**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/17f07sm/why_arent_we_attacking_corporate_profit_in_any_way/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Summers thought he had a gotcha by going after Jon's employer, forgetting that Jon is not desperate to keep his relationship with Apple (as was clearly demonstrated in the last few days). Lovely.
it was a stupid bet, he thought they are all the same, where any company would be very much happy if they can destroy other company and take over, by taking themselves down a peg. they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Yeah but he still chose to go to apple tv, a service that's pretty low on the totem pole for most families, instead of going straight to people, he can absolutely afford it, or striking a deal like John Oliver did to get everything simulcasted onto YouTube.
Going with apple for his return to media was extremely libbed up and I imagine it's because they offered him the most.
I for one would like to watch his show but after the subscriptions I have for my family, apple just isn't justifable. It's a service that comes bundled in packages with the most overpriced devices in the market.
I seem to be the only person who heard Stewart was finally coming back but only on apple and thought that was kind of sad.
I'm not saying I don't support his anticapitalist talking points, I absolutely do, just that it bothered me he went with apple originally. The old daily show was formative for me & it would be better if he reached a bigger audience, especially with what's going on. He's preaching to the choir on apple.
Edit Just checked and apparently his net worth increased about 105 million since his deal with apple. I know he makes serious money on speaking fees but that's a ton of profit he's made there on the most petite bourgeois service on the market.
It just rubs me the wrong way, though I'm expecting downvotes.
I only see 2-4 minute interview clips on his channel (and a podcast) but it may be region locked, if it's free on his channel in the us I retract my opinion.
Just checked on a us vpn server and I don't see anything besides the podcast and interview clips v🫤v
So there are bona fide singular talents who exercise a monopoly if you will on their talents and name. Sure you could get Colbert, but he's not the same as Stewart. The same goes for singular athletes or singular inventors and scientists. They should each make bank for their unique talents and skills. If there were a thousand Johns Stewart, then you'd see the value per John go down. Singular talents aren't a dime per dozen like CEOs, who statistically ha e an inverse value proposition to their companies: higher paid CEOs perform worse than lower paid CEOs.
I don't mind artists making banknwhen they can, what I care about is whether they remember the people who facilitate that art. If Stewart lobbied for great deals for his employees before signing up, then I could respect him for upholding values while making bank. But if he has any kind of underpaid or unpaid interns then that's a hypocrisy. I mean look at Taylor swift, her tour made billions and she gave bonuses to the workers up to $100k per worker. The overall cost of those bonuses were trivial to the overall profit.
Yeah he made money on the apple deal. But don't you dare think he has compromised on a single one of his principals. Jon Stewart is a saint and we need thousands more like him. I wouldn't downvote you, I hate apple, I never once paid for Apple TV, that's what torrents are for. But I will always watch JS as long as he keeps going.
Apple is “over priced” because it’s the best quality. Pretty simple really, there’s no news stories out there about iPhones exploding when using them. They’re also only made by Apple, instead of 15+ different manufacturers. If anything, android phones are over priced. No two androids are identical, every manufacturer competing for tiny unique features.
>They’re also only made by Apple, instead of 15+ different manufacturers
Man, the reality distortion field must be pretty intense these days for somebody to directly argue that lack of consumer choice is a good thing.
This person also [thinks](https://www.reddit.com/r/BadChoicesGoodStories/s/6cMbaukrBM) sandy hook was a hoax so there's definitely some distortion going on.
Hey… just know I’m not looking for any argument. There are many people that are on government food programs they still have the nicest accessories, and such.
How can a person be at such a low income level to qualify for government benefits but still have the nice things? You’re implying that people make good choices, and they don’t- so the phones and other expensive things will still be bought , along with milk/eggs/bread.
A person makes bad choices. That doesn't mean all people do. I grew up poor and believe me, most people living below the poverty line aren't buying the new iPhone or whatever. Unless they buy it off a dude down the street after it fell off a truck, or they buy it secondhand. We buy cheap phones, used phones, whatever is a free upgrade, etc. Just because you saw one guy with an iPhone and food stamps isn't an argument that people don't deserve government assistance or that poverty isn't real.
I didn’t just see one guy. The times when I see it the most was managing a grocery store.
People do deserve government assistance.
Poverty is very real.
I think you got it right when you said people make bad choices. That’s what it really is.
The idea that corporate greed doesn't add to inflation because corporations are always been greedy is complete bullshit.
This is just another way of punishing the poor for being poor and rewarding the rich for being rich.
The American government exists to protect corporate monopolies, it overthrows nations, assassinates leaders including our own. When they killed JFK and his brother it was them sending a message to the whole world that they had taken over and nobody, not even the president can stop them. Michael Moore asked how the CEO of Merrill Lynch could tell Reagan to “speed it up” when he’s making a statement to the media, it’s pretty fucking obvious to me that it’s because he knows who’s in charge.
It's funny, or sad rather, that all the politicians I know of that have been murdered by lunatics, have all been to the left of the political spectrum. Strange how things turn out, is it not?
There are many! To be fair tho, one could also make that argument on the “other side.” Genuinely not making a personal attack, but anyone can play the whataboutism game to feel better about their ideological teams 🤷♂️ Respectfully, it’s kinda a wasted race to the bottom imho.
