3 ms·

Connect the dots here. What on earth does CEO pay have to do with vegtable prices? Perhaps look at tarrifs and trade barriers, transportation and storage fees,

Connect the dots here. What on earth does CEO pay have to do with vegtable prices? Perhaps look at tarrifs and trade barriers, transportation and storage fees, weather patterns and probably a dozen more things more relevant than CEO pay.

jeffbee 1y ago
The executive class supports the tariffs guy. That's the connection.
- megaman821 1y ago
  If you believe that the "Eat the Rich" and Luigi messaging is going to get the tariffs guy and his ilk out of office, good luck. Trying to punish the rich is not going to work when most Americans aspire to be rich themselves, even if it is unlikely.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    You appear to have commented on the wrong thread when you intended to reply to your strawman.
    - megaman821 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - thrance 1y ago
    Seeing how many Americans were cheering on the murder of Brian Thompson, yeah, I'd say Americans are out for blood, and whoever promises retributions on the wealthy first will be the next president of the United States. Note that I do not condone Thompson's murder, I am simply stating the fact that if people could so easily justify something that is usually evidently morally abhorrent is proof enough that this resentment exists and can be exploited.
    - Draiken 1y ago
      I can't see that happening. Cheering these facts doesn't cost anything so people do it without issues. Any sort of revolution requires sacrifice which the vast majority is not willing to do. That's not only in the USA, it's worldwide. Capitalism killed revolution in rich countries. Even the French known for their protests and civil unrest can't get meaningful change anymore. You're right that whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win, but very little will change. After all it's still the rich that elect our officials.
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        I don't think that you can say that "whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win", and also say "it's still the rich that elect our officials". Either the votes of those on the underside of the system who want change (without sacrifice on their part) matter enough to affect who gets elected, or they don't.
        Draiken 1y ago
        Our votes are limited by who we can vote for. That's where the rich come in. The two party system is a great example of how to stop the masses from messing their plans too much. They can pick two candidates that are corporate friendly, finance their campaigns, so it doesn't matter which one wins, they win. Even without the two party system, the financing of politics is what determines this and it's absolutely corrupt. It's publicly known that corporations blatantly contribute to both sides to ensure that whatever happens they have control over it. The US had a great example just now: Bernie. He's not even as extreme as he should be IMO but even if people WANTED to vote for him, they couldn't. They had to choose between two corporate candidates. In this case without even a vote (I think the fake "pre-election" the USA does is ridiculously fake, but that's another issue). If we then add the fact that they own the media and the vast majority of the population can't think for themselves, we have what I described: the rich controls who wins. No matter the party (americans are obsessed with left/right simplifications), the one constant is that the lives of the rich will get better at the cost of the lives of the poor. Maybe one day folks will understand that. Maybe not.
- aosospoaskns 1y ago
  As long as the majority of people in America view politics through a left / right lens we’re not gonna get anywhere. Elites introducing fragmentation in society is a tried and true tactic to allow them to continue to abuse the populace. You think billionaires actually care about political parties? Look how fast Bill Ackman etc switched after October 7th. Nations have solved the “parasitic elite” problem in the past, but those nations are painted as evil nowadays.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > you think billionaires actually care about political parties? Look how fast Bill Ackman etc switched after October 7th Isn't this evidence of billionaires, like other humans, having pet issues they'll pivot over? There are tens of millions of Obama-Trump and Biden-Trump voters.
happytoexplain 1y ago
You think the suffering peasant dragging the wealthy into the streets gives a shit about how many layers of indirection lie between his suffering and their wealth?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the suffering peasant dragging the wealthy into the streets Even in the French Revolution, when money and people were much less mobile than they are today, the aristocracy as a whole consolidated their wealth. To the extent anyone wants a revolution in America who isn’t an idiot, it’s the rich.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Indeed. I am forgetting the title now, but one book I read on revolutions framed them generally as a "rotation of elites" in the general case. That is - even what appears to be some sort of grassroots / working class / peoples revolution it just moves power from one set of elites to another..
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > it just moves power from one set of elites to another To be fair, replacing useless elites with good ones, even violently, can be good. But it doesn’t mean the old elites face justice. And it generally takes the revolutionary elite a generation to learn to govern.

