Charliegrs posted:

Lol I can't believe we are going to lose our democracy because eggs cost a few bucks more than they did in 2019

Charliegrs posted:

Lol I can't believe we are going to lose our democracy because eggs cost a few bucks more than they did in 2019

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Eggs actually cost almost the same as they did in 2019 now. They were down over 50% in 2023 compared to 2022 ($4.82 vs. $2.09).

The biggest things driving up average grocery prices right now are:

- Frozen noncarbonated juices and drinks
- Frozen beef and pasta dishes
- Uncooked beef steaks
- Uncooked beef roasts
- Beef and veal
- Cheeses
- Cereals and grains (including foods with processed corns)
- Soft drinks
- Dairy products

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Eggs actually cost almost the same as they did in 2019 now. They were down over 50% in 2023 compared to 2022 ($4.82 vs. $2.09).

The biggest things driving up average grocery prices right now are:

- Frozen noncarbonated juices and drinks
- Frozen beef and pasta dishes
- Uncooked beef steaks
- Uncooked beef roasts
- Beef and veal
- Cheeses
- Cereals and grains (including foods with processed corns)
- Soft drinks
- Dairy products

Kalit posted:

Sounds like people should just eat less animal products, problem solved! Although hopefully this doesn’t push the government to subsidize them even more than they already do….

Queering Wheel posted:

Biden should run on passing another stimulus check and market it as being for groceries. The stimulus he promised back in 2020 probably helped his chances, after all.

Kalit posted:

Sounds like people should just eat less animal products, problem solved! Although hopefully this doesn’t push the government to subsidize them even more than they already do….

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Axios has a huge study out that shows similar things to most other polls: Most Americans rate their own financial situation as "good" or "very good," but think the overall economy is terrible.

But, Axios goes into way more detail to drill down specifics about feelings of everything from housing, grocery cost, vibes, partisanship, etc.

Lots of interesting data.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1747591594595762550

- Americans think they themselves and their local community economy are doing well, but the national economy is in shambles.


- Political affiliation is a big driving force between the disconnect between personal and national perceptions of the economy/country, but it isn't the only cause.




- Americans are very optimistic that their situation will improve in 2024. 85% say they think their financial situation will change for the better this year.


- Surprising housing stats: Homeowners are generally more happy with their housing situation than renters, but a sizable majority of renters say they are happy with their living situation and costs. 63% say they don't plan or want to own a home.

Renters are more likely to describe their economic situation as "poor" compared to homeowners, but they generally don't link housing costs as the main reason why. They rate their situation as poor due to grocery prices and consumer inflation.



- A majority of Americans feel they are very secure in their job and don't think they will have a problem finding a new equivalent or better one if they lost their job tomorrow: a record high.


On the flip side:


- Americans are extremely upset and concerned about grocery prices.









- The rate of inflation is way down for groceries, but the huge increase in 2022 and early 2023 still have people feeling very upset and they likely won't get over it until people adjust psychologically. Just like it took years for people to get used to not paying three dollars for a movie.

- A political problem: Prices are extremely unlikely to drop down back to their 2019 levels outside of a massive economic recession and deflation. If voters are upset about the objective price increases over the relative price increases, then there is no way to fix that issue in the next few years.



- The Demographics reporting the most anger and anxiety about the economy:

- One problem seems to be that the bad feelings about groceries and inflation are carrying over into other areas.

Even though inflation-adjusted gas prices are at near record lows, only about 23% of voters think that gas prices have fallen in the last year.

Similarly, even Democrats think unemployment is high right now, despite being near record lows:

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

build a time machine to 1947 and when Israel is created, insist the only allowed location is the middle of west texas

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

build a time machine to 1947 and when Israel is created, insist the only allowed location is the middle of west texas

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Eggs actually cost almost the same as they did in 2019 now. They were down over 50% in 2023 compared to 2022 ($4.82 vs. $2.09).

