5d ago

This is what it looks like when billionaires own the media

64 comments

Let me guess, deflation disincentivizes consumption so it can lead to a feedback effect that leads to recession?
Pay and wages tied to the rate of inflation would probably preferable; I’m sure congress will get right on it…
- Lower prices incentivize consumption though, right? It definitely hurts profits, but people buy lots more pointless shit if they can afford it.
  
  Static lower prices might, but deflation does not. If prices will be lower tomorrow or next week, it's wiser to hold on to your money and buy later.

It's not even lower prices, it's more "not increase much faster than salaries".
- You ESPECIALLY don't want that, and the reasons will shock you!
  
  But there are reasons why you shouldn't reason for the shocking reason because of....reasons.

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
- Euthanized through taxation? Why not euthanize through example? Meet this level of greed and your life is over. Like, this is the line, cross it and die. And if you cross that line, your children don't inherit your wealth. It gets sent to the people hurt by the inherit loss of wages.
  
  I don’t see our ideas as mutually exclusive.
  The capital punishment for corporations would function basically as you described, if they’re convicted for heinous behaviour, their capital/assets are seized, and the proceeds from their auction are given to their victims.
- Bloody well said mate

I mean, I'm perfectly fine with high prices as long as wages rise faster then the prices do...
- Tomorrow's article, "New trend among corporate America: Vibe volunteering allows companies to augment staff with enthusiastic citizens who simply want to work without any recognition"
  
  This is exactly how they're going to spin slavery when they eventually succeed in bringing it back.

I'm sure the argument is wages. Lower prices means lower wages or less jobs.
Except... 1. not really, not in the long term and 2. it happens anyway
- 3 If everything costs 25% less with a 10% wage drop that makes everyone effectively richer.
- The endgame is that very few people have jobs, and almost nobody can afford to live. Yet a handful of people have so much money that their great great great grandchildren will never have to work a day in their life. It's a slow burn genetic genocide, except that being rich doesn't mean superior genetics. It means that cruelty and luck are considered genetic traits. And they will continue to use that as a basis for superiority, and kill off anyone below them because it benefits their corporate profits.
  
  You're gonna need to add like 100 more greats there. These billionaires make more money out of just loans annually than most countries' GDPs. Then their children can continue making even more after their deaths without ever working a day.
  
  they will have to keep some slaves around to maintain thier little enclaves in the end.
- Also, lower wages don't do shit if all the companies revenue goes to the exec c suite

I mean, we already know that WaPo is the mouth piece for Baldy Bezos.

I'm fine if the prices stay high, as long as my wage is increased the same amount.
They won't do that either so....
- Then the reporting is all about rising wages driving an inflation sprial.

Corporate Headline: "Why you might not want lower prices or higher wages after all"
Me, waving a giant Abolish Money placard: "removed, I know!"
- Bell Riots need to fuckin happen already so we can get back on track for the Star Trek utopia timeline
  
  We're cutting directly to the Eugenics Wars, unfortunately

What the what? Seriously? I've never in my life, thought you know what, I'd like to pay more money. This is true of rich or poor.
- I've thought that plenty of time when the decision is between local or small business or support a mega corp
  
  Yeah for sure.
- I did once for an artistic creation that exceeded my expectations. Rolled back and gave them an extra 80%, told them to raise their prices because they were cheating themself
  
  So your a generous tipper then, most people don't do any forms of tipping, not people nor projects that you clearly see someone put their whole heart & soul into.

This is what happens when billionaires are allowed to exist

Democracy Died in Darkness

Its so true. Most of you will just blow any money you saved on drugs and hookers anyway.

The washington post is run by Israeli genocide apologists. Stop giving them attention.
I'm not a billionaire and I don't want lower prices. I want an income, and I want higher prices overall, with some pockets of price stability on stuff like housing and locally grown vegetables. Housing and local vegetables (in some areas) are very rare examples of things that have gone too far with price increases. Prices on most things are too low due to anti-environmental subsidies.
I want a society that subsidizes protecting the environment, not destroying it. I want the cost of my phone to help cover cleaning up after the factory that made it, instead of having the cost of my house and food help cover cleaning up the news headlines about pollution.
I want my phone to be $5000 and last 10 years while the cheapest shittiest phone that lasts 1 year still can't be less than $4000 (due to taxes) so that everyone saves up for 10 years to buy the $5000 phone and nobody fucking bothers making shit that only lasts a year.
And I want to pay for my phone in the transaction where I buy the phone, not in other transactions where I comply with a housing system that keeps others homeless and some of my money goes towards stuff like phones and shipping routes for them.
And as long as I have no income, all prices are too high for me to begin with, so it's all a moot point if you're not going to let me have an income.
- Bro/sis, before the tariffs I was able to build a mid end PC for $1000, it does way more than a smart phone. There is no logical reason why a smart phone should cost $5000. You're getting down voted because the numbers you are throwing out are completely disconnected from reality. Manufacturing costs for a smartphone are like $500 tops. Another source on manufacturing costs. The actual people assembling them make something along the lines of $3-4 an hour, and that's being generous.
  
  There is no logical reason why a smart phone should cost $5000
  Except people keep buying phones with planned obsolescence, and taxing phones like $4000 each seems like a good solution, as I said. People might finance them in real life instead of saving up for them if we did this, but it should really make a dent in the problem either way.
  You’re getting down voted because the numbers you are throwing out are completely disconnected from reality.
  That's incorrect. They're just nice round example numbers for illustrative purposes, but not disconnected from reality at all.
  Manufacturing costs for a smartphone are like $500 tops.
  You have manufacturing costs confused with costs for the manufacturer. When I subsidize the manufacturer every time I pay rent, those are not the same number.
  The actual people assembling them make something along the lines of $3-4 an hour, and that’s being generous.
  And they probably live in systems like the system I live in here in the US, where that income can't really be owned by the worker, it's owned by the banking system or the "state" and the worker has some say in how a percentage of it is spent (what food they want to eat, what kind of phone they want, etc)
  Hence why I mentioned that as long as you don't let me have an income, all prices are too high for me, and this is all a moot point
  The workers deserve a better wage than $3-4, and that's a reason the phone should probably be more expensive, not less

64 comments