Corporate greed, not wages, is behind inflation. It’s time for price controls

Food prices, gas prices, car prices…we now know why prices have gone up so much. Trying to fit it all nearly into “we’re printing too much money” is really a joke. I guess you have to be a Nobel winning economist to see it in such terms, and be so silly.

The underlying economic problem is profit-price inflation. It’s caused by corporations raising their prices above their increasing costs.
Corporations are using those increasing costs – of materials, components and labor – as excuses to increase their prices even higher, resulting in bigger profits. This is why corporate profits are close to levels not seen in over half a century.
Corporations have the power to raise prices without losing customers because they face so little competition. Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated.

The desire to increase profit margin is the only cause of inflation.

Wage increases are post hoc corrections for inflation. When the same goods and services cost far more than they used to, people cannot afford them any longer when and if they have the same earnings. To blame wage increases for inflation is to blame the bandaid for the bleeding cut. — creativesoul

:up: Well said.

Some common folks got 1200 bucks three years ago, and some raises for working during the pandemic, and now they must pay dearly for that. That’s all that’s happening. Blame the people for raising prices. Meanwhile corporate profits continue to soar.

A good example from the Times just today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/opinion/inflation-groceries-pricing-walmart.html?unlocked_article_code=WjEk23ZSH7lfiOdBi1KQHWDZJWW3ygSsdjnAEabZBgexPhuyctNH2Bedpk13aaO19LOlAek-DYIlX7OC40G6dJCpbe_XKBNJzHshEgnGq6VDYHyjTiRZoAickk5VsW9d7aS6vIfjCk5gR0RNvI5NXDOHoVJFqlU7QAJFTPyNHV_KjvDUgsYXWx8U1fxJvhEeqb-atbiTIruDlEBUHYTz9vVp2kqvtDHZlfnClEuIAJKhpe79NwcVWOwAyvQPfsayytXe8LTeTdJqlG_QX-oFtjjwxFF3stF7jg-aBZGhZSteeD4vWlmmXZskFFWuN4XlhRIIQvYOKWHrJseYCbPFz8s2CENJ10e9_4_KFok&smid=url-share

If you think his campaign is “DOA,” you’re not paying attention. He’ll be the Republican nominee. I’ll wager money on it.

The rapidly ballooning field, combined with Mr. Trump’s seemingly unbreakable core of support, represents a grave threat to Mr. DeSantis, imperiling his ability to consolidate the non-Trump vote, and could mirror the dynamics that powered Mr. Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016.

It’s a matter of math: Each new entrant threatens to steal a small piece of Mr. DeSantis’s potential coalition — whether it be Mr. Pence with Iowa evangelicals or Mr. Scott with college-educated suburbanites. And these new candidates are unlikely to eat into Mr. Trump’s votes. The former president’s base — more than 30 percent of Republicans — remains strongly devoted to him.

Ny Times

I agree with this. It benefits Trump.

Maybe the RNC takes a page from the DNC playbook and consolidate around one person once it’s clear that the non-Trumps are splitting the votes.

And that’s that. Now let’s see what the deal is, and if the MAGA Republicans will accept it. I imagine McCarthy could get some democrats to help, but he seems to have said that’s out of the question…so who knows.

Paul Volcker, where are you? The current feds are too timid, IMO. — jgill

I don’t buy that this is mostly a monetary issue. Apologies to Friedman. So Vockler’s methods wouldn’t be appropriate here anyway.

We should abolish the debt ceiling. — GRWelsh

Yeah, it’s silly. The spending has already been made. If they want to cut the debt, then reject the budget.

Republicans don’t really care if shutdowns or debt gimmicks cause chaos and pain— they’re interested solely in making people as miserable as possible so they can blame the person in office.

Notice the language from McCarthy: “If president Biden allows a default…” It’s laughable.

Cutting it in half would be a good start. Cut it down to 100 billion, I say. Still too much. Now the deficit is 700 billion, which can easily be made up for by taxing the wealthy and corporations. Fairly easy, just not “politically viable” thanks to both parties— but mostly Republicans.

It’s also worth remembering that no one seemed to give a damn about the debt during Trump’s four years. Now the Republicans have to scream about it and cause a ruckus, which trickles down to us talking about it. Which is annoying, but unavoidable when it’s something this important (the debt ceiling that is).

No I agree. I was speaking specifically about military spending.

What’s frustrating is the obduracy of both parties on this matter. There’s some sounds coming from Bernie and others, but it’s ignored or treated as impossible.

There’s no reason we should be spending 858 billion dollars, a year, on the “military” - ie, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc. None.

