• jaspersgroove
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It absolutely is, that’s why the article is using percentages and not dollar amounts

      Going from $1 to $2 is a 100% increase but you’re still fucking broke afterwards, and the guy whose $1,000 only grew by 1% still made 10 times more money than you lol

      Maybe instead of spending all their money murdering Ukrainians they should be trying to create a country where the leading cause of death for young men isn’t alcoholism

      • catloaf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Maybe invading Ukraine is how they’re trying to change the leading cause of death for young men.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Going from $1 to $2 is a 100% increase but you’re still fucking broke afterwards, and the guy whose $1,000 only grew by 1% still made 10 times more money than you lol

        This is, of course, why all economist measure economic health in pure dollar amounts and never consider rate of change because it can be misleading. Investment decisions are always based on raw dollar amounts, which is why everyone only invests in blue chip stocks, and only the top 3 at that, because rate of change is deceptive and irrelevant. When we talk of recessions and depressions, of course, we only discuss raw dollar values, which is why the USA has never had a recession because it’s GDP has been higher than every other country, and despite what those crazies say about the 1920s, the rate of change, while negative, didn’t reduce the USA’s total economic dollar value below other countries. You’re 100%, uhhh, I mean you have a quantity of correctness that is very very high, quantitatively higher than the correctness of others.

        Maybe instead of spending all their money murdering Ukrainians

        If they were doing this, then they’d have no money left over for anything else, and yet, that’s not actually what we see, is it?

        they should be trying to create a country where the leading cause of death for young men isn’t alcoholism

        They are, by ensuring the West can’t continue to dominate them economically like they did when the USSR was dismantled and USA economic shock therapy to liberalize the economy created the oligarchs and caused a decline in life expectancy so stark it was as bad as what the USA experienced during COVID.

        Speaking of spending their money murdering people, maybe the USA should spend its money on health care instead of being the richest country in the world with the highest death toll from COVID despite spending billions on Operation Warpspeed in a foolish attempt to make vaccines faster. Why foolish? Because Cuba produced vaccines on the same timeline without all that money while under a brutal 60-year collective punishment regime.

        • jaspersgroove
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Good point, now they can purchase more vodka and Iranian missiles that occasionally actually work lol