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.
what do you think "inflation" means to consumers? it's the increase over time of the cost of the things they buy. Nobody cares if it's coming from corporate greed or climate change or whatever else. They only care that they've already been living pay check to pay check and now they're cutting back on food into ever more shitty options.
or housing. or any of a dozen other necessary-to-live things.
That’s fine but it has fuck-all to do with Biden’s policies and it’s beyond any President to change those things. It’s like when people judge a president by the price of gas during the administration. The reasons housing and food are expensive as fuck currently is
Maybe “nobody cares if it’s coming from corporate greed” but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid. It’s rather unwise to blame it on Biden, vote him out, and then get a Republican (especially the unholy moron in the lead currently) who will do absolutely worse about the real issues in every way possible.
I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices… he could also direct the US DOJ to go after price gouging and other anti-competitive practices that absolutely are illegal, work out more favorable trade deals (a lot of produce comes up from Mexico, for example avocados and tomatoes); and he could work with congress to bring SNAP benefits to more people; or increase SNAP benefits to people already on it.
Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage… maybe we could call it a minimum… wage… yeah he'd have to work with congress to get that done. But that's… kinda part of his job.
maybe they should make federal laws against price gouging, huh? sounds like something a president might be able to work on (most states have laws against price gouging, however)
The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically, and/or are the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. And true, Democrats could be much better on minimum wage and restraining big business. But so what, as usual - you’re going to elect a Republican instead, when they’re much worse on all of those issues?
"These things are too complicated" when it's something that might help people. Not a concern when building Trump's wall for him or shoveling money to the IDF.
"oh pity poor me, I can't do ANYTHING!" is a bad look for a president. He's done a fair bit, most of it is of the 'taking care of business' variety.
Yes, he needs to work with congress- that's part of his job. I'm not asking him to do anything that isn't part of being… you know… the president. Just because he's better than a field of alternatives, doesn't mean he's not also worse than… I don't know, a progressive democrat? By and large, the president sets the political course for his party; at least while in office.
but again, there's things he CAN be doing. Like, going after monopolies; breaking up companies that are much too large- actions that increase competition and bring direct price actions. they can go after people for unfair (or fraudulent) practices in the sectors hurting people most. Instead hes focused on… ticketmaster… and airlines. yeah, they're scummy companies. they should be dealt with. What about Kroger, Cargill, Nestle. Student loans. predatory landlords.
There's a lot that Biden could be doing. Or more specifically, directing his federal agencies to be doing.
The FTC just wrapped up a major antitrust suit against Google. Not sure how you missed that one.
But anyway, could Biden be less of a corporate Democrat and work more effectively as a populist? Sure. I’m not sure who you think was disagreeing with that. As far as breaking up large corporations in 5 different industries all at once though, and taking executive action on duties of the legislative branch, I think you’re expecting a bit much, which is not even remotely the same thing as “pity me I can’t do anything”.
I think this thread has lost sight of the original argument. We shouldn’t elect a republican because breaking up a monopoly is so politically complicated that we know they cannot pull it off, therefore any republican promise to do so should be treated as a farce.
They don't want to work with him. Or have you forgotten that the only Republican goal anymore is "own the libs?"
He ran on being able to work with them. Which was a giant crock of shit, just like all the "he's the most progressive evar" nonsense we're expected to buy now.
Who would have believed that? Republicans supporting a Democratic president and helping pass legislation? It was hard enough to get Manchin, a supposed Democrat, to go along with it and typically zero Republican senators will.
And yet, it's what Biden ran on.
1.4% of Americans are on minimum wage so I'm not sure this will have the impact you think it will.
This is going to need some proof.
Apparently Walmart and Kroger BOTH have a monopoly on grocery retail.
Is there something wrong with that? Voters elected Trump with the help of the electoral college. Over the last several decades, they're the ones who repeatedly voted in people who've enacted policies that have lead to the trend of lack of wage increases and increased regulatory capture that has allowed the current inflation problems.
Why can't the conclusion simply be voters are stupid, so they'll make decisions based on whims and feels that may not have a strong connection to the policies of the specific person?