|
Isomermaid posted:It was an absolutely wild web exclusive about rocks. Specific rocks.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
John is completely destroying the frog fountain economy and I don’t know how it will ever recover
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Uhhhh the City of Yarra is within a short stroll of my house and I am not happy with this turn of events
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 10:30
|
|
|
Pisses me off when John refuses to acknowledge the actual problem. Like: We're very obviously missing something here. How do we get all the way from Cost of Labor Rises to Cost of Living Rises? For some reason we don't feel the need to explain that when the cost of labor rises, the wealthy owners get upset that they won't make quite as much as they did before, and raise their prices so they don't have to postpone buying their new boat. It's capitalism, John. The problem is always capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:It's capitalism, John. The problem is always capitalism. He's saving that for the final episode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
He advocated a narrowly target child tax credit as the solution. Peak liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Pisses me off when John refuses to acknowledge the actual problem. Like: You could just as well argue that a rising cost of living should not automatically lead to workers demanding more wages. Sure, it's not quite as morally justified, but if your only goal is to break inflation spirals, making the workers eat up the higher expenses is a valid option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
That'd be a very weird thing to have as your only goal though. Nuking every population center in the US would break the inflation spiral on account of utterly destroying the market economy. So if that was truly your only goal it'd be an equally valid solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
That's true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 09:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:He advocated a narrowly target child tax credit as the solution. Peak liberalism. Wealth redistribution is peak liberalism? We should probably have more liberalism then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:You could just as well argue that a rising cost of living should not automatically lead to workers demanding more wages. It does automatically lead to demands for higher wages, because the workers need to be able to afford the cost of living to, y'know, continue living. Businesses, however, aren't typically facing existential crises in the face of slightly lower profit margins, so intellectual honesty demands some explanation as to why rising wages "automatically" leads to higher cost of living.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Everybody working on this show has a well-paid television job and was connected enough to get it. They critique capitalism all the time, but it's never full-throated because they're all rich. They all won.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
I am not a chill for big business, but the idea that inflation would just stop when the companies wouldn't rise prices is laughably short sighted. Imagine everyone would get a 100% raise. Congrats, that money now is half as valuable, because the concept of money is a zero sum game, which only has a value in comparison to other people. There are two reasons for pushing prices up. One is that the workers demand more money, the other is that there's more money in circulation, making it worth less. Each of these arrows has a reverse one from the money perspective and the one pointing from "workers demand higher wages" to "cost of living rises" would still have an effect, even if the companies would reduce their earnings. A lot of econ 101 is absolute bullshit (looking at you Laffer curve!) But inflation cycles are a real thing and the Soviet Union did not manage to squash those either. Unless the world goes to Star Trek level post-materialistic societies thus won't change. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:I am not a chill for big business, but the idea that inflation would just stop when the companies wouldn't rise prices is laughably short sighted. Why does money being in the hands of average people instead of the uber rich make it be worth less it's not like that money has to appear from nothing it would simply be less going to the top?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:I am not a chill for big business, but the idea that inflation would just stop when the companies wouldn't rise prices is laughably short sighted. Okay, I'm into unfamiliar waters that go beyond criticizing a graphic here. But...how is this true? If I magically deposited $10,000 into everyone's bank account and also magically stopped companies from raising prices, then how would the money become less valuable? It seems like that only happens when businesses raise prices to take advantage of everyone being slightly more willing to spend money. If companies raise wages and then just accept slightly lower profit margins rather than raise prices, how does that not stop the cost of living from going up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Why does money being in the hands of average people instead of the uber rich make it be worth less it's not like that money has to appear from nothing it would simply be less going to the top? Because poor people tend to spent the little money they have, rather than hoarding it, or giving it to other rich people who hoard it. If a poor person can afford an extra loaf of bread the baker earns an additional dollar and can spent that somewhere else. Essentially by the acceleration of the monetary cycle more money gets created. But it more money is around, that in turn has less of a value. Again, I am absolutely not saying that rich people hoarding money is moralistically a good thing. It's just a stronger factor against inflation than using that money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Okay, I'm into unfamiliar waters that go beyond criticizing a graphic here. But...how is this true? If I magically deposited $10,000 into everyone's bank account and also magically stopped companies from raising prices, then how would the money become less valuable? It seems like that only happens