There has been inflation before today, you know.
It does look like there has been a negative trend overall, though obviously this is a big jump. I think what may be the biggest contribution to this leap is an increased awareness that presiding politicians do not care for their constituents' interests. Like you suggest, they are all acting towards globalist ideals, and normal people have really started seeing what harm it is causing them, almost all at once (energy problems, ridiculous covid policies, not-so-peaceful migrants, trooning, extreme feminism). The "leaders" have also become much more hostile to opposition, to a degree that merely questioning something can turn someone into an enemy.
I'm less worried about them all being puppets from the beginning than about the system being so resilient to make even wrecking balls into effectively puppets.
I saw this on a TL;DR (Not Teal Deer) post that was sent to me by a Neo-Lib friend of mine. It's all dialectical materialism. Inflation is the sole cause of establishment politics being threatened.
No. Each of the countries they cite have their own major issues that each government is separately bungling. However, the Neo-Liberal Order's policies are pushing governments to behave incompetently in order to support the system. This "inflation did it" is merely an attempt to deflect responsibility from Globalism and to ignore the nuance of each case.
Shortly after the election, I saw one twitter post from some moderately-large lib account blaming Kamala's loss on a "global wave of anti-incumbentism," as though such a thing could be a cause and not a symptom. As though it just randomly materializes out of the ether. "Yeah, this was just a tough year for incumbents. What do you mean 'why'? I don't know, I'm pretty sure everyone just randomly decided they hate whomever happens to be in office in their area for no particular reason."
Yup, that's the point. They're deflecting their own responsibility.
It's the same reason how "something happened" in the late 90's which saw crime, corruption, poverty, and housing costs to start spiking. They are wielding Obscurantism to keep the Overton Window from expanding as a result of facts.
They do the same thing when the economy is doing poorly. You'll hear people say, "the president and government can't really effect the economy", even if more than 30% GDP is from state spending. It's also useful to prevent people like Trump from taking credit for loosening regulations.
It's how they were describing it as a universal element, not one condition among many. They didn't say "immigration, mismanagement, corruption, and inflation". They just said, "Welp. It's just inflation. And nobody knows where that comes from but it's just an unknowable force in history that we'll have to weather the storm of."
They all exercised the same type of monetary policy. At this broad a level, maybe all you can see is the reaction to that. I don't know which these are, but each probably has an immigration issue.
It's a shit load, including Mexico, Chad, and South Africa. There's no question that "immigration" is definitely a sore spot for all of the western countries though.
The Neo-Liberal order (and it's required monetary policy) aren't blameless here, but "inflation" is far too reductive.
A cultural shift is a real thing, too. God knows we've seen them in the prog direction. Immigration is second only to the economy in voter polls, and concern about immigration boils down for most people to concern about their own personal economic situation. I think that's why you see some alignments that people consider odd. Like Hispanics voting for a border wall. For people who have immigrants competing for their jobs and bringing wages down, immigration is an economic issue. For people who benefit from cheap labor, it's also an economic issue. And I feel like most people know which side of this they're on.
When we observe the immigration is good for GDP yet still people think of it as an economic threat, this is because such GDP gains are far from evenly distributed. More people win than I think people realize. Not just robber barons but the people who consooom too.
Like Hispanics voting for a border wall. For people who have immigrants competing for their jobs and bringing wages down, immigration is an economic issue. For people who benefit from cheap labor, it's also an economic issue. And I feel like most people know which side of this they're on.
You're 100% right from everything I can see. It's an economic issue, but it's effectively become a class issue. Donald Trump wasn't just winning blacks and hispanics, he was winning working class and rural voters from every demographic at a universal level. Where he would have only won black rural voters, he made major headways with urban working class voters.
Basically, it's a fight between the working, rural, and entrepreneurial classes; versus the middle managerial, elite, and dependent-slave classes. The divisions along racial lines are actually more irrelevant, and are more of a demonstration of how many of that demographic are actually in those classes.
When we observe the immigration is good for GDP yet still people think of it as an economic threat, this is because such GDP gains are far from evenly distributed. More people win than I think people realize. Not just robber barons but the people who consooom too.
GDP has always been fake and gay because it intentionally slam-fucks government spending into economic productivity, as if government waste is inherently productive. However, the data is being more and more bastardized, and the policy wonks are spending more time trying to play with numbers to make the line go up, rather than understand what the equation actually means. This is why Britain keeps importing a quadrillion Bahamalians every year. They're hoping infinity migrants makes the calculation work. Rather than even having a passing understanding of what the variables are even supposed to represent.
People are already well aware that the Stock Market is not the economy on it's own, and now it's becoming clear that GDP also isn't the economy. Worse, that's only if you assume that the government's calculations of the GDP are legitimate, which their not. Meaning that the government and the economists literally can't be trusted to monitor the economy, let alone regulate it. Instead, the Americans are learning to trust themselves, which is killing the power of the media's terroristic gaslighting.
