politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
But grocery receipts are not an indicator of inflation, only of corporate greed and record profits. The Democrats need to a better job pointing the blame where it really lies.
I think one caveat here (and I’m not disagreeing with you, just adding a bit of clarification) is that the grocery stores aren’t the ones engaging in this. Generally, they have pretty tight profit margins. The massive growth of Aldi and other discount grocers in the USA over the past 10-20 years has made the profit margins remain tight. It’s the upstream producers where you see more of the greed.
Most people reading this probably haven’t even heard of a company like Cargill, even though they control a massive chunk of your meat.
Edit: maybe I should have said they produce most of your meat (or the plurality, not sure the exact numbers. They’re the biggest in North American beef, maybe other meats too)
I work in the corporate office for a grocery, you're not wrong at all chief.
This entire year one of our biggest corporate goals has been how to either drive down prices for our customers or how to increase value for them so that they'll feel their dollar went further.
Shameless fucks
welllll they done gone and shit the bed on that one! Lol prices are higher than ever and I feel like my dollar is worth about as much as a turd these days and it doesn't seem like it's getting any better.
You didn't read the comment above mine at all did you?
Yes I did. And I understand that it's not really on the grocery stores that the prices are increasing. But it's still funny when the goal of a company is literally to "drive down prices for our customers or how to increase value for them so that they'll feel their dollar went further" aaaaamd nothing but the exact opposite is happening. So yes, even tho it may not really be their fault, they're still dropping the ball on that goal lol c'mon.
Lol.
I get that but let's look at this rationally. The grocery stores know their business (or at least I hope they do). So they either did one of two things.
Or
In either case I would say they absolutely dropped the ball.
I think that's a bit of a overreach.
It would help if I self identified my employer but I'm not comfortable doing that. Having said that, said employer has added a plethora of services and features for our customers at no additional charge for them to make it easier for them to do their shopping however they would like.
Those services were developed under the goal that I had stated and all of them have seen utilization and compliments from the customers, data doesn't lie and the data shows them being a success.
No but it can be interpreted in the completely wrong way when you forget about the supplementary data driving the numbers you look at, as evidenced by all the treads in this post calling out that even though the stock market numbers look good that's not really painting the whole picture of our economy. A boost in using services like online shopping delivery and what not could also signify people have significantly less time, working multiple jobs maybe to make ends meet and this is the only way to get groceries. That doesn't mean they feel the service is great just nessacity is driving its adoption. Couple that knowledge with a low unemployment rate and those data trends can start to paint a different picture than you initially thought.
I'll be sure to ignore those compliments we get on the services. Also fun fact, I never stated home delivery.
Kinda curious what percert do. Fediverse isn't exactly a random sample. I'd imagine it was be a small minority of the general population who know that. Honestly mostly only became aware of Cargill because of how much of the Venezuela food market they used to control (and the possible abuse of that position).
Ooo-er……
And the rest of your meat is under the control of a handful of larger consumer goods companies, the five fingers of big tech, and the chubby paws of a few other companies in key industries. Together, they have your meat in a vice.
Revenue is not profit. You’re quoting revenue to make the situation look more extreme than it is. That number is not profit. You’re also cherrypicking a top performer instead of looking at industry trends. Publix, in my experience (only visit the south, don’t live there), is a higher end store.
Kroger lost money this quarter. Profit was negative.
It’s also not so straightforward for a number of reasons. Grocery consolidation is way up, so operating revenues go up because there are more stores in each brand’s portfolio. YOY growth is misleading, you should look at profit per store to get a better grasp on a trend. You’re also looking at an industry heavily impacted by the pandemic (certain chains like Walmart and Amazon saw more grocery growth during the pandemic for obvious reasons)
what do you think "inflation" means to consumers? it's the increase over time of the cost of the things they buy. Nobody cares if it's coming from corporate greed or climate change or whatever else. They only care that they've already been living pay check to pay check and now they're cutting back on food into ever more shitty options.
or housing. or any of a dozen other necessary-to-live things.
That’s fine but it has fuck-all to do with Biden’s policies and it’s beyond any President to change those things. It’s like when people judge a president by the price of gas during the administration. The reasons housing and food are expensive as fuck currently is
Maybe “nobody cares if it’s coming from corporate greed” but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid. It’s rather unwise to blame it on Biden, vote him out, and then get a Republican (especially the unholy moron in the lead currently) who will do absolutely worse about the real issues in every way possible.