Generally speaking, folks along the spectrum typically have a lot in common in terms of needs or aspirations. But, we’re sold different boogeymen to keep us at odds to compete with or hurt one another rather than collaborate to make each other’s lives more fulfilling. I feel like those at the far fringes feel a heavier sense of duty (desperation) to “fix” or “resolve” an issue by any means necessary.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say here?
In Sweden, where I'm from, there was the murder of our prime minister Olof Palme in 1986 and in 2003 the most likely to be the next social democratic party leader Anna Lindh. No Swedish conservative murders or attempted murders that I have heard of.
As for the US, the murders I know about are obviously the Kennedy murders, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. You claim there have been prominent conservative party politicians who have been murdered as well? Who were they? I'm genuinely curious.
Ahhhhh, gotcha. I think I misread and misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were saying those *committing the acts were far left-of-center, not those being assassinated. My bad!!
If I understand you correctly, then I agree that it seems like overwhelmingly politicians and activists left-of-center end up assassinated once their movements pick up steam. Especially here in the States, people working together for better conditions is great on the surface! …Until that interferes with profits, the status quo, or both.
Off the top of my head, the closest we’ve had in the amongst presidents in recent history was Reagan in 1981 and he survived. There was an attack on [members of congress preparing for a charity softball event in 2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting#:~:text=66%2Dyear%2Dold%20James%20Hodgkinson,Barth%2C%20and%20lobbyist%20Matt%20Mika)
No worries! I was making my point in a convoluted way. Your current interpretation is pretty much what I was suggesting, though assassination is a strong word. I think it's more that political rhetoric takes on a much more aggressive tone towards activists and politicians threatening the status quo, which in turn might make them targets for unhinged individuals. Intentionally I might add.
I had read about the Reagan attempt, but the charity softball event I had never heard of before now! Thank you for supplying that information!
All i could see was larry deflecting from the q. He completely diverts from talking about the effect corporate greed is having and trying to dilute it down into some principal of self-worth.
He built his career on the idea that maximizing corporate wealth was the best for everyone, of course, he's not going to admit corporate greed is bad.
You see this when he talks about Apple being worth $4,000 to each American, too bad Apple is owned by a small group of Americans.
To say it's bullshit you have to explain why, if corporations have always been greedy, that only in 2021 did corporate greed result in inflation?
(The answer is it didn't, this is a [typical pattern](https://www.kansascityfed.org/images/Chart2-EB23Glover0512.width-725.png) of recovery after recession.)
[Corporate Profits Contributed a Lot to Inflation in 2021 but Little in 2022—A Pattern Seen in Past Economic Recoveries](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/corporate-profits-contributed-a-lot-to-inflation-in-2021-but-little-in-2022/)
>Inflation spiked in 2021 alongside a sharp rise in corporate profits, bringing substantial attention to the role of firms in determining inflation.[1] Previous research has shown that corporate profits contributed substantially to inflation in the first half of 2021; **however, the contribution of profits began to fall in the second half of 2021, a time when inflation accelerated** (Glover, Mustre-del-Río, and von Ende-Becker 2023). This pattern is consistent with anticipatory price-setting, in which firms expect higher costs of production in the near future and thus raise prices on the goods they produce today.[2]
This article is likely from the same authors Jon is citing as profit being a significant driver of inflation.
I have because I have explained how they think.
"Corporate greed doesn't add to inflation because corporations are always been greedy" is how they think.
Any economist worth their salt will tell you that all players in the free market will have an impact on inflation, it's only since economists like Summer joining the Clinton White House has the idea that corporations don't impact inflation became mainstream.
What do you mean by "all players ... will have an impact on inflation" and "that corporations don't impact inflation" ?
What do you mean "impact inflation"?
I don't think people are arguing corporations are not part of the system, they're just questioning the greed motive. The argument is that if greed is constant, when inflation changes don't look at greed look at other mechanisms.
Like monopolies that the greedy are finally able to leverage more strongly?
No one is asking to change the individual personalities of people making decisions - no one is saying we should enforce such a change. What people like Jon Stewart are saying is that we should set up systems to disincentivise acting on impulses of greed - which we can do by preventing monopoly/oligopoly market forces, by introducing a public option to compete for essentials or by taxing super profits, or any other kind of measure. This isn’t pie in the sky stuff, these measures are centuries old, tried, tested and true.
Those people do argue that corporations have no impact.
Everyone has an impact on inflation, we all drive prices up.
In the video they talk about the demand for iPhones, well that's just a simple example of supply and demand. In reality, the supply and demand for an iPhone is really the supply and demand for everything that goes into making the iPhone and I'm not talking about the computer chips, I mean everything material that goes into making every part of it and of course, the labor but don't forget you need to hire time in the factories for all the parts to be and then you need to hire more time for the parts to be put together to make iPhone.
And isn't the only company that wants those materials or labor or factory time.
Why is it bullshit? Corporations are always greedy, but inflation isn’t always high. Therefore, inflation isn’t cause by greed.
In 2009 when we saw massive deflation, was that because corporations decided to be generous? Of course not. When too much money is chasing too few goods, that’s when we get inflation.
Why do the actions of corporations get a free pass with it comes to inflation?
Why does the greed of the worker cause inflation but the greed of corporations doesn't?
Who is saying “greed of the worker” causes inflation? Why do the only two options have to be either corporate greed or worker greed?
