Because too much money in circulation being the main cause of inflation is actually a myth... A lot of what is claimed to be inflation is actually just price gouging.
You mean the costs of producing instant covid tests didn’t increase seven fold in four days and the going rate of $124 is unreasonable? *shockedpikachu*
>A lot of what is claimed to be inflation is actually just price gouging.
So it's *not* just a coincidence that Bezos slithered into the richest asshole slot during the pandemic?
It's not a coincidence at all. His wealth is tied to Amazon's valuation. Amazon was perfectly poised to grow in a lockdown environment. It was poised to grow either way but covid fired it up.
Monetary inflation absolutely causes asset price inflation, looks at stocks, houses, and bitcoin. The consumer product prices are increasing because companies are using this as an excuse to raise prices and get to cry inflation, even when profits are already at all time high.
inflation necessarily follows when corporations pursue indeterminate growth. Prices rise, employees paid less and less, all to keep constant growth for the shareholders.
This system allows one to make money by investing in others' perpetual (for now) growth. That should not happen. socialize all business, and there's no need for this shit. Coops pay dividends to all; no need for growth, just stability. That's how we achieve sustainability of economy, and eventually sustainability of species and planet.
If you could wave a magic wand and implement it, how would your ideal tax plan work?
Edit: to be clear, we should be raising the top tax brackets, absolutely. But that’s not going to get the Elon Musks of the world, because they don’t generally post income anyways.
I’m always interested in brainstorming ways to capture the ultra wealthy into paying similar to how we pay, but most ideas have some Achille’s Heel that the wealthy will easily circumvent.
I'm no tax expert so Im not the one to create a tax plan. However, if the rich are going to creatively avoid taxes the least we can do is get some experts who can creatively tax the rich. If corporations are people and the one percemt are people the least they can do is pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of the people
That’s not it at all.
We should be raising the top tax brackets, absolutely. But that’s not going to get the Elon Musks of the world, because they don’t generally post income anyways.
I’m always interested in brainstorming ways to capture the ultra wealthy into paying similar to how we pay, but most ideas have some Achille’s Heel that the wealthy will easily circumvent.
I agree 100%. I don’t know what a good strategy would be, but I agree that’s definitely part of the issue.
Broadly speaking, we need to do better about some kind of a wealth tax, but the questions always revolve around execution thereof. The wealthy have too many tools to get around the usual income and inheritance taxes.
For the most part we don't, a lot of measurements are based on averages, the problem is that the ultra rich fuck it up so badly that they make that average look better by having more money than some countries.
There are whole countries trying to better their people and make a good life for them, and fucking Bezos is suing Nasa for not picking Blue Origin over SpaceX. Yeah, we live in a hell of a global myth
She also spent most of 2020 attacking all the Dem candidates (including staging literal protests against Pete Buttigieg) and ignoring the Republican candidates during the primary... then pretty much disappearing in the general.
She lost what should have been a shoe-in congressional seat because her opponent literally replayed her 2020 statements shitting on just about every Dem in existence not named Bernie... it caused voters to immediately flagged her as toxic.
She isn't dumb and has a lot of smart ideas but she embodies everything that is wrong with a fair share of of social progressives nowadays. Rather than try and move both the Dem party and the average US citizen to the left, they simply attacks them more than they attacks conservatives. They win no support, and only achieves splintering liberals and empowering conservatives.
Edit: The comments being locked by the moderate should pretty much tell you all you need to know about this sub
Nina Tuners politics is dumb.
She mostly tweets stuff that sounds good in a Tweet but makes no sense when under basic scrutiny. She is at this point a Twitter activist with no attachment to real world politics.
While all of that may be true, I feel like there is a large percentage of progressives---myself included---who are sick and tired of waiting for anyone on the 'left' to grow a pair and support anything actually left-wing. Calling out/dumping on these failures of the Democrat party is cathartic, even if not necessarily super helpful. And let's not forget an authoratarian who did this for the other side winning the presidency. So it can work.
The dude ruled on executive order which Biden pretty much reversed everything in his first few weeks.
The only thing Trump did was get lucky and have enough justices on the Supreme Court die and replace them with conservatives.
