithy center is where most of the pungency comes from. It’s also more bitter than the rear of the pepper. If you chop into quarters lengthwise, it’s easy to cut the seeds and pith away from the flesh. You’re the left with a milder, sweeter result.
… in case you’re in an experimental mood.
shit like onions and actually use some real fucking spices from India and Mexico
… but… India eats a lot of onions… because as great as the spices are, onions are also great. You can have both. You should have both.
I don’t want a one-time, 5% wealth tax. I want a recurring wealth tax. At 0.5%, such a tax outpaces the one time 5% in ten years.
I would settle for one time 5%… but it’s just so short-sighted. 5% in one sudden movement is actually a big ask… and are we actually going to be able to pull that off more than once?
A recurring wealth tax 1) is better in the long-term, 2) is less disruptive to the stock market (which we should care about, as long as this is the sustem we have) 3) makes for a more predictable economic environment, so people with money might actually still want to live in CA.
They included the Spotify logo. It’s just <insert song here> rather than labelling the picture as “Fortunate Sons”.
In California, the 2026 budget for homelessness programs is $1.7 billion. The homeless population is 181,000. This is an average of $9400 per person per year.
Note: some of these programs are for homelessness prevention meaning it helps far more people than just the 181 thousand, meaning the cost per person is actually much lower.