While a mega merger between two of America’s largest grocery chains is snarled in regulatory red tape, a smaller European entrant is eyeing a major expansion in the US.
But you were incorrect. You said the economy only felt like it was better than it is now. It was better. The consumer economy has been on a consistent decline for many years as prices have been on a consistent increase. The economy is “doing well” right now because the stock market is doing well and companies are making profits. That was true when the last round of stimulus went out as well, but grocery prices were still lower for consumers than they are now.
I agree that we need a UBI, but this is not a UBI issue. This is a price gouging issue. UBIs wouldn’t stop price gouging. In fact, without laws to prevent such price gouging, a UBI would be far less useful.
See, this is a rebuttal. Something that lets me know you’re reading words and not just dropping the first semi-relevant article.
Yes. I agree. The economy is worse now than it was. And I have never argued that it wasn’t. I currently believe it’s a bit of both of the above, actually. That corporations are shit and absolutely looking to extract any value they can, and that people in general rebounded a bit hard after covid lockdowns ended, but that was inevitable. I think that COVID lockdowns caused corporations to start increasing their prices, “well traffics down we have to stay afloat somehow!” Which they naturally don’t want to give up now. Combined with the rebounding I mentioned earlier where people temporarily more willing to spend, and here we are.
Absolutely regulation needs to be put in place. My intent with the UBI line was simply, people spend money when they have money, put money into people’s hands and (with a little regulation) the economy will start moving towards good again.
It was an extremely relevant article since my rebuttal was based on it. This makes me think you just rejected it outright because you decided it wasn’t relevant without even looking.
Again, it’s irrelevant to MY ARGUMENT. In my first post I did not make any mention of my beliefs.
The chain of events from my perspective is:
OP makes an argument about how the stimuli made the economy appear, relatively, worse now than it actually is.
You replied to an argument about the stimuli CAUSING the economy to be shit.
I replied, clarifying OPs original stance. The only bit of my beliefs in the first reply is the last sentence, where I say OPs argument is a better case for UBI than it is for the current state of the economy.
You reply with an article attacking OPs views.
I reiterate my views, significantly different from OPs.
You again attack claims that I have not made.
My entire existence in this thing is one simply asking you to argue, WITH OP, on the words they’ve actually said. And somehow we’re here, me acting as a surrogate OP because you can’t seem to parse that I’m not the one making the claims, just interpreting them.
Then again you are flying squid, not reading squid.
That’s fine. It happens. I encourage you to go back and reread the OPs post, and your reply to it. I think you’ll see why I’m so exasperated.
You make good points, they’re valid and based in reality. I’d encourage you to try to fully understand the opponents views before attacking them, though. Thank you for showing a bit of humility.
But you were incorrect. You said the economy only felt like it was better than it is now. It was better. The consumer economy has been on a consistent decline for many years as prices have been on a consistent increase. The economy is “doing well” right now because the stock market is doing well and companies are making profits. That was true when the last round of stimulus went out as well, but grocery prices were still lower for consumers than they are now.
I agree that we need a UBI, but this is not a UBI issue. This is a price gouging issue. UBIs wouldn’t stop price gouging. In fact, without laws to prevent such price gouging, a UBI would be far less useful.
See, this is a rebuttal. Something that lets me know you’re reading words and not just dropping the first semi-relevant article.
Yes. I agree. The economy is worse now than it was. And I have never argued that it wasn’t. I currently believe it’s a bit of both of the above, actually. That corporations are shit and absolutely looking to extract any value they can, and that people in general rebounded a bit hard after covid lockdowns ended, but that was inevitable. I think that COVID lockdowns caused corporations to start increasing their prices, “well traffics down we have to stay afloat somehow!” Which they naturally don’t want to give up now. Combined with the rebounding I mentioned earlier where people temporarily more willing to spend, and here we are.
Absolutely regulation needs to be put in place. My intent with the UBI line was simply, people spend money when they have money, put money into people’s hands and (with a little regulation) the economy will start moving towards good again.
It was an extremely relevant article since my rebuttal was based on it. This makes me think you just rejected it outright because you decided it wasn’t relevant without even looking.
Again, it’s irrelevant to MY ARGUMENT. In my first post I did not make any mention of my beliefs.
The chain of events from my perspective is:
OP makes an argument about how the stimuli made the economy appear, relatively, worse now than it actually is.
You replied to an argument about the stimuli CAUSING the economy to be shit.
I replied, clarifying OPs original stance. The only bit of my beliefs in the first reply is the last sentence, where I say OPs argument is a better case for UBI than it is for the current state of the economy.
You reply with an article attacking OPs views.
I reiterate my views, significantly different from OPs.
You again attack claims that I have not made.
My entire existence in this thing is one simply asking you to argue, WITH OP, on the words they’ve actually said. And somehow we’re here, me acting as a surrogate OP because you can’t seem to parse that I’m not the one making the claims, just interpreting them.
Then again you are flying squid, not reading squid.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to two different people. It’s sometimes hard to realize that on Lemmy.
That’s fine. It happens. I encourage you to go back and reread the OPs post, and your reply to it. I think you’ll see why I’m so exasperated.
You make good points, they’re valid and based in reality. I’d encourage you to try to fully understand the opponents views before attacking them, though. Thank you for showing a bit of humility.