• TwoGems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah it isn’t natural at all and needs regulation on basic items to live

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Price gouging coincidentally at the same time across the entire economy, soon after an enormous increase in the monetary supply.

      A—Aurora Borealis? At this time of year! At this time of day! In this part of the country! Localized entirely within your kitchen?!?

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Record high prices coinciding with record high profits and plunging cost of good sold, followed by even higher prices. They are testing to see what the pain thresholds are. All that’s gonna happen is that business will start to collapse as consumer spending plummets because people can barely afford to survive. Will the system autocorrect or collapse? Will the government ever enforce consumer protection laws ever again? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          The loan on my van is paid off, The bank is paying me interest on my savings again, I have a years worth of costco rice stored, and the campsites by the river where i live in my van is empty because everyone too broke to go on holiday. Life is sweet. (No part of this comment is hyperbole)

            • Agent641@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Mechanically, not upgraded, no. But it was an empty van with an aluminium roof rack when I bought it, and I did the fitout myself. Awning, solar panels, batteries, inverter, fridge, shower, ventillation etc.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Occam’s razor says the more simple/plausible explanation, that a huge increase in the monetary supply causing higher prices through supply and demand, is about a thousand times more plausible than tens of thousands of corporations simultaneously deciding to coordinate to fix prices despite that it’s in each of their best interests individually to break with that scheme. With no actual evidence of a concerted attempt across the entire economy to fix prices (not to be confused with a couple corporations having board meetings where someone bragged about raising prices).

          • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Not really looking for a debate about it tbh.”

            No, just the last word. There’s a lot more to it that clearly explains why it’s a systematic failure that led to this, and it’s a lot more complex that just over supply of cash. You can’t stop looking at other facts once you’ve researched just enough to find an answer you’re comfortable with.

            • NuanceDemon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your previous comment was basically a massive industry wide conspiracy theory though, so their response of a more sensible answer to give you something a bit more concrete to go on was pretty reasonable to me.

              • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not a conspiracy theory but the inevitable conclusion of a system left unchecked by regulation for too long. We have slowly rolled ourselves to the edge for decades yet have been able to maintain a very precarious balance, until a worldwide pandemic kicked the cart and set it rolling down the hill.

                Did the entire planet have too much cash and an urge to spend it all at once? Yes. That only explains the flashpoint where prices exploded. Demand was at an unprecedented high from the world coming out of lock down at the same time that supply was at an all time low thanks to the pandemic. (There’s a lot more to all of this of course, but there are going to be countless PhD thesis written about this macroeconomic clusterfuck and this isn’t one of them.) So far, this all makes sense. Where things go sideways is when supply stabilizes, cost of goods sold start to go down, and yet prices continue to rise. Remember how the fed thought that information was going to be a short, temporary spike that didn’t require intervention? This is why. They expected the system to autocorrect, but it didn’t. Prices continue to rise. People have less money. Prices continue to rise. Interest rates skyrocket in an attempt to cool the economy. Prices continue to rise. Consumer spending slows but prices rise.

                Corporations are literally geared towards maximizing profits. It’s not a conspiracy if they are working as intended. The failure, IMHO, is in how we have chosen to manage our economy. Complete deregulation and a slew of other choices have brought us here. Not a conspiracy but also not as simple as “too much money” or “too much cheap credit”. So, amending my original comment, yes it is in part inflation but it isn’t just inflation.

                PS: Credit card debt in the US surpassed $1T. We’re running on literal borrowed time and every business around us is trying to find new and creative ways to squeeze every penny we don’t have out of us, by design, without a check or a balance in sight.

                • dx1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It is specifically a conspiracy theory that there’s a price-fixing cartel across the entire economy. You can give rhetoric about unchecked capitalism and all this, but the fact still remains that we’re talking about hundreds to thousands of companies that would have to opt into this scheme (drawing the line fairly arbitrarily at “the ones that comprise most market share”).

                  I raised this point already - individual corporations are incentivized to break with a price-fixing scheme because it increases market share. Consumers don’t want to pay exorbitant prices if there’s any alternative. Didn’t hear a response.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              You believe whatever you want. Can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists. They wake up everyday and fix prices. They’ve been doing it a lot ever since 2008 and the utter downfall of consumer protections. I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests?? Like, you realize that by price fixing they make billions of dollars more than they should be? How tf is making even more money not in the interest of a corporation? They literally profit off of wars. Any possible thing that increases the amount of capital they generate is in their own best interests. Even employing children, or slaves. Capitalism is designed specifically to be exploitative of as many people as possible to generate as much capital as possible.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists.

