Inflation

[TomasM]

Colluding to price-fix is a crime. I’m fairly certain that would fall under antitrust laws.

 

[Wyote]

Like that hasn't been happening since the beginning of forever rofl

 

[TomasM]

Sad but true @Wyote. I like eggs but, I don’t mind going with a substitute if the price quadruples.

For business that need eggs to operate, I feel bad for them. They’ve lost lots of money - especially small businesses.

Of course, nobody has been found guilty of price-fixing but it looks like there is an ongoing investigation.

 

[Wyote]

Of course, nobody has been found guilty [ ] but it looks like there is an ongoing investigation.

Same shit, different day

 

[aeon]

 

[philostam]

Good process, lads

 

[SlowUpTake]

that instills confidence (btw this is meant sarcastically)

 

[SlowUpTake]

22 million people lost their jobs in the first two months of the covid pandemic. With a 2 Trillion dollar infusion into the economy we got the 22 million jobs back over the course of two years (following the end of the covid caused shut down.) the great recession caused 9 million people to loose their jobs and it took 7 years to regain those jobs.
The 2021 American Rescue Plan increased the amount of the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6, and $3,000 for other qualifying children under age 18. The expansion led to a historic 46% decline in the U.S. child poverty rate in 2021, dropping from 9.7% to 5.2% but the credit was only legislated for 1 year and was not renewed, the expiration of that aid led to a historic increase in child poverty and 5 million more children lived in poverty in 2022 compared to 2021.
According to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (11/14/22), corporate media preoccupation with the negative noticeably deepened worries of a prolonged period of excess inflation: "Analyzing the volume and sentiment of daily news articles on inflation suggests that one-fourth of the increased gap between household and professional expectations [of future inflation] can be attributed to heightened negative media coverage." Corporate media alarmism also appears to have contributed to historically depressed consumer sentiment.

Studies show that both low unemployment and low inflation are associated with increased life satisfaction. However, the positive correlation between low unemployment and happiness is stronger than the negative correlation between inflation and happiness.

Central banks globally have historically struggled to push inflation up to 2%. The only Economic Deficits we should be concerned with are the deficits that affect our supplies of services and goods (this includes social services like health care, elder care and child care and goods like food and shelter).
There is a substantial disconnect between what corporations believe is sound economic policy and what is kinds of economic policies benefit the majority of people. But the corporations have learned to use their media assets and their highly developed psychological manipulation skills to convince the majority to perseverate over distracting and ill defined issues.

 

[TomasM]

Studies show that both low unemployment and low inflation are associated with increased life satisfaction.

I think this statement depends on the reason for the unemployment and inflation. We also have to ask ourselves if people are satisfied and if has it been increasing or decreasing since COVID.

To me it appears that a large majority of people are unsatisfied and that’s why they chose to predominantly vote for a large degree of change. I say this because people aren’t generally tolerant of big change and they have to be considerably uncomfortable if they choose it.

However, the positive correlation between low unemployment and happiness

This statement is conditional. If people are unemployed and happy then it implies that they are financially stable and not stressed about food, shelter, and possibly even leisure activities. Historically this is probably true but I would doubt that has been the case since Covid started. To me, people see over extended in debt, concerned about housing and food, and leisure has been significantly constrained.

is stronger than the negative correlation between inflation and happiness.

This also causes significant dissatisfaction. An increase in inflation will result in a decrease in happiness (negative correlation) unless they have significant residual income after paying for food, shelter, leisure, and possibly other things. I don’t believe people are stable so it very much seems true to form. Even when they have residual income, they don’t typically like price increases but are more tolerant under those circumstances.

There is a substantial disconnect between what corporations believe is sound economic policy and what is kinds of economic policies benefit the majority of people.

This is a very true statement; however I would probably substitute “corporations,” with special interest groups and lobbyists since these are the people that most dramatically affect policy. Individual corporations can have some influence if they are manipulating through bought politicians but if it were ever validated (difficult to do) then both could find legal action against them. Still, I believe it happens regularly.

But the corporations have learned to use their media assets and their highly developed psychological manipulation skills to convince the majority to perseverate over distracting and ill defined issues.

True, but not all corporations have media influence. I believe what people have started to realize is that a majority of Fortune corporations have been captured by major stock funds. The three big that come to mind are BlackRock, Vanguard group, and State Street which have bought up enough shares in these companies to influence the corporate boards. All three of these companies are also significantly invested in each other. If a public company goes rogue and doesn’t comply with the demands of the fund managers then they can cut them off financially (through business contracts) from all the other companies where they have a controlling interest. They can also cause that company’s stock value to drop through a sell off and once this starts it’s difficult to make it stop. Once the company is unstable they can get board members voted off the board. More importantly, the big 3 control media in the same way, so if a company is in good standing then they will have positive influence but if they don’t then they will have an onslaught of negative influence. This is a big reason why nobody trusts the mainstream media, because it has become clear that they say things that are clearly biased towards greed and manipulation over the best interest of anyone except their selves. This is the power of Wall Street and one reason why I think people voted for change to start valuing Main Street.

If the corporations are controlled then the funding to politician is controlled. If the politicians are getting large degrees of funding then they are most likely being funded by those that have the most money (which comes to them in some very “creative” ways). This in turn influences public policy through legislation and bureaucratic “rules,” that give favor to those who have supported campaigns.

It’s a top down system that starts with the money. If we start evaluating who controls the money then we realize the source of the greed and the depth of the rabbit hole.