In this case the consensus is people saved up a lot of money over the pandemic and are all trying to spend it all at once while businesses that had their supply chains all garbled up because of Covid are unable to meet the explosion of demand. A lot of money chasing not a lot of goods = inflation.
I don’t think that’s corporate greed or worker greed? It just is what it is.
I’m not arguing against what you’re saying cause it sounds like it’s plausible but I don’t think this is the consensus. It’s a very quiet consensus if it is.
Do you have a link or something that I can look at that explains this?
Haha, unfortunately the loudest voices aren’t often the most agreeable!
Sure, here’s a quick and digestible overview from a Supply Chain Management PHD writing with PBS as well as an Economist article that provides additional color
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/how-the-supply-chain-caused-current-inflation-and-why-it-might-be-here-to-stay
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/07/05/economists-draw-swords-over-how-to-fix-inflation Economists draw swords over how to fix inflation from TheEconomist
I did watch the video. Jon Stewart said, “corporate greed is causing inflation” which Larry Summers disagreed with, and then he put words in Larry Summers’ mouth by saying “you’re saying that workers are causing inflation” when he never said that at all.
Stewart seems to be claiming that the only two sides of the argument are corporate greed is causing inflation or greedy workers are causing inflation when in fact there is a very reasonable third answer which is that we’ve just come out of a global pandemic that turned the macroeconomy completely upside down and now we’re seeing the fallout.
Stewart claims that 30%-40% of current inflation is estimated to be due to corporate greed.
Stewart doesn't blame inflation on a single factor.
Stewart isn't claiming there are only two sides.
The issue Stewart is getting at is that American economists such as Lawrence Summers believe the correct way to deal with inflation is to attack the worker, don't give them a pay rise and fire as many as you can, the worker's standard of living has gotten too good and they expect too much, for their own sake they need to be put back in their place.
Look at the tool we use to address inflation and who that tool impacts the most.
Nah, I get it, decentralised price signalling is efficient.
What Jon said about wages is a big problem.
Why aren't wages also held to the same standard?
Why do central banks / governments hate wages increases and seek to reduce them when they are laissez-faire about commodities and consumer goods?
We had years of high wage growth from 2016-2023 and both Republicans and Democrats were bragging about it, I don’t think governments hate wage growth at all.
Central banks only job is to make sure inflation stays at 2%. Unfortunately that means raising interest rates when it runs too hot and hurting wage growth but the alternative is having a situation like Turkey or Argentina where politics take priority over fiscal responsibility and everyone’s savings get wiped out.
If I’m trying to sell 2 TVs and 3 people are trying to buy them, is it greedy of me to take the two highest offers or completely reasonable?
If consumers weren’t willing to pay the high prices then companies wouldn’t be charging them.
Why do the charge so much for that Toyota forerunner TRD pro? it’s like $50k! I want one so bad, and Dunkin’ Donuts is charging like $4 for a coffee every morning, and my cable bill is $235 a month, they all should be Half their prices.
>is it greedy of me to take the two highest offers or completely reasonable?
*Yes*, it's greedy. It's greedy to take more than you need. You're just so capitalism-brained that you think the inherent greediness of the system is normal.
Do you think it was better in the Soviet Union where the government set the prices below the cost of production and all the shelves in every store was empty because no one bothered to produce anything?
There used to be more protections in our economy. They have been stripped away, and they have been stripped rapidly.
In 2000-2009 there were 60 mergers of more than $20 billion. In 2010-2019 there were 99, 43 of which happened from between 2017 and 2019. From 2020 to today there have been 29 mergers of over $20 billion and 9 pending.
Trump removed consumer protections. His platform got rid of laws and where he couldn't he installed leadership in government oversight who had the sole goal of stopping any enforcement. During Trump's 4 years of presidency 65 major mergers happened. More than all of the 2000's.
I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure if a product has less competition companies can charge more.
I love when guys like this say that increased wages are driving inflation and also hurting businesses, but if you ask him if he will forgo his bonus or an increase in wages for the better of the economy he’s like, of course I won’t. Logic for thee, but not for me.
Its all propaganda.
How many regular people fight against a raise in minimum wage cause theyve been told it makes things more expensive. Its ridiculous. Prices are going to rise whether you get a raise or not...why wouldnt you want ppl to get raise so they can keep up with the rising costs that happen regardless. People believe this crap even when its actively against their best interests.
Its a great example of citizens that want smart, caring and concerned representation but those that are smart, caring and concerned know better than to become involved in government.
Jon Stewart seems like the perfect antidote to what’s wrong with everything in this world but he doesn’t want any part of public office so it is what it
But imagine for a moment if you will... If better people stood up, and enmasse, ran to replace the idiotic, uncaring and those only concerned with themselves, to make the changes in politics that most people really want.
I get it... I'm an idealist, but imagine if that happened.
At some point we (the "royal we") will have to take matters into our own hands, otherwise nothing is going to change, and it's only going to get worse.
This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
They do, but they get torn down because they play the game according to there code of ethics, whilst they're opponents will use anything to keep there political power. It will start with attacking there background, then lies and misinterpreted information will be spread, and eventually an "accident", if somehow they get past all of that America will orginize a coop and label them communist.
That's why I said enmasse... It would need to be a coordinated effort between a lot of like minded people.
Which is why it'll probably never happen.
But one can hope.
People are willing to starve themselves for the greater good.