The biggest things driving up average grocery prices right now are:

- Frozen noncarbonated juices and drinks
- Frozen beef and pasta dishes
- Uncooked beef steaks
- Uncooked beef roasts
- Beef and veal
- Cheeses
- Cereals and grains (including foods with processed corns)
- Soft drinks
- Dairy products

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Axios has a huge study out that shows similar things to most other polls: Most Americans rate their own financial situation as "good" or "very good," but think the overall economy is terrible.

But, Axios goes into way more detail to drill down specifics about feelings of everything from housing, grocery cost, vibes, partisanship, etc.

Lots of interesting data.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1747591594595762550

- Americans think they themselves and their local community economy are doing well, but the national economy is in shambles.


- Political affiliation is a big driving force between the disconnect between personal and national perceptions of the economy/country, but it isn't the only cause.




- Americans are very optimistic that their situation will improve in 2024. 85% say they think their financial situation will change for the better this year.


- Surprising housing stats: Homeowners are generally more happy with their housing situation than renters, but a sizable majority of renters say they are happy with their living situation and costs. 63% say they don't plan or want to own a home.

Renters are more likely to describe their economic situation as "poor" compared to homeowners, but they generally don't link housing costs as the main reason why. They rate their situation as poor due to grocery prices and consumer inflation.



- A majority of Americans feel they are very secure in their job and don't think they will have a problem finding a new equivalent or better one if they lost their job tomorrow: a record high.


On the flip side:


- Americans are extremely upset and concerned about grocery prices.









- The rate of inflation is way down for groceries, but the huge increase in 2022 and early 2023 still have people feeling very upset and they likely won't get over it until people adjust psychologically. Just like it took years for people to get used to not paying three dollars for a movie.

- A political problem: Prices are extremely unlikely to drop down back to their 2019 levels outside of a massive economic recession and deflation. If voters are upset about the objective price increases over the relative price increases, then there is no way to fix that issue in the next few years.



- The Demographics reporting the most anger and anxiety about the economy:

- One problem seems to be that the bad feelings about groceries and inflation are carrying over into other areas.

Even though inflation-adjusted gas prices are at near record lows, only about 23% of voters think that gas prices have fallen in the last year.

Similarly, even Democrats think unemployment is high right now, despite being near record lows:

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

build a time machine to 1947 and when Israel is created, insist the only allowed location is the middle of west texas

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I know it is just to get more granular data, but it is kind of funny that they have different types of beef broken down into so many categories and then just a general "beef and veal" category. I'm trying to imagine some situation where overall beef prices would rise, but the price for "uncooked beef roasts" would collapse.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

petty Goony complaint, but candy prices are up as gently caress depending on the store. like a dollar more compared to some places.

Gripweed posted:

No, obviously not. But it is a goal which runs counter to the goal of Zionism. Zionism wants a "Jewish state". We see what has happened in the furtherance of that goal. The Nakba, the creation of ghettos, land stolen from people who have lived on it for generations, and now open unapologetic genocide. That idea of Israel must be destroyed before a nation that respects all people living under it's authority can be built.

Everyone here obviously understands that when the American right says they want America to be a Christian nation, that's bad. We know that's bad. But it's no more bad than the goal of a Jewish nation. A state that serves one religion, that elevates it above others and commits ethnic cleansing to clear out people of another religion, is morally abhorrent. That is a state that should be destroyed.

PostNouveau posted:

Aztec Galactus posted:

If my grocery bill stays the same, or keeps up with inflation, but I have to change my eating habits because I can no longer afford breakfast cereal, I'm going to feel that a a negative economic outcome. I don't think we're doing a good job of measuring what people ARENT buying

Aztec Galactus posted:

If my grocery bill stays the same, or keeps up with inflation, but I have to change my eating habits because I can no longer afford breakfast cereal, I'm going to feel that a a negative economic outcome. I don't think we're doing a good job of measuring what people ARENT buying

Raenir Salazar posted:

I've brought this up before, but fundamentally there's a core problem here you can't handwave away, which is the right for self determination. The people living in Israel have a right, a fundamental right to determine how they govern their affairs. Now obviously there's a limit, and what's happening in Gaza and the west Bank is in excess and beyond the scope of what that right allows and that aspect of the Zionist political movement that wants to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing is in excess of that right.