when businesses raise prices to take advantage of everyone being slightly more willing to spend money. If companies raise wages and then just accept slightly lower profit margins rather than raise prices, how does that not stop the cost of living from going up? A one time payment might not reach that effect because some people would probably not expect that to happen again and might be wary to radically change their spending behaviour. But price changes aren't just a decision by the supply side to earn more money. If the demand is way higher than the supply allows and it's not feasible to upscale, an increase in price to lower the demand is a reasonable decision for both sides. Think of a nearly empty bakery, and a customer offers to pay extra to skip the line to get the last piece of bread. Obviously that's really unfair and not a proper business model, so it's better to set the prices at a level where you expect to just barely sell all of your stock. Also, in an economy, you want some level of inflation. 1-2% is good. Deflation is way worse. In theory during a deflation the costs of living fall. But this is rapidly eaten up by reduction of pay or straight layoffs. Also the fact that during deflation it is better to hoard your money, rather than trying to invest it as that approach will lose less of it, it would actually be best for the super rich to burry all of it in a secure vault in the desert. And if all that money supply is solidly out of the cycle, the relative value of money increases even more.so the rich get richer just by sitting on their money like it's a priceless van Gogh painting. Some inflation is actually good, as it forces rich assholes to actually do something with their money, so that it keeps it's relative value rather than building giant money bins and sitting on it, while watching it gain in value. Reversely, due to inflation the relative value of debt gets less. If there was 100% inflation each year, your student loan debt would effectively be half as bad each year. Unless you have some rip-off loans by the bank which directly tie the interest to the inflation rate, I guess. That's enough of my half remembered economy theory from 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:But price changes aren't just a decision by the supply side to earn more money. If the demand is way higher than the supply allows and it's not feasible to upscale, an increase in price to lower the demand is a reasonable decision for both sides. I see how this works in theory and at scale, but I don't understand how it would affect the day-to-day life of any specific person. Okay, we've all got more money in our pockets, but afaik we have enough food to feed everyone, so in your example they're not actually going to sell out of bread. I'm trying to think of the things I typically spend money on day-to-day -- gas, electricity, food, clothes, cleaning supplies, pet stuff, video games -- and I can't think of many examples where demand would be exhausting the supply if it wasn't for poverty holding it back. Okay, maybe when I go to buy a new computer it's more expensive because there are so many more people willing to pay $800 for a video card, but all the examples I can come up with seem to be one-time luxury purchases like that, not the things people actually need to keep going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
The weird thing about inflation is that a lot of it doesn't actually come from objective simple causes; the core of an inflationary spiral is people expecting inflation, so they aggressively raise prices, which indicates to others that inflation is rising, so they also raise prices. Regardless of the effects that caused the inflation in the first place, to make inflation go back down you need to convince people that it's going down. And there's a whole thing right now with a lot of people thinking the economy is broadly doing worse than it is. I remember a while back in the 2010s, there were reports that inflation over the past decade was actually a lot lower than people's predictions relative to government stimulus and spending, so maybe this is some of that finally coming back. There were also a variety of theories as to why it had been down for so long, one was because wages had stagnated, and another was from the effect of foreigners (like Russians) taking cash/liquidity out of the American economy by investing their money into importing US dollars out of distrust for local banks and currency. And now we've seen a big change in both of those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Speaking of the latest segment, there's actually Freya fan art now and you don't get to act like that's a surprise:
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
BBW Big Beautiful Walrus
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Wages have been stagnant for decades yet prices have risen in that time. Why would giving people more money lead to inflation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
yea lending any credulity to 'we gave TOO MUCH MONEY' as a cause of inflation was hogwash, we barely gave individual spenders any money and wage stagnation has meant that even if we went Publisher's Clearing House on every American it would barely mean anything for the supply/demand poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Inflation currently has a lot of causes all coming together like Voltron; wage stagnation for decades is a factor. Another massive factor is wealth inequality/concentration. In prior times the wealthy would sit on their money where it would decirculate effectively and cause deflation. In the last several decades of deregulation and eliminating of taxes for the wealthy there is zero incentive for them to just sit on the money. There is not enough or worse no taxes on most of the things the wealthy are using their money for so there is no deterrent for them doing this. This is also the same thing is high wages, there is not enough taxes on them to deter giving them. Same with business as the Fed and Government has basically be juicing the economy for decades now trying to get unsustainable growth for the markets while most of the largest companies pay little to no tax while getting massive amounts of subsidies at the same time. Think about it this way, back when I was in college the idea of a million dollars was a ton of money and now it is not impressive at all but I also will likely never be able to come anywhere close to having a million dollars in my life. You and I are becoming more and more poor by the day due to inflation and unchecked wealth while those at the top that are reaping the benefits of inflation are feigning concern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