Military Spending Emerges as Big Dispute in Debt-Limit Talks
President Biden has offered to freeze discretionary spending, including for defense. Republicans want to spend more for the military, and cut more elsewhere.

What a shocker. Can republicans make it any more obvious who they represent? It’s a joke.

From what I have heard of incels, I am reasonably comfortable to write them off - the way I would virulent racists or any other vile bigotry. — Tom Storm

:up:

Likewise. Very comfortable.

Given that the expected value of the unchosen envelope is greater than the value of the chosen envelope, it is rational to switch. — Michael

Seems like nonsense to me. There’s a 50% chance of choosing the envelope with the greater money. That’s it. That’s all we’re given. If we were given any other information, as in the Monty Hall problem, then perhaps switching is correct. But in that problem you start with a 1/3 chance of choosing the prize, and another option is revealed afterwards. In this case, however, nothing has changed.

So what we’re left with is the claim that going through the motion of picking one envelope and then — with absolutely nothing else changing— switching and picking up the other envelope is somehow rational. That’s simply wrong.

Is it worth doing? Yes. But we have no way of improving our choice by switching, any more than switching our call of “heads” to “tails”.

The expected value doesn’t matter. That just tells you it’s profitable to take the bet, especially in the long run. It doesn’t change the probability of choice. If I offer $1,000,000 if it comes up heads and you pay me $100 if it comes up tails, that’s a very profitable bet to take — especially if run many times. But it tells us nothing whatsoever about whether to switch our call, because the probability of choosing correctly is still 50/50. The simple act of changing our minds doesn’t magically change that.

Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch?

It’s like the Monty Hall problem. But in this case, there’s a 50/50 chance of choosing the envelope with the larger amount of money, so switching makes no sense. You’re not given any more information, so I really don’t follow the rest of the calculations.

[Edit — I see this has been gone over quite a bit, so forgive the late interjection.]

:up:

Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. — jgill

Okay. And that’s worth talking about. But it’s a different animal from what I was responding to.

The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter. — jgill

Yes— and how is this relevant to climate change?

Lowering CO2 emissions is well within our abilities.

What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise.

If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change.

Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. — Varnaj42

So you just like announcing your unbiased skepticism about a topic you don’t understand. Cool. Maybe I’ll start one about how I think quantum mechanics are woke. I’m equally qualified to judge that field.

Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. — Varnaj42

Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes. — Varnaj42

Yeah, I’m sure the world’s climate scientists haven’t considered “normal movements” or natural variance. You’ve cracked the case.

We humans are a fear based species. — Varnaj42

We’re also a denial-based species, as you demonstrate well.

Many are echoes from the echo-chamber of partisanship and would evaporate if they were ever examined in the light of honest reflection. Which is why the partisan propaganda-machine so strenuously opposes reading, critical thinking and contemplation. — Vera Mont

A good point. Education and media seem to work in lockstep when it comes to certain aspects of society.

I cannot empathise with people who become aligned to one set of doctrines and cannot defend any other position or question their own. — Andrew4Handel

That’s probably part of the problem, but I agree it’s difficult.

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests. — Mr Bee

:clap:

Yes indeed.

Yeah, you just have no clue what you’re talking about. Take your denialism elsewhere.

You think maybe short term self-interest plays a part? — Vera Mont

Sure, but also that mostly these things involve deep beliefs tied into a persons sense of self— their values, their life narrative and social persona, etc.

Hard to examine and harder to change.

All your examples are from a left point of view. There should be some from both sides. — noAxioms

I don’t consider the trans example to be left wing.

the abortion issue — noAxioms

Another example, yes. Been around a while, but has gotten even more extreme. Believe it or not, I don’t have strong views about it myself, so it didn’t stand out to me. Plus it’s not as obvious — the question on when life begins, when a human is fully human, and so on. I’m much more pro choice, but I’m not unsympathetic to those who don’t want to see what they consider babies killed. Mostly it’s just legislating Christian dogma.



Definitely describes what I’m getting at. However, I’m being more specific. Selective skepticism is definitely a kind of motivated reasoning though.

it's pretty darn bad, which is why the links I provided, contribute to such damning conclusions, that we are in very deep shit. — Manuel

:up:

No US Default -– come hell or highwater! – is my prediction. — 180 Proof

Hope you’re right. Whatever happens, I can’t imagine the powers that be will allow a default.

You can't negotiate with extortionists without emboldening them to keep doing it. — Wayfarer

Yes. I almost want to say: you want to blow up the global financial system? Go for it. Call their bluff. If they’re not bluffing, then they really are insane.