              There are 8 million businesses in the U.S. We have problems with monopolization, but to the level where a cross-economy price fixing scheme could possibly be implemented, we are not at that point. That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, not something to just believe dogmatically because you don’t like capitalism.

              I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests??

              You could start by just asking me. This is basic game theory. Market price of a good is 10 dollars, ACME and BLLC corp meet and fix prices at 15 dollars. ACME corp goes to market at 15 dollars, BLLC corp goes against the secret agreement and goes to market at 10 dollars. BLLC gets ACME corp’s customers as long as they retain their price at 15. Now take the same example and spread it across hundreds, thousands of companies, keeping in mind that this level of coordination would leave behind proof, witnesses, and take an extraordinary level of coordination. Non-participation in a price fixing cartel for a minority company could mean capturing the entire market, and anyone who was participating would immediately be incentivized to exit it.

              This is what is being posited, versus the dirt simple explanation that more money has been printed and has thus decreased in value. And we know a ton of money was printed.

              Price-fixing cartels aren’t impossible, however, they do become completely impossible to create or maintain at a scale like that. There is simply way too much competition. It’s an extremely elaborate, poorly substantiated theory to explain something there’s an obvious, well-substantiated explanation for already. I don’t know how you guys think about applying the scientific method, but to me, that ain’t it.

              • Rambi@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s called price leadership and it is an extremely well established phenomena in economics.

                • dx1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s an established phenomena. But, just because it’s established as a concept, doesn’t mean it’s prevalent, or especially not that it could be used to explain simultaneous increases in prices across the entire economy.

                  Here’s an introductory article on price leadership:

                  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-leadership.asp

                  Breaks it down into “barometric”, “collusive” and “dominant” categories. Going through each one -

                  Barometric being the phenomena where all the firms in a space look to the dominant firm for indication on what to do with their prices. Assumes heavy market concentration in the dominant firm and a marked imbalance to analyze market trends or predict upcoming cost shifts on the part of other companies. Does not make any sense in a space with several near-equally sized entrants in the market exist with similar capabilities for determining prices and macro conditions.

                  Collusive being where they have actually agreed to fix prices together. This is of course illegal and requires ongoing coordination across basically every major company in the economy. This is mostly what we’ve been talking about in this thread and requires extraordinary proof, because the level of coordination required to make this happen is extreme, especially across not just one industry, but every industry. Or, to be fair, at least the basic industrial/manufacturing industries upon which all other industries depend.

                  Finally there’s the “dominant” category. That’s where a single dominant firm (or cartel of multiple firms) is setting prices - particularly, setting them downwards - and other smaller firms are forced to lower their prices to survive. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with upwards price-fixing, because less dominant firms become more competitive as a result, not less.

              • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                No… Not to my understanding. Inflation, while an average, is not equally rising across all things. It is possible for the few that control food to raise prices together. Same with clothing and other industries. I think it’s also exacerbated by the shipping fiasco during covid and the fact that corporations always want more profit. As a general rule, any time prices rise for any reason, and shipping can make everything rise together, if people still pay that price, it will not be lowered.

                • dx1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, so we barely touched on the actual shortage issues from COVID in the thread here. That is for the most part a short term phenomena, and prices can actually resume prior levels after disasters and such like that, while actual monetary supply increases are typically permanent. And yeah, some industries (like energy) are pretty fundamental and can affect prices in a lot of other places, and there was additionally the energy shortage triggered by the Ukraine invasion. All these factors can cause price seeking and instability, but the key thing to point out is that that’s transitory, because after some time the costs of goods reequilibriate. But if you’ve increased the money supply 50%, then the price increases become permanent.

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re going to bring in Occam’s Razor, it’s probably less tenable to argue the ‘a conspiracy is more complex than the alternative’ argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins. The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins.

              Well, just because they have shared motives doesn’t mean they’re going to act in concert with each other. They’re competitors. One’s market share loss is another’s market share gain.

              The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory

              It might help to clarify what “it” we’re talking about here, or for that matter, what exactly we’re referring to with “greedflation”. To be totally clear, companies will raise prices when the market will bear it, and when they have a monopoly or cartel, that can be nearly indefinitely. The thing I’m objecting to in the first place here is the notion that that’s just universally the case across the entire economy, which strikes me as ridiculous and a way for the government/central bank to deflect blame for monetary inflation. And to your point - for any highly competitive market, it’s a very elaborate explanation versus just that supply and demand has caused prices to increase because the supply of money has gone up, which is a very simple and fundamental phenomenon in econ. As a rule of thumb, the more diversified the market is, the less likely that is to be the case.