 

[SlowUpTake]

I think we can agree that "inflation" as the term is used has little to nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation and is really about the availablity of services and goods. I think it is also clear that robust employment and decent wages coupled with an abundance of fairly priced services and goods are what the average person perceives as a good economy.

The question that seems to be of the most interest (to me anyway) is how the public perceives the idea of a good economy. I think it is clear that an individulal can gage how the economy is on a personal level but how individuals perceive it on a macro level has way more nuanced influences. This is where the bias of the media landscape comes into play.
I am arguing that the macro perception of the economy is more heavily influenced by large corporate interests then by what is in the interest of the population. I belive that those interests are in many way divergent. But first I think it is clear that the media landscape is dominated by the interests of the large commercial players.

In commercial media owners hire, fire, set budgets and determine the over arching aims of the enterprise.
Journalists, editors and media professionals who rise to the top of the hierarchy tend to internalize the values, both commercial and political, of media owners. The firms that produce major newspapers and news broadcasts are large and powerful corporations, when the mass media is mainly owned by the very and run by very large corporations, this significantly affects the perspectives embodied in news reporting.

Agenda setting suggests that the media has the power to set the public agenda by choosing what to cover. This theory states that:
“People are aware or not aware, pay attention to or neglect, play up or downgrade specific features of the public scene.
People tend to include or exclude from their cognitions what the media includes or excludes from their content. People also tend to assign a given importance to what they include that closely resembles the emphasis given to events, issue, and persons by the mass media.” This theory is important as it shows the power that the media has in determining the issues of society.

Media outlets that are owned by major corporations are controlled by executives and trustees whose primary duty is to maximize the corporation's profits on behalf of the corporation's shareholders The traditional model of media ownership was for the organization's highest duty to be reporting the truth of events to the public, yet when a corporation is the owner truth may takes a backseat to profitability.

In an analysis of news articles from dozens of highly circulated US newspapers over the last 40 years, using machine-learning, .....stories from these newspapers that concern the overall performance of the US economy....removing any articles that appeared in the business section, because these often focus on the stock market and corporate earnings that make their coverage explicitly class-biased. The authors then measure the tone of the economic news and test whether it accurately reflects the growth of different income classes.
The findings are staggering. First, the content of economic news becomes overwhelmingly positive when incomes of the rich grow—but it is uncorrelated with the changes in welfare of the lesser-off, when accounting for the fortunes of the rich.

 

[TomasM]

I think we can agree that "inflation" as the term is used has little to nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation and is really about the availablity of services and goods. I think it is also clear that robust employment and decent wages coupled with an abundance of fairly priced services and goods are what the average person perceives as a good economy.

If we are going to breach speculation and allow our intuitive minds to rise to the top over what we have been told then I can certainly engage this type of dialogue and discourse. It is important to note that even those with high levels of intuition and an intellectual mind developed enough to interpret there is still a margin of error. With this in mind, we must both assume a position of mutual respect within a desire to find truth rather than being right.

Yes, I do believe that inflation has little to do with the amount of money in circulation even if that spits in the face of economic theory. I believe that the majority of the money sits in pools of power at the top of the pyramid and the amount of money in circulation is small such that it can be managed (just like the people). Countries that know how to manage these structures are successful and those that do not are poor and unstable.

I am arguing that the macro perception of the economy is more heavily influenced by large corporate interests then by what is in the interest of the population. I belive that those interests are in many way divergent. But first I think it is clear that the media landscape is dominated by the interests of the large commercial players.

If we can agree that corporations are acting as a whole and in cooperation then yes I agree. This is no different than states of a union (also corporations) that are operating collectively as a whole. The rules are set for these corporate entities yet under the surface they operate in a way that is completely contradictory to these rules. Then loopholes are created on the surface to facilitate function and secrecy is used to conceal.

Agenda setting suggests that the media has the power to set the public agenda by choosing what to cover. This theory states that:
“People are aware or not aware, pay attention to or neglect, play up or downgrade specific features of the public scene.
People tend to include or exclude from their cognitions what the media includes or excludes from their content. People also tend to assign a given importance to what they include that closely resembles the emphasis given to events, issue, and persons by the mass media.” This theory is important as it shows the power that the media has in determining the issues of society.

Yes, there is most certainly an agenda, and that agenda at it's core is power at the highest level with layers of subordinates that are controlled. The methods of control, well, that's a very ugly thing to stare in the face.

The people are only told what they need to be told as a means of being managed. The organization and people change as it is necessary to maintain a confidence in the source of the information. This can come by rebranding, acquisition, or starting something grassroots that appears aligned with the influenced. Whatever it takes.

But let's be clear, the mass media does not control itself. They have their marching orders and we can see it in the same parroted words coming from every tentacle like an orchestra being directed by the conductor. This dissemination is wide and takes into account what is needed to appeal to the cultural groups based on their elevated status. In doing so, everyone gets to feel understood and right in their perspective.

It's all a sick and twisted game. The truth is usually the exact opposite of what everyone is being told.

First, the content of economic news becomes overwhelmingly positive when incomes of the rich grow—but it is uncorrelated with the changes in welfare of the lesser-off, when accounting for the fortunes of the rich.

Yes. Sad but true. I often ask myself how people can have such disregard for mass suffering. Still, I can't ignore that there is a drive in the human species that always seeks to gain at the expense of others. This drive has existed as far back in time that we can view in writings and the actions of people can even take delight in murder. This begs the question, if someone didn't take power at the top, would we ever be able to grow a society to the scale it currently sits globally? Can we breed or rid the species of its sick ambition or will we forever be subjected to cycles of build and destroy?

These are hard questions and coming to terms with them is painful.

 

[aeon]