I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices... he could also direct the US DOJ to go after price gouging and other anti-competitive practices that absolutely are illegal, work out more favorable trade deals (a lot of produce comes up from Mexico, for example avocados and tomatoes); and he could work with congress to bring SNAP benefits to more people; or increase SNAP benefits to people already on it.
Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage... maybe we could call it a minimum... wage... yeah he'd have to work with congress to get that done. But that's... kinda part of his job.
maybe they should make federal laws against price gouging, huh? sounds like something a president might be able to work on (most states have laws against price gouging, however)
The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically, and/or are the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. And true, Democrats could be much better on minimum wage and restraining big business. But so what, as usual - you’re going to elect a Republican instead, when they’re much worse on all of those issues?
"These things are too complicated" when it's something that might help people. Not a concern when building Trump's wall for him or shoveling money to the IDF.
"oh pity poor me, I can't do ANYTHING!" is a bad look for a president. He's done a fair bit, most of it is of the 'taking care of business' variety.
Yes, he needs to work with congress- that's part of his job. I'm not asking him to do anything that isn't part of being... you know... the president. Just because he's better than a field of alternatives, doesn't mean he's not also worse than... I don't know, a progressive democrat? By and large, the president sets the political course for his party; at least while in office.
but again, there's things he CAN be doing. Like, going after monopolies; breaking up companies that are much too large- actions that increase competition and bring direct price actions. they can go after people for unfair (or fraudulent) practices in the sectors hurting people most. Instead hes focused on... ticketmaster... and airlines. yeah, they're scummy companies. they should be dealt with. What about Kroger, Cargill, Nestle. Student loans. predatory landlords.
There's a lot that Biden could be doing. Or more specifically, directing his federal agencies to be doing.
The FTC just wrapped up a major antitrust suit against Google. Not sure how you missed that one.
But anyway, could Biden be less of a corporate Democrat and work more effectively as a populist? Sure. I’m not sure who you think was disagreeing with that. As far as breaking up large corporations in 5 different industries all at once though, and taking executive action on duties of the legislative branch, I think you’re expecting a bit much, which is not even remotely the same thing as “pity me I can’t do anything”.
I think this thread has lost sight of the original argument. We shouldn’t elect a republican because breaking up a monopoly is so politically complicated that we know they cannot pull it off, therefore any republican promise to do so should be treated as a farce.
They don't want to work with him. Or have you forgotten that the only Republican goal anymore is "own the libs?"
He ran on being able to work with them. Which was a giant crock of shit, just like all the "he's the most progressive evar" nonsense we're expected to buy now.
Who would have believed that? Republicans supporting a Democratic president and helping pass legislation? It was hard enough to get Manchin, a supposed Democrat, to go along with it and typically zero Republican senators will.
And yet, it's what Biden ran on.
Biden ran on "elect someone but Trump jfc". Just like the republicans had no stated platform for 2020, he didn't really need one besides that.
1.4% of Americans are on minimum wage so I'm not sure this will have the impact you think it will.
This is going to need some proof.
Apparently Walmart and Kroger BOTH have a monopoly on grocery retail.
Is there something wrong with that? Voters elected Trump with the help of the electoral college. Over the last several decades, they're the ones who repeatedly voted in people who've enacted policies that have lead to the trend of lack of wage increases and increased regulatory capture that has allowed the current inflation problems.
Why can't the conclusion simply be voters are stupid, so they'll make decisions based on whims and feels that may not have a strong connection to the policies of the specific person?
The Democrats need to do a better job at giving people the money they need to get what they need, and controlling the out-of-control plutocrats wringing every last bit of spare change from the rest of us.
"Ok GOP, we'll cut our yearly deficit by 60% just by only giving the welfare queen confederate states $1 back for every dollar they contribute in taxes, instead of the $6 that South Carolina gets. Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and start turning a profit."
"Hey, Joe Manchin: if you don't offer your full-throated support to Build Back Better, we're cutting off all Federal aid and investment in West Virginia, and we're going to run nonstop ads telling your constituents why. Also, we're going to break up your daughter's pharma company."
Time for some LBJ shit. But they'll never do it, because they're actually conservatives too.