But Israelis and Jews had a right to want a independent state, and a right to a state that guarantees their rights and freedoms, in much the same way Québec in Canada has a right to preserving Quebec language and culture as a "distinct society". I don't see the desire for a Jewish state as being fundamentally different from this or the soviet desire for a Workers State, or the Basque independence desire for a Basque state. Unless we're declaring all independence movements as equally immoral there's really no consistent justification to opposing the existence of Israel as an independent state or this aspect of "Zionism". Because Israel is fundamentally no different then over 90% of nations, especially those founded via a culmination of 19th century independence movements as a result of the collapse of the multi ethnic empires due to the strains of WW1.

The talking point "Israel has a right to exist" is more "nations have a right to self determination", both Israelis and Palestinians have this right. And no alternative solution to the conflict can be enforced against the will of either party.

Israel should stop what its doing is also frankly the easiest way of getting Palestinians what they are entitled to, a safe, secure, prosperous independent and autonomous state. Not aiming for Israel to be annexed by a Palestinian state and then handwave away the decades of animosity and pretend things will work out and not break out into more violence.

"Arthur Balfour, 1920 posted:

The second difficulty, on which I shall only say a word, arises from the fact that the critics of this movement shelter themselves behind the phrase—but it is more than a phrase—behind the principle of self-determination, and say that, if you apply that principle logically and honestly, it is to the majority of the existing population of Palestine that the future destinies of Palestine should be committed. My lords, ladies and gentlemen, there is a technical ingenuity in that plea, and on technical grounds I neither can nor desire to provide the answer; but, looking back upon the history of the world, upon the history more particularly of all the most civilized portions of the world, I say that the case of Jewry in all countries is absolutely exceptional, falls outside all the ordinary rules and maxims, cannot be contained in a formula or explained in a sentence. The deep, underlying principle of self-determination really points to a Zionist policy, however little in its strict technical interpretation it may seem to favor it. I am convinced that none but pedants or people who are prejudiced by religious or racial bigotry, none but those who are blinded by one of these causes would deny for one instant that the case of the Jews is absolutely exceptional, and must be treated by exceptional methods.

Main Paineframe posted:

The problem is that they didn't create an independent state where they lived - they migrated en masse to another state where other people lived, bought up much of the good land, and then started demanding an independent state there. It's classic settler-colonialism.

Did the Americans have a right to demand an independent state on the land they stole from the natives, and continued to steal from the natives afterward to expand that independent state of theirs? Did the men of Dixie have a right to demand an independent state of their own free from Yankee rule, or a right to a state that guarantees their rights and freedoms to own slaves? The right to self-determination has hardly been a universal thing.

And the hypocrisy has always been quite strong in Palestine, where the British imposed their rule on Palestinians even as they used language about "right to self-determination" to lay the foundations for Jewish colonialism against the will of the people who already lived there. Hell, that was an objection that people raised against the Mandate of Palestine from the beginning. And Balfour admitted it, to some extent - his response was basically that the Jews were special and Zionism was special, and that everyone saying that the existing Palestinians deserved self-determination were petty pedants who were probably anti-Semites or something:

I love that quote because it's so absolutely shameless in its hypocrisy. Balfour was a real piece of work when it came to Palestine.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Spending on alcohol was stable in 2023 as well.

It looks like Americans are down on Fritos, but will pay any price for burgers, booze, and candy.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I've brought this up before, but fundamentally there's a core problem here you can't handwave away, which is the right for self determination. The people living in Israel have a right, a fundamental right to determine how they govern their affairs. Now obviously there's a limit, and what's happening in Gaza and the west Bank is in excess and beyond the scope of what that right allows and that aspect of the Zionist political movement that wants to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing is in excess of that right.