              We did see a big supply shock when Russia partially cut out of the global energy market, causing the market to chase after oil from the remaining producers, causing an increase in price. That’s not some new phenomenon, that is also just basic supply and demand. It does cause price shocks, even if their costs didn’t go up, even if labor didn’t see the benefit. That’s not, however, some permanent state of “inflation” like monetary inflation which is just never reversed for the entire remaining lifetime of a currency - supply shocks are transient (at least until the fossil fuels actually run out).

      • Rambi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is inflation I agree, but I think a significant percentage is from price gounging, around 30%. I saw a study detailing this that I could find and link if you want.

        If you’re wondering how it can happen simultaneously accross whole countries and much of the world, you can look up the concept of “price leadership.”

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s inflation. Too much money chasing too few goods. Caused partially by years of central banks across the world injecting new money into financial markets and partially by the massive dump of new money into the consumer economy in 2020-2022.

      • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Too much money chasing too few goods?

        Wrong. Supply is fine.

        Prices are going up because people are willing to pay higher prices than they were. We still have not found a new ceiling. It’s not “all the money printed by Trump” that caused a giant spike in inflation (that only played a small part). It’s record profits in a variety of industries convincing anyone and everyone to charge more.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        100%. I don’t know why anyone expected anything different - we’ve been printing and printing and printing money for the last 10 years. Chickens are home, roosting.

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This particular theory is far too prevalent. Corporate executives are tugging themselves silly at the sight of people blaming the government instead of the people who paid them.

        • scottywh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s fucking moronic… The US government has had that money printer running since Nixon… It’s just garbage all around regardless… even though they are and have been some slightly less garbage parts

  • _TK@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The inflation report that came out today specifically omits fuel and grocery prices because those are “volatile” categories. My grocery bill is double what it was two years ago and has been for six months. I wouldn’t call that volatile.

  • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish my country’s government had the testacles to cap prices on food. I order food mostly online and I compared prices from 2 years ago and most things are at least 200% more expensive, cheese for example is like 600% though.

    • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they cap prices on food, then you’ll see food shortages instead of expensive food

      • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        How so? In my country, certain basic food items are priced capped AND rationed, meaning you’re only allowed to buy a certain amount of it at a time.

        > but but but muh freedum market$$

        No! Worldwide, the agricultural sector is THE MOST SUBSIDISED economic field. You can’t have it both ways. If taxpayers’ money is used to prop up your business, you have a duty to the taxpayers and country.

        • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Subsidies may distort the market but they don’t change the existence of the supply/demand curve. Any producer of a product is going to sell their goods to the highest bidder, and if someone is capping what a product can sell for that means capping what they can purchase the product for. Grocery stores aren’t going to sell for a loss.

          If the central government enacts a scheme of rationing and central purchasing, that’s one thing. But in a free market situation if a grocery in country A will buy lentils for €1 a kg and country B can only pay €.50 then the lentils are getting sold to country A until that demand is fulfilled. Which means shortages in country B.

          • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Considering how much billionaires hoard, im happy just tacking a sales quota on at the same time so they just have to eat losses for a bit. People eating is more important, and frankly anything that forces the robber barons to lose money back into the system is a good thing

              • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                They could, and if they do, the land it occupied should be seized and turned into a community owned cooperative.

                • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Cool, so, the government can just turn into bandits if we don’t like what private citizens do on their own land. Oh, and if they complain, why not just send them to the gulag?

      • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most food here is locally produced, I don’t see how that would create a shortage. Like people aren’t going to sell their grocery stores cuz their margins are thin again and farming is so heavily subsidised that I don’t see it effecting farmers.

        • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a local producer can get more selling to someone in the next country, they will. Basic economics. Prohibit them from doing so and they might plant something more profitable or just say “fuck it” and let their fields lie fallow, if they’re not making a profit. Farming ain’t free and farmers are on thin margins.

          • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Small farms are long gone. Farmers the the most heavily subsidized sector in the country, and they’re not run by Ma and pa, but big multi-national corporations who use extractive agriculture that damages the soil, results in worse yields than more sustainable agriculture, and requires insane amounts of chemical fertilizers. I have really almost no sympathy for monoculture farmers who grow thousands of acres of almonds using trillions of gallons of water in a state perpetually under severe drought. Literally, just by seizing the lands used to grow alfalfa for Saudi Arabia and almonds in California, the majority of the country could be fed cheap on low water, low maintanence, high yield food forests. We don’t need to subsidize murder farms where pigs are fed to their children as slurry when that same land could be used for vertical gardening.