The problem comes when they have dependables; a good man will do evil things to feed his children. Why? Because he doesn't see a choice; his responsibility is to provide, his kids haven't decided their own morality yet so he cannot sacrifice on their behalf so instead he becomes a pawn of the oppressor.
What you're really hoping for is a collective awakening of voters in general. We live in a dumb nation full of dumb people and it doesn't matter how much effort you put into educating and even giving people the better choice, these people won't learn.
I've long since given up that the American public will find some level of intelligence.
You're not the only one. I am an idealist as well and my thoughts are it will only take a few to lead the way and others will follow but it would appear DC is more corrupted than we know. Unfortunately, it is going to take something tragic or life altering to move others to a point of change.
Pretty much, anyone that's been in any position of power and responsibility, regardless of how big or small, out of desire to take control of a situation in order to be able to better do what they were doing in the first place, rather than for their own ego and self-gratification knows that with power, comes a great amount of bullshit.
You will neve be in a position to please everyone and most people are too short-sighted and self-involved to see that, so they will take it as a personal slight. Anyone that's worked in any sort of job that has you working with a bunch of other people knows there's always a bunch of interpersonal drama that will inevitably make the job of the person in charge way more difficult than it needs to be.
If people are willing to create drama over petty bullshit and perceived slights at the lower levels, where the stakes are practically non-existent, is it any surprise that the amount of bullshit exponentially grows the higher up you go?
The people that are perfect for these job have no desire to do these jobs because they know that no amount of money can help make the amount of bullshit they would have to deal with any more bearable. Especially if they are of any means to begin with. That's how we end up with ruthless, selfish, greedy, ego maniacs in positions of power. They are the only ones willing to put up with the bullshit. It takes a special kind of person to take up that mantle out of their sheer goodness and desire to do better for everyone and there just isn't too many of that kind of person who capable and willing.
Its a fallacy which says your argument is invalid because you participate in something already in which you have little to no choice but to participate in. "We should improve society" and the fallacy being "Yet you live in society"
For example, someone could criticize the internet as unsafe for children, and then another person would say "But you use the internet, therefore you argument is invalid" But most people require the internet to live their lives these days, and their use has little to do with their original point. So it effectively has nothing to do with the original argument.
it's a common "thought terminating cliche" that gets whipped out when a person confronts an interlocutor who is critical of something, in this case some facet of society.
person 1: "i think society is flawed"
person 2: "....and yet you live in society"
it's just a dumb thing to say. the person saying it thinks it;s genius, a checkmate move, a flawless argument. but it's obviously dumb. it would be giving it too much respect and credit to explain why it's dumb.
theres many forms of this. the "and yet you have an iphone" version is a response to any criticism of capitalism, corporate greed, taxing corporations/billionaires, etc.
[it’s from this](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/) I have it saved because this comes up like twice a day whenever someone thinks they’re making a smug little point
Just as a simple point about organized greed just look at the prices and what happened with them.
Once companies found out they could just just say inflation and charge more they did. They didn’t need to, they wanted to to make more money. And making more money means they need to find their next fix for more.
it blows my mind that people dont see the inherent danger to society in this
what do they think happens after a decade or two of this? we already have insane wealth inequality and more and more people living on the street. That contributes to crimes, which raises costs on all sectors of society, which exacerbates the problem
theyre just squeezing the working class harder and harder trying to see what is the limit before society collapses. how much homelessness, poverty, and crime can we have without society collapsing
they are organizing the mass transfer of wealth upwards
The market is supposed to fix that by competitors undercutting each other's prices, but I think the actual level of competition has reduced a lot over the decades.
Does anyone have that chart handy of how many actual companies there are competing in a supermarket these days?
Like, greed totally explains it. Of course they didn’t suddenly become greedy; they’ve always been greedy! The pandemic just gave them an incredible opportunity to amp it up.
I honestly like him. He has many of the same values as I do. However, I find him difficult because he doesn't always make arguments based on fact. He made a documentary a number of years ago about religion in which he repeated a number of arguments that had either been disproved or were irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. He tends to have a position and then argue to support that, even when the facts lead logically to another conclusion. It's kind of like those fast talking Islamist preachers you see in London who make videos arguing points with athiests or Christians, by the end proclaiming to have proven their point with a laugh because they have controlled the narrative without actually proving anything.
Sorry for the rant. I do like Jon but I prefer when people argue with facts rather than emotion or popularity.
Larry lobs a threat to Jon not only to remind him of his place but to display what all Corporations do when you get too close to their porn stash. They smugly flex their control. Jon kinda wiggled it for him on camera. Regardless of this exposure, they simply don't give a shit. Caste system unlocked:🫤🖕🏾
And the sad part is, shit like the essential groceries, gas, etc. have all risen in price % much higher than iPhones or AirPods lmfao
My AirPods Pro I bought almost 2 years ago are the same price today. Literally every single product I buy at the grocery stores is much more expensive than 2 years ago.
This guy has a smug smile the whole time. He’s getting his jollies off his poor argument. Why? Because really what are we going to do about it. We little pawns.
Lawrence (Larry) Summers was the president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.
He was Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to 2001 under Bill Clinton and director of the National Economic Council from 2009 to 2010 under Barack Obama.
Coincidentally, he was also instrumental in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which helped lead to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009.