the song "If I had $1000000" is almost 30 years old and every time I hear it on the radio I always think "welp, song's over after the first lyric, buying a house would take most of that million in most of the 'desirable' cities"
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Aces High posted:the song "If I had $1000000" is almost 30 years old and every time I hear it on the radio I always think "welp, song's over after the first lyric, buying a house would take most of that million in most of the 'desirable' cities" That would be a pretty good bit for them to do in concert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Yeah, the average price for a home in my city is over $1M. That's the average city-wide; houses in neighborhoods where I've actually rented are easily double that. I could maybe buy a nice-ish 2BR condo for slightly under $1M in those areas. Then there's assessed property taxes and possibly HOA fees. Barenaked Ladies didn't consider that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
It’s struck me for a long time that  lottery dreams used to be things like buying mansions and yachts and private islands and now people are just like “oh yeah if I won the powerball I would pay off my student loans and mom’s mortgage!”
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 05:15
|
|
|
I'm renting a super lovely house that is falling to pieces and had cracks in the wall and leaks in the roof but if I won a million dollars that wouldn't be anywhere near enough to buy it
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 06:30
|
|
|
Walter is my Grandfather's ghost who died at a casino buffet of a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
glad John decided to simultaneously explain why cases are massively undercounted and hard to nail down while also spreading the completely unfounded 'well maybe the queers should stop loving so much' talking point and downplaying the surface and air particulate spread factor. Really rich for him to tut-tut at the right wingers jumping hard on it to do poo poo like spread the 'gay pedophiles' poo poo but also explain it as 'it's mainly affecting men who have sex with men and I guess kinda sorta it can spread other ways' and making sure to say 'it's not homophobic to recognize who's suffering from it' while also saying how impossible it is to loving KNOW who's being affected. Oh well, he got a sick rear end burn on Marjorie Taylor Greene for saying the same thing he was saying about it mainly spreading among gay people. Also love him just kinda teasingly calling Fauchi 'the Forest Gump of pandemics' and not maybe drawing a link to how he handled AIDS and how the government is handling Monkeypox and all. God this whole thing was just perfect John Oliver, he got his super sick dunks in but also praised a monkeypox health PSA that exclusively focused on 'wash your fetish gear' and 'stop loving so much, queers' as 'perfect' because a gay politician with a snappy tweet did it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Because poor people tend to spent the little money they have, rather than hoarding it, or giving it to other rich people who hoard it. If a poor person can afford an extra loaf of bread the baker earns an additional dollar and can spent that somewhere else. Essentially by the acceleration of the monetary cycle more money gets created. But it more money is around, that in turn has less of a value. It's almost as if you've conveniently forgot that all the previous recessions were kicked off with extreme increases in wealth inequality, and IIRC it's income equality is at the worst it's ever been. https://www.epi.org/blog/fighting-i...ealth%20ladder. But yes, lets throw more money to the ghouls so they can sit on it and gain 1-2% less on investments while everyone else suffers. sexpig by night posted:glad John decided to simultaneously explain why cases are massively undercounted and hard to nail down while also spreading the completely unfounded 'well maybe the queers should stop loving so much' talking point and downplaying the surface and air particulate spread factor. Really rich for him to tut-tut at the right wingers jumping hard on it to do poo poo like spread the 'gay pedophiles' poo poo but also explain it as 'it's mainly affecting men who have sex with men and I guess kinda sorta it can spread other ways' and making sure to say 'it's not homophobic to recognize who's suffering from it' while also saying how impossible it is to loving KNOW who's being affected. Oh well, he got a sick rear end burn on Marjorie Taylor Greene for saying the same thing he was saying about it mainly spreading among gay people. You somehow consistently have the absolute worst takes in this thread. John was 100% explicit that it needs to be talked about that the gay community is at the highest risk, and that bigotry in that regard is unacceptable. In NYC, you must be gay, trans, or bisexual to access the vaccine currently, and it's still incredibly difficult for people in this group to obtain it. This allows resources to flow to the highest risk group, without them having to fight groups that have inherently more privilege, and therefore greater access. This option only exists because NYC is willing to identify them as at risk, without bigotry. John was clear on all of this as his intent. Just because the right is weaponizing it doesn't mean identifying them as at risk is the same. Also, praising a PSA for honestly and truthfully explaining the risks of certain behavior without shame is not even close to saying "stop loving so much." It's allowing people to be informed by someone who has the ability to be representative, and to make an honest risk assessment. Without that PSA, people may legitimately not understand the risks they are taking. It's like you watch the show with the express intent to misunderstand all of the show's points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
IDK, when places limit testing to certain groups as well, don't act shocked when that group consistent has the highest number of cases...
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
When you're doing loving ten tests a day you can't make a model of 'who's most at risk' at all, at best you can draw an extremely weak trend from what little you have and make MUCH more broad assumptions like 'people with multiple sex partners' which they are not doing. There is nothing that makes monkeypox more transmittable among the gay communities at all, this isn't like when they point out an outbreak of a disease a community with low vaccination rates as being something to especially try to target or something, it's 100% pure confirmation bias of 'well we assume it's mainly gay guys getting it, so we test and treat mainly gay guys, so now all our cases are gay guys'. If someone said a disease with no racial component like monkeypox mainly put black people at risk because Africa has outbreaks most people would rightly go 'wait you're kinda self-selecting there', and yes the CDC and other groups for sure knows what image they're putting out with "Remember queers, wash your fetish gear uwu~" PSAs. Also, again, he just completely dismissed surface and spit transmission as 'well some cases also involve this' when taken as a whole global scale monkeypox spreads that way incredibly commonly, which is just actively downplaying basic facts about the virus to focus on 'the gays having too much sex'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Also, again, he just completely dismissed surface and spit transmission as 'well some cases also involve this' when taken as a whole global scale monkeypox spreads that way incredibly commonly, which is just actively downplaying basic facts about the virus to focus on 'the gays having too much sex'. He also reminded us of the time he gave out health recommendations at the start of the covid pandemic which in hindsight were really dumb (advising that hand washing was the main way to stay safe) so he's two for two!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:He also reminded us of the time he gave out health recommendations at the start of the covid pandemic which in hindsight were really dumb (advising that hand washing was the main way to stay safe) so he's two for two! you'd think he'd be pumped for a plague that actually has a not-short surface life and can be spread through aerosolized particles, we can go back to the days when washing our pizza boxes was smart and cautious! Come on, John, you can do a little song about how good it is to Lysol your Amazon packages if you stop assuming these thousands of cases aren't just dirty queers not washing their dildoes! https://twitter.com/Monkeypoxtally/status/1556757490594873344 (don't worry Andy Ngo is in the comments spreading CDC approved Just Asking Questions if a likely completely made up 'street sex festival' caused these thousands to get it)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
I did appreciate how John used the very reasonable phrase “gay and bisexual men and their partners” rather than the CDC’s bizarrely homophobic “men who have sex with men.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:I did appreciate how John used the very reasonable phrase “gay and bisexual men and their partners” rather than the CDC’s bizarrely homophobic “men who have sex with men.” The MSM phrase has been around since the 90s and was allegedly supposed to be an attempt at being more inclusive (it's one small step up from saying "the gays" at the very least) but these days it's woefully out of date
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The MSM phrase has been around since the 90s and was allegedly supposed to be an attempt at being more inclusive (it's one small step up from saying "the gays" at the very least) but these days it's woefully out of date I was wondering why that one came back into play. The MSM thing, I mean. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason is that not all men who have sexual contact with men identify as gay or bisexual? Or pansexual, for that matter. Maybe they're trying to be as inclusive as possible? Not that they've earned the benefit of the doubt, but still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 16:38
|
|