But Israelis and Jews had a right to want a independent state, and a right to a state that guarantees their rights and freedoms, in much the same way Québec in Canada has a right to preserving Quebec language and culture as a "distinct society". I don't see the desire for a Jewish state as being fundamentally different from this or the soviet desire for a Workers State, or the Basque independence desire for a Basque state. Unless we're declaring all independence movements as equally immoral there's really no consistent justification to opposing the existence of Israel as an independent state or this aspect of "Zionism". Because Israel is fundamentally no different then over 90% of nations, especially those founded via a culmination of 19th century independence movements as a result of the collapse of the multi ethnic empires due to the strains of WW1.

The talking point "Israel has a right to exist" is more "nations have a right to self determination", both Israelis and Palestinians have this right. And no alternative solution to the conflict can be enforced against the will of either party.

Israel should stop what its doing is also frankly the easiest way of getting Palestinians what they are entitled to, a safe, secure, prosperous independent and autonomous state. Not aiming for Israel to be annexed by a Palestinian state and then handwave away the decades of animosity and pretend things will work out and not break out into more violence.

Rappaport posted:

This post in its entirety is such a confusion of ideas that it warrants the Pauli response.

You seem to have landed in a naive interpretation of nationalism as it happened in the 19th century, and weirdly applied it to the destruction of dynasties like the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs.

Israel is a manufactured state. Presumably you are aware of Adolf Eichmann's visit there, before he was invited? It suited the interests of Nazi Germany to fuel Zionism at the time. It is insulting to insinuate that this has anything whatsoever to do with European independence movements, but leave it to the Yanks to misunderstand foreign affairs. Oh, pardon me, to the Canucks.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I've brought this up before, but fundamentally there's a core problem here you can't handwave away, which is the right for self determination. The people living in Israel have a right, a fundamental right to determine how they govern their affairs. Now obviously there's a limit, and what's happening in Gaza and the west Bank is in excess and beyond the scope of what that right allows and that aspect of the Zionist political movement that wants to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing is in excess of that right.

But Israelis and Jews had a right to want a independent state, and a right to a state that guarantees their rights and freedoms, in much the same way Québec in Canada has a right to preserving Quebec language and culture as a "distinct society". I don't see the desire for a Jewish state as being fundamentally different from this or the soviet desire for a Workers State, or the Basque independence desire for a Basque state. Unless we're declaring all independence movements as equally immoral there's really no consistent justification to opposing the existence of Israel as an independent state or this aspect of "Zionism". Because Israel is fundamentally no different then over 90% of nations, especially those founded via a culmination of 19th century independence movements as a result of the collapse of the multi ethnic empires due to the strains of WW1.

The talking point "Israel has a right to exist" is more "nations have a right to self determination", both Israelis and Palestinians have this right. And no alternative solution to the conflict can be enforced against the will of either party.

Israel should stop what its doing is also frankly the easiest way of getting Palestinians what they are entitled to, a safe, secure, prosperous independent and autonomous state. Not aiming for Israel to be annexed by a Palestinian state and then handwave away the decades of animosity and pretend things will work out and not break out into more violence.

Gripweed posted:

A two state solution is not a serious proposal. The West Bank has been too eaten away be settlers to be a functional political and economic entity. Step 1 in a two state solution would be relocation of tens of thousands of Israeli settlers. And I thought the goal was to avoid ethnic cleansing.

The comparison to Quebec is absurd. Quebec has managed to preserve their weird dialect and gross cuisine without steadily seizing liebensraum from Newfoundland. Quebec has not been blockading Ontario for the past 20 years. French-speakers and English-speakers can get married in Quebec. If anything, Quebec is a counter example. It shows that pluralist societies are possible.

I think the fundamental difference here is that I believe it’s possible, and good, even, for people of different races, religions, languages, etc to live as equals in a pluralist society. You prefer a WW1 era idea of self determination where every ethnicity gets their own little nation. Which I believe has led to an awful lot of war and ethnic cleansing.