jeffbee 1y ago

The executive class supports the tariffs guy. That's the connection.

megaman821 1y ago
If you believe that the "Eat the Rich" and Luigi messaging is going to get the tariffs guy and his ilk out of office, good luck. Trying to punish the rich is not going to work when most Americans aspire to be rich themselves, even if it is unlikely.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  You appear to have commented on the wrong thread when you intended to reply to your strawman.
  - megaman821 1y ago
    [flagged]
- thrance 1y ago
  Seeing how many Americans were cheering on the murder of Brian Thompson, yeah, I'd say Americans are out for blood, and whoever promises retributions on the wealthy first will be the next president of the United States. Note that I do not condone Thompson's murder, I am simply stating the fact that if people could so easily justify something that is usually evidently morally abhorrent is proof enough that this resentment exists and can be exploited.
  - Draiken 1y ago
    I can't see that happening. Cheering these facts doesn't cost anything so people do it without issues. Any sort of revolution requires sacrifice which the vast majority is not willing to do. That's not only in the USA, it's worldwide. Capitalism killed revolution in rich countries. Even the French known for their protests and civil unrest can't get meaningful change anymore. You're right that whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win, but very little will change. After all it's still the rich that elect our officials.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      I don't think that you can say that "whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win", and also say "it's still the rich that elect our officials". Either the votes of those on the underside of the system who want change (without sacrifice on their part) matter enough to affect who gets elected, or they don't.
      - Draiken 1y ago
        Our votes are limited by who we can vote for. That's where the rich come in. The two party system is a great example of how to stop the masses from messing their plans too much. They can pick two candidates that are corporate friendly, finance their campaigns, so it doesn't matter which one wins, they win. Even without the two party system, the financing of politics is what determines this and it's absolutely corrupt. It's publicly known that corporations blatantly contribute to both sides to ensure that whatever happens they have control over it. The US had a great example just now: Bernie. He's not even as extreme as he should be IMO but even if people WANTED to vote for him, they couldn't. They had to choose between two corporate candidates. In this case without even a vote (I think the fake "pre-election" the USA does is ridiculously fake, but that's another issue). If we then add the fact that they own the media and the vast majority of the population can't think for themselves, we have what I described: the rich controls who wins. No matter the party (americans are obsessed with left/right simplifications), the one constant is that the lives of the rich will get better at the cost of the lives of the poor. Maybe one day folks will understand that. Maybe not.
aosospoaskns 1y ago
As long as the majority of people in America view politics through a left / right lens we’re not gonna get anywhere. Elites introducing fragmentation in society is a tried and true tactic to allow them to continue to abuse the populace. You think billionaires actually care about political parties? Look how fast Bill Ackman etc switched after October 7th. Nations have solved the “parasitic elite” problem in the past, but those nations are painted as evil nowadays.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > you think billionaires actually care about political parties? Look how fast Bill Ackman etc switched after October 7th Isn't this evidence of billionaires, like other humans, having pet issues they'll pivot over? There are tens of millions of Obama-Trump and Biden-Trump voters.

happytoexplain 1y ago

You think the suffering peasant dragging the wealthy into the streets gives a shit about how many layers of indirection lie between his suffering and their wealth?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the suffering peasant dragging the wealthy into the streets Even in the French Revolution, when money and people were much less mobile than they are today, the aristocracy as a whole consolidated their wealth. To the extent anyone wants a revolution in America who isn’t an idiot, it’s the rich.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Indeed. I am forgetting the title now, but one book I read on revolutions framed them generally as a "rotation of elites" in the general case. That is - even what appears to be some sort of grassroots / working class / peoples revolution it just moves power from one set of elites to another..
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > it just moves power from one set of elites to another To be fair, replacing useless elites with good ones, even violently, can be good. But it doesn’t mean the old elites face justice. And it generally takes the revolutionary elite a generation to learn to govern.