I’m not sure everything you’re saying here is right. I live in France, and we face the same economic problems, but still, bread for example is not chemical garbage, and its price is reasonable. But that is also because its price is controlled.

The relative value of different things moved over time. And the relative value of things is also relative to the minimum wage.

What you’re doing here is to convert to another reference currency in order to make comparisons over time. But over time the price of different things moved.

Relative to the minimum wage, household increased immensely. Much more than absolutely anything else. Food increased recently only. Relatively, consumer electronic is now extremely cheap for example.

That is a weird evolution in fact: most things went up in price, but new things went very cheap. It’s like the whole society turned its effort in producing electronics for cheap at the expense of everything else.

And of course the rich got much richer. A good part of the increase in consumer goods went indeed in increasing the wealth of the wealthiest.

Productivity is also a factor, lying in the middle of this. But productivity didn’t apply to everything equally. Productivity in consumer electronics rose incredibly. Productivity in food production also. But the production of consumable food went down in quality, and not much in price. Because companies extracted all the increase in productivity and then more.

Household construction went down dramatically. My hypothesis is that it became a middle class investment at some point, so the wealthy abandonned it. Without investment, construction didn’t increase enough to follow the trend of the society. Rarity also bred profits, which could solidify the strategy of rarefying housing so it becomes more profitable.

To sum up, the work you did with gold could be done with other goods and better reflect the reality people are living. Housing, food, transports, healthcare. Those are much more important and much more accurate to reflect the impoverishment of the population.

And that is a lie the liberals tell to themselves. Liberals we’re in charge. They chose to gift promises to the right, expecting the left to vote for them only to fight fascism. The responsibility is to Harris and her side only. Now you deal with fascism and liberals are still trying to deflect their responsibilities, and that’s disgusting a good reason enough to consider them a part of the fascist problem itself.

Leftists didn’t vote for Trump as far as I imagine. Your argument is stupid. The question is why would leftist vote for Harris when Biden demonstrated he wouldn’t do anything more than what Democrats did in the last 50 years?

Are a anarcho-capitalists considered anarchists here?

C’est typiquement les écolos que j’aime pas : des conservateurs qui combattent pour que rien ne change sans comprendre les enjeux politiques et sociétaux.

Not my fault if liberals are blind to fascism since forever, and fighting the left instead. Like a fucking nazi is in the US government but liberals are still doing propaganda about tiananmen. They’re collaborators if you ask me.

Liberals are not the left. They are the ones responsible for this mess. Them still blaming the left, the true left, means that either they understand nothing of life and politics, or that they, as always, prefer to fight the left rather than fascism if give n the choice.

Hitler came into power because the the liberals sided with him to fight the left. The left was already fighting the nazis for a while at this point.

History repeats itself: while the left tries to fight fascism and warns about, the liberals pretend they’re also fighting this fight, but actually lean more and more toward a fascist discourse and ultimately side with them.

Biden had 4 fucking years to fight fascism. He did absolutely nothing. He waited for the election result to scramble emergency measures to save what could still be saved.

What’s happening in the US is happening everywhere, in Europe too. Liberal governments still push liberal policies that everyone hates, and talk like the left is responsible for all the problems in the world. Meanwhile the fascist bought all medias and half the politicians and the liberals are doing nothing about it.

Liberals had absolutely all the powers in most government and international institutions, yet they did absolutely fuck all to fight the fascism that’s rising in plain sight for 50 fucking years!

Liberals are always the first to come to defend the fascists! It’s always funny to see. An ironic kind of funny at least.

Oh so it’s fine when Musk says that nazis were leftists?

But I’m not surprised a liberal don’t care about words or meaning if I’m being honest. They’re usually first into repurposing words for propaganda.

By pretending that liberals didn’t push the fascists to power. And instead blaming the left, as always. The only enemy of liberals are the leftists. It always has been, and it’ll always be apparently.

How many centuries of power would the Democrat need to do what they’re elected for?

Will the liberals ever grow up and take responsibility for they doing?

Damn that was fast! USA is not yet full fascist that liberals are already rewriting history!

Social democracy is a liberal doctrine.

The only ones ignoring the real enemy are the liberals, actually helping them to fight the leftists.

Twitter is not a social media anymore, it is a propaganda platform. There are regulations for media in civilized places. Twitter does not respect the law, thus it shall be banned.

If it were up to me it would be seized, because there is a public interest to this platform. Seizing it to make the algorithm transparent, fair and legal.

Ceos being scared for their life is a notable change IMO. Surveillance and repression are as usual.

That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.

But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.

I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?

You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.

Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.

That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.

Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.

Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.