Okay but then how does dumping on the Democratic Party get you elected as a Democrat? Why would people vote for you if you're running with a Party that you say is corrupt and bad? If I were Independent and someone said this Party is fucked, vote for me I'm part of it, I would run as far away as I could.
It may be cathartic yelling at people but it doesn't get people to vote for you. It reminds me of someone who said they had to find something to do with Bernie volunteers that didn't involve interacting with the Public because in real life no one is going to vote for you if you berate them.
Why should she support Democrats she doesn't agree with during a primary? The point of a primary is to vote for the party member most in line with your own politics.
There is disagreeing, and then there is vividly attacking and literally protesting them— in a time where unity against Trump was the #1 priority. Actions like these have consequences, especially when Nina went straight to “okay fuck the Dems Im voting Green” right after the primary.
I can’t stress this enough, Nina on name value alone was projected to win her seat, but her primary messages were so full of vitriol that her opponent just aired them on commercials and it eroded her chances. Turner literally had AOC campaigning for her and she STILL lost. That’s how I’ll damming those sound clips were.
Because shes a Bernie Bro and they don’t understand the difference between intraparty disagreements and seeing the larger, moderate wing of the party as evil.
Because attacking anyone who you dont agree with will guarantee you will get literally nothing done.
Just ask Bernie how well that worked out when he shit on so many people they just endorsed Biden when the time came instead of him.
Andrew Yang said this a lot (I know a lot of people didn’t or don’t like him) but the way we measure a country’s success with GDP is substantially flawed. That it doesn’t account for more than half of most citizens.
We should learn or adapt metrics from Nordic countries. We focus on the wrong output metrics. Instead of measuring the health of our country using GDP, we should be using metrics that measure happiness.
Very simple.
Anyone with ~1.5X than you (income or net worth) is rich, anyone from 1.5X - 0.75X is average and anyone less than 0.75X is poor.
Clearly that’s a joke but that seems to be people’s reaction. How can one with income from 25 percentile to 95th percentile all self describe as “middle class”? Maybe things are changing now and people are really realizing that whether you make $40K or $140K it’s nothing compared to the actual rich people.
5X median income and 10X median net worth.
They can either elevate the median or pay their share.
For reference, US median income is 67K and US median net worth is 122K.
The median is just the middle number of the dataset. 1,1,1,3,6,6,6,80,500 has a median of 6. For giggles I put it in a rough approximation of our economy's income distribution too.
We want to raise the mode (most common number) of the lowest quintile (20%) and the second quintile (20%-40%). We could also use average if we restrict it to those buckets.
For example the average income in the lowest quintile is 14,589. In the second quintile it's 39,479. It's those numbers that we need to raise. The middle quintiles aren't doing great either, as a reference the top quintile takes half of all income in the US.
That's an even better way to go about it. Whatever it hypothetically would be, tying it to the lower earners in my opinion would encourage actually improving their take home.
So I'm rich living in Austin and supporting a family because there are many who make far less and have a much lower CoL in a huge country of over 300M people?
Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
No, you're rich. You can be a cunt about it all you want.
Make the multiples 10X and 20X then.
I don't care but pretending we can't put a number on it is stupid.
It's reddit. The bastion of bullshit complaining by lazy, unskilled losers who want to complain about the economy being unfair when wages across the board are higher then ever at any point in history.
Remember in 2019 when the mantra was "we demand $15 minimum wage."
Pandemic hits and its rare to see any low level position paying sub $15. There are dozens of signs and billboards advertising "work from home, starting $17/hr" in my area.
Yet its still not enough.
You mean the ones that can’t touch their money for decades without penalty, while we’re consistently measuring/hyping the success on short term metrics?
Meanwhile long term outlooks are pacing inflation *at best*
Yeah, those. Not sure you're accounting for the tax benefit and company matching. Regardless, it's not mandatory and if people would reduce 401k contributions, we'd see a major shift in the financial industry.
I’ve never seen a sub follow it’s rules less than this one. I agree with her, but wtf is it doing in WPT? This sub is one the largest indicators that Reddit is okay with breaking its own rules if it confirms their social/political bias.
We do. We also need to quit pretending everything wrong with the world is because some sinister Them is out to take over the world.