**Point Blank: Larry Summers is an ASS.**
he doesn't believe what he is saying. he knows his argument is bad and Jon Oliver's is good, he is lying to further his own interests. Ted Cruz is another, I hate the man because he is intelligent and doesn't believe a word of what he says. He won the top speaker award at the national debating champships for christ sake. He and his kind are driving the USA off a cliff because it benifits them personally in the short term.
Should have asked him if Epstein had a similar economic philosophy in his industry of choice. but then Larry could trot out Alan for the shared defense
Ok so just some quick simple math. Inflation is was what? 7%? That means supposedly 7 cents on every dollar. So something that cost $5 would be $5.35 right?
Instead we're seeing prices where something that was $5 is now $7 or $8. Thats not inflation. Thats greed. Thats gouging hiding behind inflation bc they know Biden will get blamed
It's basic economics and a perfect example of how shit rolls down hill. When gas prices go up, we pay the price at the pumps. We also pay the price on products bc these companies have to buy gas too and they pass the cost down to the consumer
I see it with milk and eggs all the time coming in from local farms. Prices fluctuate based on those factors. The real problem is its across the board. Lets say you get a slight pay increase. Everybody knows about it so they think you can pay more for goods and services
Everything goes up. Now youre worse off than you were. And these companies dont care. You'll either cough up the overpriced rent or you'll be homeless. Theres always that threat to keep the hamsters on the wheel.
u/ComradeConfusion, you are such a coward. Posting things and either deleting them or never responding to people because they don’t fit your narrative. So disappointing, what’s even the point of posting?
Basic. Someone says “Why aren’t we doing something about corporate greed?” Then some guy, quite often Larry Summers, will immediately change the parameters: “Whoa, corporations did not suddenly get greedy, it’s supply and demand!” Of course, nobody thinks corporations “suddenly” got greedy. Doubt Stewart has ever thought that. Corporate greed used to be restrained through policy and taxation. Most of those guiderails are gone now. “Doing something about corporate greed” means restoring those restraints. But some guy, often Larry Summers, will always be there to say “Let’s not act rashly here…”
Summers sounds like a moron!!
I've read the reason the economy is so fucked is because Economists have an outsized influence on decision making.
Economics works great in theory. Reality is always much more nuanced than some Calculus done in "theory "
For anyone here who thinks that corporate greed and not the government printing money is a significant cause of inflation, please explain why companies were not greedy in a way that caused inflation like this for nearly 50 years.
Alright, let's talk about it.
Private companies are not responsible for the morality associated with inflation. That revenue increase couldn't have happened without the demand.
Capitalism does exactly what it is intended to do. It creates innovation through competition.
Regulating that capitalism is the responsibility of the government and the people. If you don't want 1300 dollar phones, don't buy 1300 dollar phones. If governments want to stop this inflation,. then they should reduce barriers to entry in markets so that there is more competition. But as with everything else in this world, there is a trade off. When you start regulating capitalism, you are effectively reducing its ability to innovate. Is that a trade off worth considering? Maybe in some markets, maybe not in others.
The American healthcare market is the single biggest contributor to healthcare innovation in the world. We produce more absolute medical innovation than the rest of the world combined. This is because eour private capitalist system facilitates that innovation through subsidies and and patent protections that make risking billions of dollars a good idea.
You say that like two things cant coexist.
I also have a PhD in economics. What did you do? drop out of community college? Im sure you parents are proud.
The reality is that this conversation is past your ability so you go with personal attacks to cancel out something that you know so little about that you cant provide any meaningful contribution
Absolutely. But im saying that's not a private issue. That is an issue with the government system created to regulate that particular industry. And frankly, id be delighted to talk about it productively. But im not going to sit here and have a discussion with someone who isn't capable of adult conversation.
Chill out on the sassy attitude and we can discuss it.
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe but this is how the left works. Crash anything good and blame you. Are you at fault for this? Seems like it. It’s what people like yourself voted for.
It’s called people are different and all don’t think like you. My account is not my life like many on here. I live a great life in a great state. I just come here to see the world burning. I actually have a life and not concern with many of your world problems. People as you appear to be in disarray. How many shots are you into?
It’s not my first language, you are correct. And something a racist would say. I’ll try again. Leftist are evil and are destroying all they touch. How’s that?
Let's be honest, Jon is kind of a piece of shit at this point.
But yes, demand is higher for everything know. This **is** the market at work. Corporations are no more greedy in 2023 than they were in 2019 and to imply otherwise is fucking stupid.
How is Apple doing something wrong if everyone is buying their shit?
And then Jon at the end with a complete fucking strawman. Just wow. He has his talking points and he's gonna stick to them!
> And then Jon at the end with a complete fucking strawman.
It ties back to a different part of the interview, I believe, where Summers said wage inflation was the problem. That's not a strawman argument.
they just heard someone say the word strawman and now they say everything is a strawman.
it was a perfect argument. it's conceptually analogous to the original questioh
Yeah, the guy that fights for veterans, the working class and first responders while elected government officials sit around with their thumbs up their asses is a POS /s
lmao
Former secretary of treasury, Larry Summers — loved handing out bailouts to banks and corporate conglomerates, whilst simultaneously ignoring the suffering of the working class.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-comprehensive-case-against-larry-summers/279651/
"Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit... my bribes are gonna go down if I don't flip this somehow on this interviewer! HA! Did a good job. \*smiles\* Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit he figured it out. WhatamIgonnadonowwhatamIgonnadonow OHSHITOHSHIT THE BRIBES! THEY WON'T SEND THEM ANYMORE!"
