I really don't like that the sources on this article are missing.
Sure, that’s a lot of money for the wealthy who control 93% of stock, but it’s also tens of millions of Americans who will have a more comfortable and secure retirement. In fact, the number of Americans who have over $1 million in their retirement accounts grew by 20% in the last quarter of 2023.
Fine and dandy, except that half of Americans don't have a retirement account. Or 47% of Americans.
So while retirement indexes are up, 1:2 people are not going to see that.
Inflation eased slightly in April — the first time this year that has happened. Overall inflation edged down to 3.4% and slipped to 3.6% when you exclude food and energy costs. (food expected to rise by an additional 2.2%)
Good to see the brakes are working. But just remember that not everyone goes out to by a car or house on a twice-a-week basis. But everyone does with the grocery store. Which in Biden's defense, he has started trying to pull back.
Surely there are some numbers we could look at every day besides the stock market numbers. Like couldn’t we have Real Income and/or Purchasing Power right next to the DOW and the S&P? Or how about instead of the Dow and S&P since, like you said - most Americans lives don’t change by the changes in the stock market.
As long as private shareholders are having record quarterly earnings, almost all economists, hired by wealthy organizations largely to push the narrative that benefits those organizations, will of course declare victory.
Economists also generally defend our “free market” rigged crony capitalism as the only way too. They’re literally the priesthood of this grift.
The homelessness epidemic is getting worse. Our people are dying in the streets in record numbers, please, go down to your nearest homeless tent city in every major population center in the US and tell them they’re being dramatic.
This economy no longer cares about customers or employees. The Reagan/Kemp grift eviscerated the customers first, employees second, investors last model. Now it’s private shareholders first and only demanding companies sabotage their long term future to goose their next quarter with layoffs, anticompetitive behaviors, and tax cheats. Why care about the products/services you literally exist to provide when you’re part of an oligopoly, buying and killing any potential competitors trying to improve your economic sector’s product/service? At that point, you can make shadows of what you used to make and your captive consumer base has nowhere else to go. Despite its primary selling point, market capitalism’s end goal has been thoroughly proven: to END competition.
Capitalism is eating its own tail having conquered the monopoly board and having no more meaningful new markets left to metastasize in and exploit.
There needs to be laws passed that change the structure of “fiduciaries”
Companies should exist for their employees first, customers second, and then shareholders, in that order. Pay the people creating the product/service as much as possible, put out the best possible product/service at the most competitive rate possible, and if there’s anything left over the shareholders get their cut.
Ironically, if corporations actually did this, they’d likely have plenty of success. It’s just mind boggling that the lazy fuckers pushing numbers around on a computer screen are the ones considered fiduciaries
There is such a business structure. It’s called a worker co-operative. They’re pretty common in some areas (e.g. grocery) where they are able to compete with and even win against traditionally-owned grocery store chains. For example, one of the largest grocery co-operatives in the US, WinCo foods, competes with and actually beats the likes of Walmart and Kroger (called Fred Meyer here) in the price department. They do have some outside investment (IIRC), but the stores are mostly owned by the employees that work there.
I think we ought to encourage these types of businesses through extremely favourable tax treatment. I’m talking a 0% tax rate on dividends paid by co-operatives to workers. At the same time, it’s understandable that most people start businesses for personal profit, which drives the creation of most businesses, so I think a hybrid system wherein the owner starts with a maximum of 50% equity in the company is fair, and the rest is owned by the workers. Imposing an expiration on the owner’s shares (say, 50 years?) would mean that after the founders die, the entire company will be owned by the workers, while not extinguishing the motivation for people to establish businesses in the first place.
No one can undo years of economic turbulence in three years. Everyone feels like they’re being gaslit because they are. The patient will bleed out before you finish applying the first bandaid.
I share their opinion but also wish more people would care about metrics other than gdp and stock market indexes when a Republican is in office.
The news babbles about the real economy and how we’re on the brink of a recession tirelessly whenever a Democrat is in the presidency, then magically when a Republican is even just elected (not even in office yet) all of those “meaningless” numbers are suddenly meaningful, and it turns out there’s actually nothing wrong with using unemployment numbers, the GDP, and the Dow Jones index to determine economic health, even as more go homeless.
The only well-known politician I’ve seen talk consistently about this regardless of the party in the white house is Bernie.
The economy is doing good for what the president can do.
But the old metrics are not good. It used to just be employment rate that mattered, you know if people were employed that was sufficient. Now it’s wages that have not kept up and it’s a big issue.
I looked over the metrics in the article and none of them approximate what percentage of Americans are struggling to pay their bills. That number probably closely approximates the percentage who think the economy isn’t doing well. This is a different situation from people wrongly believing crime rates are high.
Add comment