There has been inflation before today, you know.
It does look like there has been a negative trend overall, though obviously this is a big jump. I think what may be the biggest contribution to this leap is an increased awareness that presiding politicians do not care for their constituents' interests. Like you suggest, they are all acting towards globalist ideals, and normal people have really started seeing what harm it is causing them, almost all at once (energy problems, ridiculous covid policies, not-so-peaceful migrants, trooning, extreme feminism). The "leaders" have also become much more hostile to opposition, to a degree that merely questioning something can turn someone into an enemy.
No it's the system reshuffling the puppets because people are upset.
I'm less worried about them all being puppets from the beginning than about the system being so resilient to make even wrecking balls into effectively puppets.
I saw this on a TL;DR (Not Teal Deer) post that was sent to me by a Neo-Lib friend of mine. It's all dialectical materialism. Inflation is the sole cause of establishment politics being threatened.
No. Each of the countries they cite have their own major issues that each government is separately bungling. However, the Neo-Liberal Order's policies are pushing governments to behave incompetently in order to support the system. This "inflation did it" is merely an attempt to deflect responsibility from Globalism and to ignore the nuance of each case.
Shortly after the election, I saw one twitter post from some moderately-large lib account blaming Kamala's loss on a "global wave of anti-incumbentism," as though such a thing could be a cause and not a symptom. As though it just randomly materializes out of the ether. "Yeah, this was just a tough year for incumbents. What do you mean 'why'? I don't know, I'm pretty sure everyone just randomly decided they hate whomever happens to be in office in their area for no particular reason."
"One day, for no reason at all..." on a global scale.
Yup, that's the point. They're deflecting their own responsibility.
It's the same reason how "something happened" in the late 90's which saw crime, corruption, poverty, and housing costs to start spiking. They are wielding Obscurantism to keep the Overton Window from expanding as a result of facts.
They do the same thing when the economy is doing poorly. You'll hear people say, "the president and government can't really effect the economy", even if more than 30% GDP is from state spending. It's also useful to prevent people like Trump from taking credit for loosening regulations.
Materialism. I don't really see the dialectical aspect.
It's how they were describing it as a universal element, not one condition among many. They didn't say "immigration, mismanagement, corruption, and inflation". They just said, "Welp. It's just inflation. And nobody knows where that comes from but it's just an unknowable force in history that we'll have to weather the storm of."
They all exercised the same type of monetary policy. At this broad a level, maybe all you can see is the reaction to that. I don't know which these are, but each probably has an immigration issue.
It's a shit load, including Mexico, Chad, and South Africa. There's no question that "immigration" is definitely a sore spot for all of the western countries though.
The Neo-Liberal order (and it's required monetary policy) aren't blameless here, but "inflation" is far too reductive.
A cultural shift is a real thing, too. God knows we've seen them in the prog direction. Immigration is second only to the economy in voter polls, and concern about immigration boils down for most people to concern about their own personal economic situation. I think that's why you see some alignments that people consider odd. Like Hispanics voting for a border wall. For people who have immigrants competing for their jobs and bringing wages down, immigration is an economic issue. For people who benefit from cheap labor, it's also an economic issue. And I feel like most people know which side of this they're on.
When we observe the immigration is good for GDP yet still people think of it as an economic threat, this is because such GDP gains are far from evenly distributed. More people win than I think people realize. Not just robber barons but the people who consooom too.
You're 100% right from everything I can see. It's an economic issue, but it's effectively become a class issue. Donald Trump wasn't just winning blacks and hispanics, he was winning working class and rural voters from every demographic at a universal level. Where he would have only won black rural voters, he made major headways with urban working class voters.
Basically, it's a fight between the working, rural, and entrepreneurial classes; versus the middle managerial, elite, and dependent-slave classes. The divisions along racial lines are actually more irrelevant, and are more of a demonstration of how many of that demographic are actually in those classes.
GDP has always been fake and gay because it intentionally slam-fucks government spending into economic productivity, as if government waste is inherently productive. However, the data is being more and more bastardized, and the policy wonks are spending more time trying to play with numbers to make the line go up, rather than understand what the equation actually means. This is why Britain keeps importing a quadrillion Bahamalians every year. They're hoping infinity migrants makes the calculation work. Rather than even having a passing understanding of what the variables are even supposed to represent.
People are already well aware that the Stock Market is not the economy on it's own, and now it's becoming clear that GDP also isn't the economy. Worse, that's only if you assume that the government's calculations of the GDP are legitimate, which their not. Meaning that the government and the economists literally can't be trusted to monitor the economy, let alone regulate it. Instead, the Americans are learning to trust themselves, which is killing the power of the media's terroristic gaslighting.
GDP is fake and gay.