185
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
185 points (92.2% liked)
politics
19240 readers
1609 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So the inflated price should come down right? …right…
Damn when a pound of onions cost $2.50 I don’t really call this progress or “Finding a way out”
Ending inflation doesn't mean that prices come down. It means that they stop rising. (or, more realistically, go back to rising at 2% to 3% per year)
Deflation is when prices drop. It's bad; what happens is that it's more valuable to hold onto cash than to invest it in starting or expanding a business, so the economy as a whole craters like the US did in the Great Depression. You probably don't want that.
Are you kidding me? Crash the economy so hard it snaps in two. It's time we put capitalism out of it's misery
Seriously! Now tell us how much time you've spent understanding how working class Americans lived during the great depression and what parts you're most interested in seeing repeated
The status quo already has us living in hoovervilles
This is the kind of shit champagne socialists say as they sit back at brunch. Do you have any idea not only how many casualties this would cause, but how badly it would set us back from evolving past capitalism?
How will the people surviving paycheck to paycheck, barely getting enough food on the table, going to survive? An economic collapse means food logistics cease to exist. You can't just go to the grocery store. What will everyday people eat? What will they drink when they run out of the chemicals needed for clean water?
Not to mention, the collapse would mean all logistics and supply chains stop working. You need a medicine by tomorrow afternoon or you'll begin to die? Whoops, we have no idea when that's coming in. Everyone who relies on medication to live will die. Even more who rely on it for quality of life will severely suffer. You'll have brilliant minds that are incapable of helping design a more equitable system because they're anxious wrecks. Any new injuries would probably be a death sentence.
Do you understand what this would mean? An economic collapse would be a massacre of the working class and anyone needing consistent healthcare. You need bright minds to develop a better system than capitalism. They'll all be dead or held captive by their own bodies.
I cannot imagine the level of privilege it takes to unironically make a statement like this. There are no words.
Far too many people think that they'll survive and lead the masses in a glorious revolution that will fix all of our problems.
For starters, the masses wouldn't exist. An economic collapse would massacre the working class. Way too many people are already barely making ends meet. They'd all starve to death.
This is the sort of pipedream that only the bourgeoisie think of.
That happened in 1929. Don't. Do. It. Again.
If that's what it's gonna take to get a green new deal then maybe we should. Without a crisis like that, at the current trajectory both parties seem set on selling out the planet for there corporate donors.
The party that does it will end up out of power for a generation because it's such a bad idea. People can make that mistake out of ignorance, but won't do it willingly
Are you saying the green new deal will be a bad idea and unpopular or triggering a depression to get it would be unpopular and a bad idea? Because the former I'd say is necessary to stop and help heal both climate change and income inequality, and if it's anything like the first new deal would bring the party into power for a generation and set a new economic consensus. I think the latter is a bit extreme to accomplish it but idk any other way to get people to completely turn away from the current system and it'll just be boiling the frog as the planet gets hotter, the rich get richer and the parties lose popularity but retain power.
No, I'm saying that crashing the economy on purpose will result in the party which does it being incredibly unpopular. You can't do that and expect people to even listen to your next idea.
.
I agree that initially people respond to crisis with conservatism and leaning on the current system, but that conservatism runs out though. If the system is able to solve the crisis, or at least show progress in solving it then it can be re-entrenched. If it can't and proves utterly incapable of solving it, or even perpetuating it then people start to get radical. In 1929 and 1930 many people still believed laissez-faire could fix the depression but as conditions stayed the same or worsened people started to realize it's flaws. By 1932 they were ready to give up on it and try anything to end it. 2007 was different as the neo liberal system was able to muster a response to the problem of speculative financial collapse in the form of financial bail outs which did bottom out the recession and start an upward trend.
The crisis I'd "root for", as much as I can root for something that'd cause immediate suffering to many people, is one that neo liberalism can't handle and therefore discredits it as a governing system. That crisis will come eventually, just as the depression ended laissez-faire and stagflation ended keynesianism and if that pattern holds up we'll probably see a swing to the left this time on this metronome of economic consensus.
.
I am not gambling anyone's life. I have almost no power and can't do anything to create or delay a crisis. The best I will do with my limited power is try and make it so the organization on the ground is ready to attempt that leftward shift if/when the crisis comes.
