A Boring Dystopia

If we still had "real" competition, this wouldn't have happened. Even during the pandemic competition would've/should've kept prices normal-ish. But of course we all know this isn't how it works. Turns out that if a dozen or so companies own the grand majority of whatever their industry is, they behave like monopolists. Who could've possibly predicted such a thing?

There was this bearded fellow in the 1800's, but I'm sure he had no idea what he was talking about.

100%. Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, American style neoclassical economics because simply "economics" or even worse "just basic economics." Suddenly tax breaks for the rich became the all curing treatment for any economic ailment.

Too much money to spend on healthcare? Tax cuts for the rich.

Too little money to spend on healthcare? Also tax cuts for the rich.

In terms of fixing every problem even, I'm yet to hear what it can't do.

My favourite was when you had every economically illiterate stock bro in existence claiming along the lines of "no, I've glanced at a couple of margin calculations i made for 2 companies, at one point in the supply chain, and, as such, I know price gouging couldn't possibly have happened." They dont know enough about inventory keeping to explain to them that they can't tell either way, bless them.

I would love to read more about how supply and demand is bullshit, but that is NOT a credible source. it's just some guy's blog. I'm sure it's an interesting read but it would be intellectually irresponsible for me to disbelieve a fundamental principle of economics based on a source like that

There are at least three of us...but probably more.

It used to be that only the telecoms and tech companies were consolidated enough to pricefix, now every sector is, and the economy is spiraling downward at record pace.

It was always about removing any intervention by the powers of the state (which in Democracy are controlled by voters) so that the positive feedback loops in money aggregation in most markets (basically any market with barriers to entry isn't free, especially if that barrier relates to land ownership, so the more money you make, the more you own, the more money you make) would turn those people who started with the most money - as in a system with such feedback loops in place, starting advantages such as being born rich are unassailable - into oligarchs.

As that system polls wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer, of course it will eventually destroy the middle class and countries ends up looking a lot like dictatorship Brazil in the 70s - only two classes, rich and poor and pretty much nothing in the middle.

For anyone who still thinks Capitalism can be "fixed" and doesn't need to be fully replaced with Socialism, Wage Labor and Capital is an excellent place to start.

They're doing it on purpose. They have studies since the '70s that prove that they would be much richer than they are if they would just provide everyone with a thriving wage, and didn't even need to take a pay cut back then.

They're so scared of losing their wage slaves that they would rather burn the world than cause less needless suffering.

Not to doubt, but 95% seems high. Is there a source?

95% of all dollars in existence were “minted” (digitally, ofc) in the last couple of years.

No way this is true. Anyway, the act of printing money isn't the problem here.

Its worth recognizing that our quality of life is heavily predicated on the subsidy of cheap labor abroad. As markets move international and these historical serfs begin to move into the consumer side of the market, we're seeing a rise in global demand. And as big businesses consolidate ownership of real estate and productive capital, we're seeing a drop in the number of suppliers. That gives the business end of the spectrum enormous leverage. But its only one side of the equation.

This isn't strictly a problem of profits. Big western states like the US and Canada produce enormous amounts of domestic waste. We've monetized that waste, such that you can turn a profit by simply consuming large quantities of excess energy and raw materials, and translate that into paper assets that can be borrowed against in a historically low-interest lending market. But in the end, a big part of the reason everything is getting so expensive is that we've been eating our own seed corn.

When you pollute your groundwater with chemical waste from fossil fuels and plastics, that's going to drive up the cost of agriculture and potable water utilities. When you burn off all the cheap fuels and refuse to invest in green/nuclear alternatives (because fossil fuels generate enormous profit margins and green/nukes don't) then the cost of energy rises. When you build horizontally rather than vertically, refuse to invest in mass transit, and force everyone to make enormous commutes, real estate starts selling at an exceptional premium.

Yeah, there's definitely an element of greed in the mix. But it can't be discounted how much of our domestic wealth is squandered through mismanagement. Americans need twice the income of their German or Korean peers to live half as good, because we do everything so haphazardly.

I remember all the large chains I used to like who I feel have fucked me over and hold a grudge against them.

Arizona Ice Tea is an example of a brand that really has not fucked me over as prices have gone higher and I keep rewarding them with more purchases. It's not just that they have a good value, it's also that they haven't tried to exploit me.

We need to ignore the coupons, new catchy deals, and other bullshit that these large corporations are trying to use to lure people back. Corporations should feel lost profits for decades when they tarnish their brand by fucking over customers and we need to vote with our wallets to show their greed also showcases a lack of business acumen.

The problem is that we have 2 groups of people who experience this problem: the easily deluded religious people, who will fall for moral wedge issues based on religion, and the people who realize things should be different and will vote in their interests.

The second problem is many of the people who want to change things will try to implement strategies that don't adhere to classical economics and will create market distortions, so if more "liberal" people are voted in, they may do more harm than good for poor people if they ignore economic principles.

The third problem is that there are way more stupid religious idiots that are easily manipulated than people who vote their interests.

It's infuriating