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.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades
    • interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response
    • massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people

    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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades

      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.

      interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response the interest rates that were predicated on fucking over the same wages we just talked about? the wages that… for the vast majority of americans… have been stagnant. kinda makes you go… 'HMMM', doesn't it?

      massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people

      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)

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically

          "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.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          "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.

          • squiblet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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”.

            • kmaismith@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, he needs to work with congress- that’s part of his job.

            They don't want to work with him. Or have you forgotten that the only Republican goal anymore is "own the libs?"

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • squiblet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • squiblet@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Biden ran on "elect someone but Trump jfc". Just like the republicans had no stated platform for 2020, he didn't really need one besides that.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades

        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.

        1.4% of Americans are on minimum wage so I'm not sure this will have the impact you think it will.

        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

        This is going to need some proof.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid.

      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?