It could end in a fascist dystopia, but I think that's less likely. At least in the u.s. where fascism never took off in its heyday before it had any stigma. If your talking about something with no evidence then that fascist speculation would be something, at least there's precedent for a Keynesian new deal in the U.S. I do recognize it as a possibility though and that's why I said probably, not with "absolute certainty".
If the crisis doesn't happen we may all die as well as neither party seems willing to deal with the climate catastrophe. That outcome seems way more certain to me, as shown by the repeated calls for action in the last 2 decades falling in deaf ears, than fascists taking over if a crisis does happen.
The way I see it is there's a 90% chance of severe climate catastrophe on the current course, and a 30% chance there will be a fascist takeover if there's a crisis, but a 50% chance for a green new deal. These are all completely speculative, but so is any guess on the future and I like to believe my guess has some backing in historical reality.
How would a collapse stop that? It would only hasten it. The rich will kill anyone who currently owns food productions and take it for themselves. Corporations will advertise food and shelter, and then use the extremely high number of people desperately trying to live as slave labor. Countries would fall only to be replaced by McDonalds and ConAgra.
And that's without discussing the massacre of the working class. Not to mention too, the Inflation Reduction Act is an enormous amount of sustainability spending that's spurred the entire West to do more. It may not be called the Green New Deal, but it sure as hell doesn't fall far from it.
I think your overestimating how much people will tolerate deprivation before turning on the system. After a certain point people will reject the system, sometimes violently , and seek a new way of organizing society. It's why the great depression didn't turn into the corporate hellscape you envision even though companies were just as powerful at the end of the 1920s. Barring some sort of military coup you can't subject a majority of the population to slavery and poverty without those people revolting.
The system relies on the at least tacit consent of the majority of the population, if you break that it becomes unstable and in that instability new ideas can come in. This is why most successful revolutions follow a crisis, one that discredits the current ruling order and allows something new to take it's place.
It can be dangerous though, that new thing could be FDR or it could be Hitler, but it's bound to happen eventually and our best hope now is to lay the groundwork so that when it does we get a leader ready to usher in a new green economy.
I think that's different from a total collapse of the system. It's moreso reforms, which I see as different.
That assumes what we are experiencing is inflation. Inflation is part of the equation, but another big part is just corporations are pushing up prices and making record profits. That part can result in prices going down without causing issues.
.
Are you a politics mod too?
No, but I I studied a tiny bit of macroeconomics once.
You're already ahead of 90% of Lemmy with that.
I wonder how many people here would agree with the idea of lowering taxes in order to reduce inflation.
Good, I'd hate for the mods here to delete points of view that they don't agree with 🤪. Like the Climate sub!
It's not a matter of disagreement; there's room for legit disagreement about a lot of things. It's a matter of joining in a active fossil-fuel-industry disinformation campaign. That gets me to take content down because it's basically impossible to have a rational discussion when that's part of it.
Thinking that humans are a net negative to the natural world and deserve the consequences of the climate apocalypse isn't a fossil fuel industry disinformation talking point, you literally just disagree with my opinions and shadowbanned me without warning or way to appeal. Big difference in "taking content down" and the former.
Doomerism is in fact a fossil fuel industry talking point; it's part of what they do to discourage action.
If the only solution is suicide, nobody will act.
My solution isn't everyone killing themselves at the same time. And you'd know that if you didn't ban me without recourse.
Idk the original discussion but I totally support the ban.
Insufferable people that talk past others are the absolute worst people to try and have a dialogue with - especially when they're more interested in listening to themselves anyway.
First, seek to understand, then try to be understood
Discourse denouncing bullshit puff pieces disguised as uplifting climate news is hard to swallow, so I understand.
Haha. Nice. I totally see what you did there.
You straight up ignored what I wrote and talked exclusively to yourself again! That was truly excellent
What can I say, it's a gift.
This is why I shop at restaurant supply stores. 10 lbs. of onions for $5
.
This guy's onions. Are you Shrek? 😅
No, but I am, since I'm buying them by the 10 lb. sack.
Probably Whole ~~Paycheck~~ Foods