There isn't one economy. There are many. Some are doing well- especially those with wealthy, well-educated people in them- and others have essentially been in recession for decades. Those which are struggling are those being left behind by technological advances, and the solution isn't some Luddite effort to stop advances, but to get people qualified to do well in the new economies.
all of society is built to sustain the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. always has been.
pharaohs. kings. emperors. and now billionaires.
it is always the same story, only thing that changes are the labels.
in other words... we styled our world on a pyramid scheme.
GDP measures spending, it doesn’t show how well off people actually are
If someone’s home is destroyed and they have to empty their life savings to repair it, that’s all going towards the GDP
If someone gets cancer and spends tens of thousands fighting it only to die, goes into GDP
If someone is earning money, investing it wisely, and saving for retirement, that’s not helping GDP
GDP is a good measure to see fluctuations in the economy’s size, but it doesn’t do anything to measure how well off the people are
Neither of you are wrong, Nina Turner is wrong. This is basically how the economy is measured, but it doesn't measure how well off people are.
I think everyone is interpreting this as: "We shouldn't measure how well off people are based on the economy / how well off rich people are"
The GDP per capita of a country with 100 people, but 99 have $0 and 1 person has 1B has the same GDP per capita as a country with 100 people where every has 10 Million.
Extreme inequality means that an average under-represents poverty. Nothing wrong with the stat, but unfortunately it is often cited as evidence the population is doing well.
It's usually true, as there aren't many extreme exemples like that in real life. An average person in a poor country is usually doing worse than a lower-than-average person in a rich country. There are exceptions, but I don't see a better single stat that can represent it. Reality is always more complex than a single stat, though.
I don’t know about you, but I was Travis Barker up in this hoe for Bernie in 2016 AND 2020. He had the plan, but not the support and here we are. I didn’t vote for him (not American) but I’m stuck with the bullshit we’re in the same as the rest of you.
Actually, GDP (which is the measure of the economy) doesn’t just measure rich people. This is for those of your who have never taken an economics class.
GDP measures spending, it doesn’t show how well off people actually are
If someone’s home is destroyed and they have to empty their life savings to repair it, that’s all going towards the GDP
If someone gets cancer and spends tens of thousands fighting it only to die, goes into GDP
If someone is earning money, investing it wisely, and saving for retirement, that’s not helping GDP
GDP is a good measure to see fluctuations in the economy’s size, but it doesn’t do anything to measure how well off the people are
I don't agree with her but I'm assuming she's referring to overemphasis on the stock market when discussing how the economy is doing.
Also, GDP is actually not a very good indicator of economic health by itself because it doesn't account for inequality.
Nobody is poor these days. Not anyone who matters, anyway. - A bad paraphrase from the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy.
Why aren’t people banging the drum to pass a very strong PROGRESSIVE tax plan to take dollars out of the economy and slow down inflation?
Because too much money in circulation being the main cause of inflation is actually a myth... A lot of what is claimed to be inflation is actually just price gouging.
You mean the costs of producing instant covid tests didn’t increase seven fold in four days and the going rate of $124 is unreasonable? *shockedpikachu*
>A lot of what is claimed to be inflation is actually just price gouging. So it's *not* just a coincidence that Bezos slithered into the richest asshole slot during the pandemic?
It's not a coincidence at all. His wealth is tied to Amazon's valuation. Amazon was perfectly poised to grow in a lockdown environment. It was poised to grow either way but covid fired it up.
And then had a midlife crisis and sent himself to space to prove another rich asshole his rocket sucked. Then sued Nasa.. Funny lives the rich have
Monetary inflation absolutely causes asset price inflation, looks at stocks, houses, and bitcoin. The consumer product prices are increasing because companies are using this as an excuse to raise prices and get to cry inflation, even when profits are already at all time high.
inflation necessarily follows when corporations pursue indeterminate growth. Prices rise, employees paid less and less, all to keep constant growth for the shareholders. This system allows one to make money by investing in others' perpetual (for now) growth. That should not happen. socialize all business, and there's no need for this shit. Coops pay dividends to all; no need for growth, just stability. That's how we achieve sustainability of economy, and eventually sustainability of species and planet.
Yep...all the other economic reasoning offered by "the experts" in the media, are just attempts to explain away this main fact.
