• Tommasi [she/her, pup/pup's]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    11 months ago

    The cool thing about inflation “plummeting” is that it doesn’t undo the damage high inflation already did. Food is still massively more expensive than it was a year ago, weirdly enough that bothers people.

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    “Inflation plummeted from going up very very very fast to just going up very fast”

    That’s not how plummeting works. Inflation hasn’t gone down, prices are in fact still going up. They are in fact higher now than they were before.

    “Oh but you need inflation” yeah if you’re a fucking idiot classical economist that thinks people receiving a fair wage is the worst possible thing to happen.

    • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      Being forced to learn partial differential equations and command economics to fuck with Libertarians “but muh calculation problem” is a curse because it illustrates just how badly the lanyard class fails to understand their own economic arguments for maintaining power.

      • stigsbandit34z [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wasn’t the calculation problem only a “problem “ when humans didn’t have quantum computing and hadn’t been exposed to exponentially increasing rates of processing power?

        • 420stalin69@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The “calculation problem” is absurd because it’s equally true for a market system anyway since any Turing system is only capable of what any other Turing system is also capable of.

          The idea that a central planner lacks complete information about an economy is true, but it’s equally true for any market. A market cannot have complete information about itself even in aggregate across the entire market. Provably true via the Turing argument but also empirically obvious since prices in any and every true market are constantly fluctuating even in the absence of events that should affect prices and never reach anything that even resembles an equilibrium.

          Further, it’s empirically proven that higher “allocative efficiency” is achieved under administered rather than dynamic systems.

          The first flaw in the “calculation problem” is that it implicitly assumes that markets achieve economic equilibrium… which is absolute horse shit they obviously do not achieve equilibrium prices. So it’s wrong in the sense it’s equally true for markets.

          The second flaw is that empirically it’s demonstrably false since it’s been shown empirically that planned systems do in fact achieve higher allocative efficiency. So it’s wrong in the sense it is contradicted by actual observation.

          The third flaw is that it makes the enormous conflation of assuming that because perfect efficiency is impossible that a system is therefore impossible. E.g. because you can’t swim at an Olympic level you’re going to drown in a pool. Actually perfect efficiency isn’t required for a system to function, obvious because perfect efficiency has never been achieved and yet we are still able to eat food.

          The nail in the coffin of the “calculation problem” is that it believes that only markets can approach efficiency since only the market in aggregate can have perfect knowledge about an economy so a price mechanism approaches efficiency… but that’s exactly what linear programming does too - it constantly moves towards while never reaching perfecting efficiency in polynomial time - and in fact linear programming provably (in both the mathematical and empirical senses) approaches efficiency far faster than a “drunk-walk” market mechanism.

          You don’t need super advanced computing to do this. GOSPLAN did it using pen and paper. Linear programming isn’t actually difficult mathematics.

          All of the above points were made about one hundred years ago and the “calculation problem” has never been taken seriously as even existing as a problem outside of the Mises institute, which is exactly why Reddit dweeb fascists love to cite it.

  • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    11 months ago

    People talk about “Econ 101”, but even in my actual Macro 101 course, taught by a libertarian professor, we had good discussions about how broad metrics like “GDP growth”, “inflation”, or “unemployment” in themselves can be distorted or meaningless without drilling down and really understanding the numbers. The example the prof used was talking about a low unemployment rate but if a lot of people have just given up looking for work then just looking at that one rate will tell you very little about what’s really going on.

    I just think it’s that libs know the economy sucks and are scared shitless because a bad economy means Trump wins.

    • Absolute@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      11 months ago

      The whole “econ 101” bit has always been hilarious to me because in any other field of study I feel like the general understanding is a “101” course, undergrad whatever, is going to be intentionally simplified for the purposes of teaching broader ideas but as you learn more you find these explanations are inadequate on many levels. With economics however that surface level understanding is apparently enough to allow you to speak with confidence

      • Quexotic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        Exactly. This is the level of understanding employed by those saying that the economy is doing well. It’s a cynical tactic to paint it in a rosy light as the wage workers struggle.

        Also, I’ve only been through 100 level econ classes and it’s clear that the economic metrics in use are not particularly meaningful.

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      11 months ago

      I just think it’s that libs know the economy sucks

      Many will admit it, but they believe it is either unavoidable or delayed effects from Trump (may be partially true)

      As well, the natural cycle of capitalist crisis leads people to think that a downturn is in fact a good thing because it means the recovery is already coming. It shields systemic flaws and corruption from any attention because obvious wrongs are construed as natural.

      • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because they believe his unconventional rhetoric as leading to policy that’s harmful for the nation - meanwhile those who love him think it’s the exact needed strategy to Make America Great Again

        They know Trump isn’t different; it’s a question of perceived strategic differences.

      • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Trump is doing nazi dog whistling and his cabinet members will be less competent and probably have worse traits like some of them thinking America needs to be a Christian state.

        I think federal spending on things that directly help people will be higher under Biden [source I made it up]

        Trump actively spreads a message of hate and intolerance by telling his fans that minorities are bad, so giving him a bigger platform would be a bad thing

        Those are some of the reasons bouncing around in my head of why trump is worse

    • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      The example the prof used was talking about a low unemployment rate but if a lot of people have just given up looking for work then just looking at that one rate will tell you very little about what’s really going on.

      That’s something everyone in Italy and Poland knows lol, the joys of long economic crises.

    • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      if a lot of people have just given up looking for work then just looking at that one rate will tell you very little about what’s really going on.

      And this is exactly what’s going on. Why are people going to even bother applying when porky-happy is so picky? If everyone “only hires the best” and I’m not “the best” why should I even bother applying?

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I choose to believe that Ward Sutton’s cartoons under his own name are a bit he’s doing. I’d rather believe he’s mocking typical liberal editorial cartoons than face reality. I refuse to believe that the guy behind Kelly is some Biden defending, Ukraine flag liberal dork who deserve a wedgie. I instead choose to believe Ward Sutton is another character, the inverse of Kelly. His dark shadow if you will

    Like I’ve already been through enough in my life by seeing what happened to William Gibson and Jello Biafra. How those two are liberals will always perplex me. I refuse to lose Kelly too. In the deep recesses of my heart lives a sicko from today until eternity sicko-yes

  • Deadend [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    None of that shit matters.

    Rent is up, food costs more, pay isn’t going up.

    Most people are worse off than end of 2022.

    Dems should be constantly attacking republicans for making things worse.

    • Quexotic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      Exactly this. I’m sick of people saying “The Economy™” is doing so damn well. Never has it been clearer that there are many economies, 2 of which are the economy of the investor and the economy of the working class*. The absolute tone deafness of statements about “perception mismatch” only serves to illustrate the brutality of class conflict. It’s not a misperception of reality, we’re living in 2 different realities.

      *Also the economy of the impoverished and the black market among others.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Bit idea: convince liberals that bourgeois media is lying about Biden’s economy as a capital strike to sabotage the most pro-labor president in history, and that’s why we need to nationalize the media companies.

    • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      If it weren’t merely fucking with the numbers, it could be explained by massive inflation in 2022 and stabilising peices in 2023. As much as this is partially true, western governments really pushed the calculations to not get double digits in 2022, then to get optimistic numbers, healing and all that shit in 2023.

    • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It means prices are (supposedly, I am not American so don’t know the situation there) rising slower (but still rising) - bourgeois economists believe prices rising by 1,5% to 3% every year is a good thing, who cares if the wages don’t?

      But alas, their job is to make businesses happy, not proles.

    • 420stalin69@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      “Supercore” inflation ignores food, housing, and energy.

      Because capitalism is an extremely rational system.