this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
277 points (86.7% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2736 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minticecream 117 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] iBaz 83 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] jeffw 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

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)

[–] toasteecup 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

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).

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (15 children)

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.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] hark 8 points 1 year ago (20 children)

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.

[–] Aqarius 6 points 1 year ago (19 children)

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.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks 73 points 1 year ago (33 children)

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.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] TheBananaKing 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

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".

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Dkarma 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Orbituary 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think most of the establishment actually believes that, is the problem.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

The Democrats have been bringing spoons to a gunfight since the 70s.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] paf0 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] hydrospanner 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I heard your comment in my head in the voice of Kai Ryssdal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hark 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HerrBeter 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] doingthestuff 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm in Cincinnati with my dick out.

[–] 1847953620 8 points 1 year ago

one true patriot

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jilanico 24 points 1 year ago

Stock market ≠ the economy

[–] makyo 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Ensign_Crab 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m voting for that Dark Brandon guy.

[–] Fedizen 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd write in dark brandon as a bit if joe wasn't running against the ronald mcdonald of fascism

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qwertyWarlord 15 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›