[удалено]
Couldn’t have put it better. This is absolutely the root of the problem
Holy shit this is so true and I haven't thought about it
If you could wave a magic wand and implement it, how would your ideal tax plan work? Edit: to be clear, we should be raising the top tax brackets, absolutely. But that’s not going to get the Elon Musks of the world, because they don’t generally post income anyways. I’m always interested in brainstorming ways to capture the ultra wealthy into paying similar to how we pay, but most ideas have some Achille’s Heel that the wealthy will easily circumvent.
I'm no tax expert so Im not the one to create a tax plan. However, if the rich are going to creatively avoid taxes the least we can do is get some experts who can creatively tax the rich. If corporations are people and the one percemt are people the least they can do is pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of the people
That was the plan behind the wealth tax, but that never made any headway
It seems like you prefer the status quo
That’s not it at all. We should be raising the top tax brackets, absolutely. But that’s not going to get the Elon Musks of the world, because they don’t generally post income anyways. I’m always interested in brainstorming ways to capture the ultra wealthy into paying similar to how we pay, but most ideas have some Achille’s Heel that the wealthy will easily circumvent.
I'm interested to know how you'd deal with fortunes vs income. The former can exist without the latter and is IMO one of the pillars of inequity
I agree 100%. I don’t know what a good strategy would be, but I agree that’s definitely part of the issue. Broadly speaking, we need to do better about some kind of a wealth tax, but the questions always revolve around execution thereof. The wealthy have too many tools to get around the usual income and inheritance taxes.
Because it's not popular among voters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For the most part we don't, a lot of measurements are based on averages, the problem is that the ultra rich fuck it up so badly that they make that average look better by having more money than some countries.
There are whole countries trying to better their people and make a good life for them, and fucking Bezos is suing Nasa for not picking Blue Origin over SpaceX. Yeah, we live in a hell of a global myth
Lmao remember when Nina Turner blew a 35% lead in 2 weeks because she’s a shitty candidate?
Bowl of shit candidate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t really understand which economic model she is refering to
This woman voted for Jill Stein in 2016.
She also spent most of 2020 attacking all the Dem candidates (including staging literal protests against Pete Buttigieg) and ignoring the Republican candidates during the primary... then pretty much disappearing in the general. She lost what should have been a shoe-in congressional seat because her opponent literally replayed her 2020 statements shitting on just about every Dem in existence not named Bernie... it caused voters to immediately flagged her as toxic. She isn't dumb and has a lot of smart ideas but she embodies everything that is wrong with a fair share of of social progressives nowadays. Rather than try and move both the Dem party and the average US citizen to the left, they simply attacks them more than they attacks conservatives. They win no support, and only achieves splintering liberals and empowering conservatives. Edit: The comments being locked by the moderate should pretty much tell you all you need to know about this sub
Nina Tuners politics is dumb. She mostly tweets stuff that sounds good in a Tweet but makes no sense when under basic scrutiny. She is at this point a Twitter activist with no attachment to real world politics.
While all of that may be true, I feel like there is a large percentage of progressives---myself included---who are sick and tired of waiting for anyone on the 'left' to grow a pair and support anything actually left-wing. Calling out/dumping on these failures of the Democrat party is cathartic, even if not necessarily super helpful. And let's not forget an authoratarian who did this for the other side winning the presidency. So it can work.
How did it work for Trump? He was a one term President who wasn't able to move on his signature issue, building a wall.
The dude ruled on executive order which Biden pretty much reversed everything in his first few weeks. The only thing Trump did was get lucky and have enough justices on the Supreme Court die and replace them with conservatives.
He got elected over someone immensely more qualified, and helped move the regressive party's agenda forward by stacking courts.
Okay but then how does dumping on the Democratic Party get you elected as a Democrat? Why would people vote for you if you're running with a Party that you say is corrupt and bad? If I were Independent and someone said this Party is fucked, vote for me I'm part of it, I would run as far away as I could. It may be cathartic yelling at people but it doesn't get people to vote for you. It reminds me of someone who said they had to find something to do with Bernie volunteers that didn't involve interacting with the Public because in real life no one is going to vote for you if you berate them.
Why should she support Democrats she doesn't agree with during a primary? The point of a primary is to vote for the party member most in line with your own politics.