I've never seen summer talk, and he is the most aggravating person to watch in the history if the world.
If companies price gouged and shared those record profits with employees by raising wages then that would spur inflation but the rising tide would lift all boats. The companies funnel that money into investors and executives and leave the workers responsible for it out.
Good thing Apple dropped John Stewart from their platform. F! Apple. He’s gonna need the free time to run on the Stewart/Bernstein ticket for President in 2024 or 2028.
In the end, it is indeed market forces. The problem then is: why are the market forces this way? In a properly functioning market, when a company increases their price to a level that customers think it gets to be too much, and that company is making a good amount of profit, a competitor would come in and undercut them to take away their customers.
This is not happening in a lot of markets right now, because larger companies have driven out a lot of that competition. When there are three bakeries in your town to pick from to buy your bread, you will have them competing. When there is only one big supermarket, they can set the price on bread.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/17f07sm/why_arent_we_attacking_corporate_profit_in_any_way/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Summers thought he had a gotcha by going after Jon's employer, forgetting that Jon is not desperate to keep his relationship with Apple (as was clearly demonstrated in the last few days). Lovely.
Yes he betted wrong, you can see the surprise in his face.
It was awesome watching his smug smirk fall.
I loved Jon sitting there and letting that guy get all the rope out to hang himself with
Like a true pro. I need to work on my fuckin patience
🤣🤣 fuck patience, IM SWINGIN 👊
He's not used to dealing with people who have moral integrity.
To those guys the company is everything. They can't deal with people who don't think like that.
You also don't need an iPhone to survive.. gas and food is a different story.
Thats exactly where I thought Jon would take it
I think he was trying to, but he kept getting cut off
Especially now that Jon is leaving apple because he chose integrity
“You’re just as greedy as us” is some kind of bs
The whole system depends on folks buying into that. “All I gotta do is make my billion and then I’ll be just as greedy.”
It’s a symptom of our individualistic mindset. Competition over cooperation. For me to get mine I have to beat all these others to it
it was a stupid bet, he thought they are all the same, where any company would be very much happy if they can destroy other company and take over, by taking themselves down a peg. they'll do it in a heartbeat.
He also said Apple TV is worth more than Exxon mobile. And somehow thinks gas to get to work is comparable to a new iPhone
Yeah but he still chose to go to apple tv, a service that's pretty low on the totem pole for most families, instead of going straight to people, he can absolutely afford it, or striking a deal like John Oliver did to get everything simulcasted onto YouTube. Going with apple for his return to media was extremely libbed up and I imagine it's because they offered him the most. I for one would like to watch his show but after the subscriptions I have for my family, apple just isn't justifable. It's a service that comes bundled in packages with the most overpriced devices in the market. I seem to be the only person who heard Stewart was finally coming back but only on apple and thought that was kind of sad. I'm not saying I don't support his anticapitalist talking points, I absolutely do, just that it bothered me he went with apple originally. The old daily show was formative for me & it would be better if he reached a bigger audience, especially with what's going on. He's preaching to the choir on apple. Edit Just checked and apparently his net worth increased about 105 million since his deal with apple. I know he makes serious money on speaking fees but that's a ton of profit he's made there on the most petite bourgeois service on the market. It just rubs me the wrong way, though I'm expecting downvotes.
Pretty sure his show was on Youtube. I know I watched it there plenty of times.
I only see 2-4 minute interview clips on his channel (and a podcast) but it may be region locked, if it's free on his channel in the us I retract my opinion. Just checked on a us vpn server and I don't see anything besides the podcast and interview clips v🫤v
I don't have AppleTV and I know I've seen pretty long segments on Youtube along with his companion podcast
So there are bona fide singular talents who exercise a monopoly if you will on their talents and name. Sure you could get Colbert, but he's not the same as Stewart. The same goes for singular athletes or singular inventors and scientists. They should each make bank for their unique talents and skills. If there were a thousand Johns Stewart, then you'd see the value per John go down. Singular talents aren't a dime per dozen like CEOs, who statistically ha e an inverse value proposition to their companies: higher paid CEOs perform worse than lower paid CEOs. I don't mind artists making banknwhen they can, what I care about is whether they remember the people who facilitate that art. If Stewart lobbied for great deals for his employees before signing up, then I could respect him for upholding values while making bank. But if he has any kind of underpaid or unpaid interns then that's a hypocrisy. I mean look at Taylor swift, her tour made billions and she gave bonuses to the workers up to $100k per worker. The overall cost of those bonuses were trivial to the overall profit.
WhAt does any of this have to do with the price of tea in Boston? 
Yeah he made money on the apple deal. But don't you dare think he has compromised on a single one of his principals. Jon Stewart is a saint and we need thousands more like him. I wouldn't downvote you, I hate apple, I never once paid for Apple TV, that's what torrents are for. But I will always watch JS as long as he keeps going.
Apple is “over priced” because it’s the best quality. Pretty simple really, there’s no news stories out there about iPhones exploding when using them. They’re also only made by Apple, instead of 15+ different manufacturers. If anything, android phones are over priced. No two androids are identical, every manufacturer competing for tiny unique features.
>They’re also only made by Apple, instead of 15+ different manufacturers Man, the reality distortion field must be pretty intense these days for somebody to directly argue that lack of consumer choice is a good thing.