            The use of farmland for exclusively profit driven reasons is what drove the Great Depression. Farmers don’t deserve A profit if what they’re growing isn’t sustainable or catered towards the health of the people.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It runs the risk of affecting the farmers a lot especially in Europe where they will soon have to deal with very expensive electricity. So the government would have to know that it’s really price gouging and not a necessity (I believe it’s price gouging, but governments can’t (or shouldn’t) make rash decisions on beliefs.)

        • corm@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          *affecting

          And you’re wrong. Farmers and grocery stores are already operating on thin margins. Sure we could double subsidies but then why not just make food free instead? How about we just make food free for people who can’t afford it, maybe with some sort of special card

          • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Farmers yes, grocery stores not anymore. Profits of companies is public info here and they started racking it in the moment the massive ‘inflation’ started. My parents live near a farm and they just buy veggies directly from them for like a fraction of the price, I unfortunately live in a city though. Prices are better at local markets but there arent many of those.

            • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Prices are better from a farm because you’re skipping two steps on the distribution chain, at least - a food warehouse and the grocery store. Could be three, some grocery stores buy from an intermediate warehouse distributor that services smaller stores.

              So potatoes might be sold at .20 on a farm and .50 at the store, because they need to be sold twice to reach the store, transported twice, bagged, washed, stored twice, and finally placed in the retail front for sale.

              • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why did you ignore the part where I said that the profits for grocery stores soared? Producing food has not become more expensive, that’s all public info here.

    • disconnectikacio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dont. Here in Hungary the commie ruling party (fidesz) capped some food prices, which lead to world recorder food inflation (47% measured), and top 3 overall inflation (36% measured). A lot of food products are 100-300% more expensive, also i cant say any product (not just food) that isnt became at least 40% more expensive. When caps lifted, there was a smaller price drop.

      They also capped the fuel prices, then when they revoked the cap, the fuel became one of the most expensive from the surrounding countries.

      Communist methods cause more problems than solve

        • disconnectikacio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They always were, orban was a secretary of the communist youth organization (KISZ), and most of his party members had high level functions in KISZ and the state communist party (MSZMP). They currently also act like that, with some fascist spicing on the surface.

          • agarorn@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, anyone who had political power back then was “communist”. But is his party communist? What communist policies do they want?

            • disconnectikacio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are commies, not communists. These are not the same. Communists actually beliving in something, commies arent. These are commie style things: -govermental prices -govermental success propaganda (picking some real, but mostly fake stats, and cheering these up, while hiding the not so good statistics, and saying those are fake, made by western subversion, telling everything good is made by them and the supreme leader, everything thats not good is done by western subversion) -governmental demonizing propaganda (actually same as in full commie times, like “declining decadent west, but the mighty east”, who tells something against their myths is a western spy, everyone is weak and unsuitable who isn’t the, “fight” “war” against everybody who is not them -govermental pressure to leave, or give up to them everything that isn’t controlled by the party -fidesz (orban’s party) voted against revealing communist agent files, 23 times, which means they are anti-communist only in words, but actually they are in these files as agents. Probably this how putin is blackmailing orban, as they have a copy of every document from the hungarian goverment from 1945-1989, and maybe more. -they using the same slogans, and passwords like the commies did -they act very similarly as their predecessors in rákosi, and kádár system (the two eras, and dictators of the commie ruling) did

      • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea we have a food inflation pretty close to those measured numbers though in reality its a lot higher and that’s without any caps. Also how could a food price cap cause inflation in food prices? That’s literally the thing you are capping.

        • disconnectikacio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who? How could cause? In EU the second highest inflation is in slovakia (first is hungary), which is the half of the hungarian inflation. The difference is few hundred kms, and that in slovakia they dont have price capping commies like orban, and his comrades. And yes, here in hungary the real inflation is much more higher than the “measured” (ordered).

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    In some ways, the reported inflation is real. The main increase in cost is not actually real, or caused by anything except greed.

    There’s also a lot of hidden costs that aren’t factored into inflation as strongly as they should be, or at all. Those hidden fees have also gone up.

    So the entire business segment is just hand waving the whole issue because they know it will be reported wrong; they’re going to keep raising prices and point to the “official” inflation numbers and continue to feed us the bullshit that inflation isn’t a problem to justify never giving their employees a raise.

    IDK how stupid they think we are, but I’m sure they think we’re little more than retarded (I mean that in the clinical sense). They’re (very publically) showing massive profit numbers, using inflation, or the lack thereof, to justify slave wages, while ripping off their users as much as they think that they can without creating riots.