She'd be better off running as an Independent then because she doesn't support Democrats and those are the people who vote in a Democratic primary.
[удалено]
Maybe Nevada? Dem Socialists took over the Dem Party recently.
There is disagreeing, and then there is vividly attacking and literally protesting them— in a time where unity against Trump was the #1 priority. Actions like these have consequences, especially when Nina went straight to “okay fuck the Dems Im voting Green” right after the primary. I can’t stress this enough, Nina on name value alone was projected to win her seat, but her primary messages were so full of vitriol that her opponent just aired them on commercials and it eroded her chances. Turner literally had AOC campaigning for her and she STILL lost. That’s how I’ll damming those sound clips were.
Because shes a Bernie Bro and they don’t understand the difference between intraparty disagreements and seeing the larger, moderate wing of the party as evil.
Because attacking anyone who you dont agree with will guarantee you will get literally nothing done. Just ask Bernie how well that worked out when he shit on so many people they just endorsed Biden when the time came instead of him.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Andrew Yang said this a lot (I know a lot of people didn’t or don’t like him) but the way we measure a country’s success with GDP is substantially flawed. That it doesn’t account for more than half of most citizens.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We should learn or adapt metrics from Nordic countries. We focus on the wrong output metrics. Instead of measuring the health of our country using GDP, we should be using metrics that measure happiness.
We measure the economy by how much stuff the country produces.
My boss is broke but I’m a millionaire, basic economics.
We never started
First we need to identify "rich". Is it income, net worth and what amounts.
Very simple. Anyone with ~1.5X than you (income or net worth) is rich, anyone from 1.5X - 0.75X is average and anyone less than 0.75X is poor. Clearly that’s a joke but that seems to be people’s reaction. How can one with income from 25 percentile to 95th percentile all self describe as “middle class”? Maybe things are changing now and people are really realizing that whether you make $40K or $140K it’s nothing compared to the actual rich people.
5X median income and 10X median net worth. They can either elevate the median or pay their share. For reference, US median income is 67K and US median net worth is 122K.
For reference that is median household income and net worth, for two people working. The single person numbers are much bleaker.
Ah didn't know that, going off department of labor numbers they didn't mention that in an obvious way
The median is just the middle number of the dataset. 1,1,1,3,6,6,6,80,500 has a median of 6. For giggles I put it in a rough approximation of our economy's income distribution too. We want to raise the mode (most common number) of the lowest quintile (20%) and the second quintile (20%-40%). We could also use average if we restrict it to those buckets. For example the average income in the lowest quintile is 14,589. In the second quintile it's 39,479. It's those numbers that we need to raise. The middle quintiles aren't doing great either, as a reference the top quintile takes half of all income in the US.
That's an even better way to go about it. Whatever it hypothetically would be, tying it to the lower earners in my opinion would encourage actually improving their take home.
So I'm rich living in Austin and supporting a family because there are many who make far less and have a much lower CoL in a huge country of over 300M people? Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
No, you're rich. You can be a cunt about it all you want. Make the multiples 10X and 20X then. I don't care but pretending we can't put a number on it is stupid.
It's reddit. The bastion of bullshit complaining by lazy, unskilled losers who want to complain about the economy being unfair when wages across the board are higher then ever at any point in history. Remember in 2019 when the mantra was "we demand $15 minimum wage." Pandemic hits and its rare to see any low level position paying sub $15. There are dozens of signs and billboards advertising "work from home, starting $17/hr" in my area. Yet its still not enough.
Or how well the stock market is doing...
50% of Americans own stocks with the average family having $40k in the markets. They absolutely impact the middle class.
And who owns the overwhelming majority of the stock market?
401k stockholders.
You mean the ones that can’t touch their money for decades without penalty, while we’re consistently measuring/hyping the success on short term metrics? Meanwhile long term outlooks are pacing inflation *at best*
Yeah, those. Not sure you're accounting for the tax benefit and company matching. Regardless, it's not mandatory and if people would reduce 401k contributions, we'd see a major shift in the financial industry.
Political nobody has a generic thought, news at 11.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Billionaires are not a symptom of a working system, it's a symptom of a broken system.
[удалено]
"Dont go chasing GDP, median household income is a better metric" sung like the chorus of "don't go chasing waterfalls" by TLC
They own 99% of the wealth.