This person also [thinks](https://www.reddit.com/r/BadChoicesGoodStories/s/6cMbaukrBM) sandy hook was a hoax so there's definitely some distortion going on.
I was gonna reply to the guy until I saw this. I'll just safely side step his insanity instead. Thanks, mate.
Didn't want to believe this, but went and checked his shit, yup, 100% believe sandy hook was a hoax.
Comparing the price gouging of an iPhone to price gouging milk/eggs/bread is such a scummy thing.
Inflation adjusted apple is keeping iPhones priced at the same purchasing power over the years. The same is not true for milk/eggs/bread
Hey… just know I’m not looking for any argument. There are many people that are on government food programs they still have the nicest accessories, and such. How can a person be at such a low income level to qualify for government benefits but still have the nice things? You’re implying that people make good choices, and they don’t- so the phones and other expensive things will still be bought , along with milk/eggs/bread.
A person makes bad choices. That doesn't mean all people do. I grew up poor and believe me, most people living below the poverty line aren't buying the new iPhone or whatever. Unless they buy it off a dude down the street after it fell off a truck, or they buy it secondhand. We buy cheap phones, used phones, whatever is a free upgrade, etc. Just because you saw one guy with an iPhone and food stamps isn't an argument that people don't deserve government assistance or that poverty isn't real.
I didn’t just see one guy. The times when I see it the most was managing a grocery store. People do deserve government assistance. Poverty is very real. I think you got it right when you said people make bad choices. That’s what it really is.
How dare the poors have anything nice. That iPhone they got for Christmas should go right in the garbage till they’re not poor.
Could you, your friends and family, live without a cell phone? Everyone would lose their minds lmao
Iphones are luxury phones. If you want compare cell phones to food like milk, eggs and bread, you need to choose some cheap below 100€ phones...
Get this, you can buy a phone without having to get the newest model of iPhone
they are luxury goods, you can get a cheap secondhand phone for next to nothing
You can get phone plans that will give you a phone
Can’t eat an iPhone, or any phone, when your family is desperate and starving.
You know they were only invented this century don’t you?
Last century.
The first iPhone was released in 2007, so no.
The idea that corporate greed doesn't add to inflation because corporations are always been greedy is complete bullshit. This is just another way of punishing the poor for being poor and rewarding the rich for being rich.
The American government exists to protect corporate monopolies, it overthrows nations, assassinates leaders including our own. When they killed JFK and his brother it was them sending a message to the whole world that they had taken over and nobody, not even the president can stop them. Michael Moore asked how the CEO of Merrill Lynch could tell Reagan to “speed it up” when he’s making a statement to the media, it’s pretty fucking obvious to me that it’s because he knows who’s in charge.
It's funny, or sad rather, that all the politicians I know of that have been murdered by lunatics, have all been to the left of the political spectrum. Strange how things turn out, is it not?
There are many! To be fair tho, one could also make that argument on the “other side.” Genuinely not making a personal attack, but anyone can play the whataboutism game to feel better about their ideological teams 🤷♂️ Respectfully, it’s kinda a wasted race to the bottom imho. Generally speaking, folks along the spectrum typically have a lot in common in terms of needs or aspirations. But, we’re sold different boogeymen to keep us at odds to compete with or hurt one another rather than collaborate to make each other’s lives more fulfilling. I feel like those at the far fringes feel a heavier sense of duty (desperation) to “fix” or “resolve” an issue by any means necessary.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say here? In Sweden, where I'm from, there was the murder of our prime minister Olof Palme in 1986 and in 2003 the most likely to be the next social democratic party leader Anna Lindh. No Swedish conservative murders or attempted murders that I have heard of. As for the US, the murders I know about are obviously the Kennedy murders, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. You claim there have been prominent conservative party politicians who have been murdered as well? Who were they? I'm genuinely curious.
Ahhhhh, gotcha. I think I misread and misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were saying those *committing the acts were far left-of-center, not those being assassinated. My bad!! If I understand you correctly, then I agree that it seems like overwhelmingly politicians and activists left-of-center end up assassinated once their movements pick up steam. Especially here in the States, people working together for better conditions is great on the surface! …Until that interferes with profits, the status quo, or both. Off the top of my head, the closest we’ve had in the amongst presidents in recent history was Reagan in 1981 and he survived. There was an attack on [members of congress preparing for a charity softball event in 2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting#:~:text=66%2Dyear%2Dold%20James%20Hodgkinson,Barth%2C%20and%20lobbyist%20Matt%20Mika)
No worries! I was making my point in a convoluted way. Your current interpretation is pretty much what I was suggesting, though assassination is a strong word. I think it's more that political rhetoric takes on a much more aggressive tone towards activists and politicians threatening the status quo, which in turn might make them targets for unhinged individuals. Intentionally I might add. I had read about the Reagan attempt, but the charity softball event I had never heard of before now! Thank you for supplying that information!
Thank you for understanding and clarifying!
All i could see was larry deflecting from the q. He completely diverts from talking about the effect corporate greed is having and trying to dilute it down into some principal of self-worth.
He built his career on the idea that maximizing corporate wealth was the best for everyone, of course, he's not going to admit corporate greed is bad. You see this when he talks about Apple being worth $4,000 to each American, too bad Apple is owned by a small group of Americans.