    More for them, less for us. As it’s always been.

  • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My country’s news say we’re improving with a straight face. And I’m like “improving in what? Making the country sink more efficiently?”

    • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The stockholders have improving profits. That’s all the media cares about. If profits go up, the media will be praising it even if inflation is killing the bottom 90%.

    • TwoGems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m honestly not sure why there isn’t civil unrest worldwide. People have got to be suffering mass homelessness at this point and starving. I did hear that theft from grocery stores increased but to me it’s well deserved.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well deserved or justified? I don’t think a grocery store deserves being robbed given that they operate on slim margins, but if you steal a loaf of bread because you are otherwise going to starve, then I think you are justified.

    • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grammes. Syme, too — in some more complex way, involving doublethink, Syme swallowed it. Was he, then, ALONE in the possession of a memory?”

  • thatoneguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Feels like everything is too expensive these days. Rent now takes more than 1/3rd of my income and I’m trying out different foods so that I can save on groceries. Hell, I don’t drive anymore if I can avoid it. Shit is getting rough out here.

  • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, thing is, some product categories probably aren’t suffering the same price hikes as groceries, fuel and rent. Stuff like cable and internet, clothing and office supplies are probably bringing the average down (please tell me if they’re having inflation, I pulled these categories out of my butt).

    • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope we see deflation eventually… I know it’s not good for the economy but no one wants to pay 100 dollars for a coke

      • FellowEarthling@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the fun part! It never deflates! I guarantee lots more prices for consumer goods could have already come down, but damn do they love the idea of keeping those price points where they are. We already need another round of inflation on wages to get to where we were.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        no one wants to pay 100 dollars for a coke

        Reminds me of a comic strip where a guy goes to Japan and orders a coffee. The cashier says the total is 300 yen and the guy says “damn, coffee is expensive here!”

      • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This breaks the current economic system and will only occur safely once capitalistic GDP and population growth has ceased completely

          • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I also thinks it needs some rattling. But I don’t particularly want to plunge an additional billion+ people into new food shortages and poverty to trigger the necessary reforms if we can’t help it.

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem with deflation is: what do people do when theres deflation when it comes to optional expenses? Well, they may postepone them in hopes that prices go further down, this means that there’s less demand, prices go downer, businesses may start to fail, putting people in unemployment, reducing demand, and death spiral. Basically same thing as inflation death spiral but with deflation. Consumer confidence is a very delicate thing

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          this means that there’s less demand, prices go downer, businesses may start to fail, putting people in unemployment, reducing demand,

          I’ve always been skeptical of this and I’m not really aware of historical examples that prove it. The part I just quoted - “less demand, prices go downer, businesses may start to fail” - that means supply decreases too. All that’s really happening if you have a couple % deflation is that people are slightly more incentivized to hold onto their money, and the fact is that currencies don’t just naturally appreciate in value that much, at most in the long term I think you have “the same amount of money in circulation” vs. population growth causing it to chase a slightly larger economy.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m sure this does get lumped into “causes of Hitler’s rise to power/WWII” list somewhere. I seem to recall the inflation immediately prior being a lot more famous - that Germany was mandated by treaty to pay reparations after WWII, and that the Weimar Republic printed so much money people were using it as wallpaper or burning it as firewood (supposedly at least). In general, that there was a widespread sense Germany had been wounded somehow, which he was able to capitalize on, telling people to “fight back” against the minority groups he characterized as the forces of oppression. That’d be everywhere between 1918 and 1933 or so. Not so much “the purchasing value of money marginally increased for a one year period prior to Hitler’s rise”.

              • agarorn@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a myth that the hyperinflation was the reason for hitlers rise. The hyperinflation occurred in 1923. Hitler tried a coup in November 1923, failed miserably, was thrown into prison and the party was banned for a while. In 1928 they had 2,6% in the election.

                https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl_1928?wprov=sfla1

                Only during Brünings deflation politics the nsdap gained momentum. The vote 1930 gave them 18,3% and in 1932 37,3%. Now compare that to the deflation graph of the other Wikipedia link I gave last comment.

          • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It probably only is problematic in the same amount that inflation is bad. If it’s a little, it’s fine. If it’s a lot, you’re screwed

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              TBH this strikes me as the kind of thought that doesn’t come from careful consideration of how it would actually play out.

      • agarorn@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you get normal inflation of 2%, you will never see a 100$ coke. The cumulative inflation in 100 years in “only” 700%.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure it’s a widespread increase in the prices of goods and services, but corporate profits are up too so that makes it not inflation, for some reason. /s