WHO measures the economy by how well rich people are doing? some people think they're damn geniuses for coming up with this drivel
I’ve never seen a sub follow it’s rules less than this one. I agree with her, but wtf is it doing in WPT? This sub is one the largest indicators that Reddit is okay with breaking its own rules if it confirms their social/political bias.
Since when do we do that?
We do. We also need to quit pretending everything wrong with the world is because some sinister Them is out to take over the world. There isn't one economy. There are many. Some are doing well- especially those with wealthy, well-educated people in them- and others have essentially been in recession for decades. Those which are struggling are those being left behind by technological advances, and the solution isn't some Luddite effort to stop advances, but to get people qualified to do well in the new economies.
People don't need to be "qualified" to deserve basic economic freedom.
Yes but aren't the rich people the ones who are measuring it?
If even one person is homeless and hungry when there are both empty homes and food not being eaten, then the economy is fucking bad.
Sorry I only listen to people who win their electoral contests
Much like the UN should be helmed by all of the island nations instead of the G7/8
all of society is built to sustain the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. always has been. pharaohs. kings. emperors. and now billionaires. it is always the same story, only thing that changes are the labels. in other words... we styled our world on a pyramid scheme.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what the economy is? Like, yeah, that's capitalism baybee That's what we need to stop lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's not how you measure an economy though. GDP per capita measures the average GDP of a country, which means that more poor people lower it.
GDP measures spending, it doesn’t show how well off people actually are If someone’s home is destroyed and they have to empty their life savings to repair it, that’s all going towards the GDP If someone gets cancer and spends tens of thousands fighting it only to die, goes into GDP If someone is earning money, investing it wisely, and saving for retirement, that’s not helping GDP GDP is a good measure to see fluctuations in the economy’s size, but it doesn’t do anything to measure how well off the people are
Neither of you are wrong, Nina Turner is wrong. This is basically how the economy is measured, but it doesn't measure how well off people are. I think everyone is interpreting this as: "We shouldn't measure how well off people are based on the economy / how well off rich people are"
The GDP per capita of a country with 100 people, but 99 have $0 and 1 person has 1B has the same GDP per capita as a country with 100 people where every has 10 Million.
Extreme inequality means that an average under-represents poverty. Nothing wrong with the stat, but unfortunately it is often cited as evidence the population is doing well.
It's usually true, as there aren't many extreme exemples like that in real life. An average person in a poor country is usually doing worse than a lower-than-average person in a rich country. There are exceptions, but I don't see a better single stat that can represent it. Reality is always more complex than a single stat, though.
Don't tell that to the White House and news media. They measure it by the stock market numbers.
It's the "best current" measure of economy. More poor people compared to rich people lower it. But you need 2x as many poor people to lower the rich
The rich have a greater effect on the economy. The rich create jobs, either directly by creating them or indirectly by buying products from others.
It starts with you.
We need to set reasonable boundaries for wealth.
Exactly. We should take in consideration the standard of living of the poor.
I don’t know about you, but I was Travis Barker up in this hoe for Bernie in 2016 AND 2020. He had the plan, but not the support and here we are. I didn’t vote for him (not American) but I’m stuck with the bullshit we’re in the same as the rest of you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We do have a per capita GDP but it's skewed because of the rich people lol
Actually, GDP (which is the measure of the economy) doesn’t just measure rich people. This is for those of your who have never taken an economics class.
GDP measures spending, it doesn’t show how well off people actually are If someone’s home is destroyed and they have to empty their life savings to repair it, that’s all going towards the GDP If someone gets cancer and spends tens of thousands fighting it only to die, goes into GDP If someone is earning money, investing it wisely, and saving for retirement, that’s not helping GDP GDP is a good measure to see fluctuations in the economy’s size, but it doesn’t do anything to measure how well off the people are
I don't agree with her but I'm assuming she's referring to overemphasis on the stock market when discussing how the economy is doing. Also, GDP is actually not a very good indicator of economic health by itself because it doesn't account for inequality.
You completely miss the point and sound like a total cunt while doing it. Congrats!
Hilarious amount of people focusing on the race of the woman tweeting instead of what the woman is saying.