What’s hilarious is that McCarthy talks as if this is Biden’s doing — as if he’s not manufacturing this entire thing. The whole thing is quite pathetic.

What will be the outcome?

I’m guessing Biden caves.

True, societal collapse is bad enough. Whether climate change “alone” could cause extinction, I’m not sure what that means. Nuclear war “alone” may not wipe out human beings either.

There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, which is underreported and commonly downplayed so as not to appear “alarmist,” but it’s certainly possible. But apart from that, consider the related biodiversity collapse or threats to agriculture or consistent superstorms.

Anyway, the point stands: when you encounter people whose first reaction to the evidence of climate change is to compulsively say “It won’t wipe us out,” just ignore them. They’re irrelevant.

Listen to experts who study extinctions:

If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt. — Luke Kemp

Or we can say “Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” But I prefer not to do that.

There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, not just social breakdown. Tipping points could be breached, leading to hothouse earth scenarios. But beyond that, in combination with other threats we face, including nuclear war, it’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight.

It’s simply time to tune out anyone who says things won’t be so bad— aka the Bjorn Lomburg school of denial. It’s the same crowd that feels, by some kind of compulsion, to point out that a few human beings may survive a global nuclear war — hence making it technically not “existential.”

Like I said, just tune them out.

Sleepwalking to extinction.

Imagine pretending to care about freedom and democracy while vehemently defending Donald Trump and corporate America?

To make it a bit easier to respond, here was the original post by Benj96:

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.

However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.

Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.

Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions. Not to mention that the state of livinghood was imposed on all by abiogenesis. The universe brought about life whether one likes it or not. This imposition applies to everyone, and yet not everyone feels "imposed" upon by that fact. Many indeed feel grateful instead. Myself included.

Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?

The dead do not impose, control nor have a say. The living do. And because the living are the only faction that can suffer, perhaps the decision to endure it or opt for an escape, is for the living not the dead.

The final statement, is that the living are the only faction that can be antinatalist. There are two things their views must be reconciled with: a). Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.

And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.

This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.

Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.

This discussion was merged into Antinatalism Arguments

Somewhere in between discussing individuals and groups — both of which exist just as much as the other — stop and ask yourself about the downstream political decisions.

If they lead to defending Donald Trump to the bitter end, denying anthropogenic climate change, cheering neoliberal policies, and generally aligning exactly with ruling class interests, then that tells you almost everything you need to know about how seriously to take them.

The brainwashing came first. The beliefs about “individuals” came later.

Summary: a two-bit criminal and lifetime con man rightfully getting some consequences.

So funny to watch his cult followers (naturally) throwing a tantrum. :rofl: Always brightens my day.

Possible answer: because the material conditions for US citizens are conducive to him getting a platform. If the USA didn't have so many poor, didn't have so many people one healthcare invoice away from being poor, then nobody would take Trump seriously. — Benkei

If economic issues were the concern then they'd be voting for Democrats.

It's clearly social issues (the "culture war") that elicit support for Trump and the Republicans. — Michael

Whether it’s more one than the other has been an interesting debate. I think it’s mostly material conditions. That makes people much more vulnerable to media bombardment, false answers, scapegoating, demonization, and wedge issues that exist. We see it on the left as well, to a different degree.

Remember that Trump always claim he’s in favor of working people. It’s not always about Mexicans and China and anti-wokeness. There is an economic message. Which is why he tried to imitate Bernie in 2016 to a certain degree. Anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, “rigged system,” etc.

If a word is a symbol holding meaning, and a molecule is a symbol holding meaning — Benj96

A molecule isn’t simply a symbol holding meaning. A molecule is a molecule. It’s true that nucleotides get assigned a name (“nucleotide”) and a letter (e.g., “T”), but that’s something humans do. We do that for everything — for rocks and trees and metabolism and soccer. Does that make everything “language”?

If it does, then you and I are using “language” very differently indeed.

I would see it as foolish to conceive that "language" is restricted to/ only the purview of humans. — Benj96

I wouldn’t. Since apparently we’re the only beings that have it.

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection.

E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time After ‘Vile’ Comments on CNN

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyregion/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation.html

Good. :clap:

He’s too stupid to learn, but that’s no excuse.

Another inept Trumpian apologetic. Michels supported Mussolini, you support Trump. Same difference. One fascist autocrat or another. Rather than the rule of a few, the rule of one. — Fooloso4

:fire: :up:

Imagine defending Trump and corporations to the bitter end, then turning around and clucking about democracy. :lol: