this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
274 points (86.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3249 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.

If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.

But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

not their fault

Dropping the ball

Lol.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

  1. They made a goal that they knowingly could do nothing about and prices went up and the value of the dollar went thru the floor.

Or

  1. They made a goal that they believed they could do something about and prices went up and the value of the dollar in their store went thru the floor.

In either case I would say they absolutely dropped the ball.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'll be sure to ignore those compliments we get on the services. Also fun fact, I never stated home delivery.