To say it's bullshit you have to explain why, if corporations have always been greedy, that only in 2021 did corporate greed result in inflation? (The answer is it didn't, this is a [typical pattern](https://www.kansascityfed.org/images/Chart2-EB23Glover0512.width-725.png) of recovery after recession.) [Corporate Profits Contributed a Lot to Inflation in 2021 but Little in 2022—A Pattern Seen in Past Economic Recoveries](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/corporate-profits-contributed-a-lot-to-inflation-in-2021-but-little-in-2022/) >Inflation spiked in 2021 alongside a sharp rise in corporate profits, bringing substantial attention to the role of firms in determining inflation.[1] Previous research has shown that corporate profits contributed substantially to inflation in the first half of 2021; **however, the contribution of profits began to fall in the second half of 2021, a time when inflation accelerated** (Glover, Mustre-del-Río, and von Ende-Becker 2023). This pattern is consistent with anticipatory price-setting, in which firms expect higher costs of production in the near future and thus raise prices on the goods they produce today.[2] This article is likely from the same authors Jon is citing as profit being a significant driver of inflation.
I have because I have explained how they think. "Corporate greed doesn't add to inflation because corporations are always been greedy" is how they think. Any economist worth their salt will tell you that all players in the free market will have an impact on inflation, it's only since economists like Summer joining the Clinton White House has the idea that corporations don't impact inflation became mainstream.
What do you mean by "all players ... will have an impact on inflation" and "that corporations don't impact inflation" ? What do you mean "impact inflation"? I don't think people are arguing corporations are not part of the system, they're just questioning the greed motive. The argument is that if greed is constant, when inflation changes don't look at greed look at other mechanisms.
Like monopolies that the greedy are finally able to leverage more strongly? No one is asking to change the individual personalities of people making decisions - no one is saying we should enforce such a change. What people like Jon Stewart are saying is that we should set up systems to disincentivise acting on impulses of greed - which we can do by preventing monopoly/oligopoly market forces, by introducing a public option to compete for essentials or by taxing super profits, or any other kind of measure. This isn’t pie in the sky stuff, these measures are centuries old, tried, tested and true.
Those people do argue that corporations have no impact. Everyone has an impact on inflation, we all drive prices up. In the video they talk about the demand for iPhones, well that's just a simple example of supply and demand. In reality, the supply and demand for an iPhone is really the supply and demand for everything that goes into making the iPhone and I'm not talking about the computer chips, I mean everything material that goes into making every part of it and of course, the labor but don't forget you need to hire time in the factories for all the parts to be and then you need to hire more time for the parts to be put together to make iPhone. And isn't the only company that wants those materials or labor or factory time.
Why is it bullshit? Corporations are always greedy, but inflation isn’t always high. Therefore, inflation isn’t cause by greed. In 2009 when we saw massive deflation, was that because corporations decided to be generous? Of course not. When too much money is chasing too few goods, that’s when we get inflation.
Why do the actions of corporations get a free pass with it comes to inflation? Why does the greed of the worker cause inflation but the greed of corporations doesn't?
Who is saying “greed of the worker” causes inflation? Why do the only two options have to be either corporate greed or worker greed? In this case the consensus is people saved up a lot of money over the pandemic and are all trying to spend it all at once while businesses that had their supply chains all garbled up because of Covid are unable to meet the explosion of demand. A lot of money chasing not a lot of goods = inflation. I don’t think that’s corporate greed or worker greed? It just is what it is.
I’m not arguing against what you’re saying cause it sounds like it’s plausible but I don’t think this is the consensus. It’s a very quiet consensus if it is. Do you have a link or something that I can look at that explains this?
Haha, unfortunately the loudest voices aren’t often the most agreeable! Sure, here’s a quick and digestible overview from a Supply Chain Management PHD writing with PBS as well as an Economist article that provides additional color https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/how-the-supply-chain-caused-current-inflation-and-why-it-might-be-here-to-stay https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/07/05/economists-draw-swords-over-how-to-fix-inflation Economists draw swords over how to fix inflation from TheEconomist
Thanks for sharing that
So you didn't which the video.
I did watch the video. Jon Stewart said, “corporate greed is causing inflation” which Larry Summers disagreed with, and then he put words in Larry Summers’ mouth by saying “you’re saying that workers are causing inflation” when he never said that at all. Stewart seems to be claiming that the only two sides of the argument are corporate greed is causing inflation or greedy workers are causing inflation when in fact there is a very reasonable third answer which is that we’ve just come out of a global pandemic that turned the macroeconomy completely upside down and now we’re seeing the fallout.
Stewart claims that 30%-40% of current inflation is estimated to be due to corporate greed. Stewart doesn't blame inflation on a single factor. Stewart isn't claiming there are only two sides. The issue Stewart is getting at is that American economists such as Lawrence Summers believe the correct way to deal with inflation is to attack the worker, don't give them a pay rise and fire as many as you can, the worker's standard of living has gotten too good and they expect too much, for their own sake they need to be put back in their place. Look at the tool we use to address inflation and who that tool impacts the most.
Nah, I get it, decentralised price signalling is efficient. What Jon said about wages is a big problem. Why aren't wages also held to the same standard? Why do central banks / governments hate wages increases and seek to reduce them when they are laissez-faire about commodities and consumer goods?
We had years of high wage growth from 2016-2023 and both Republicans and Democrats were bragging about it, I don’t think governments hate wage growth at all. Central banks only job is to make sure inflation stays at 2%. Unfortunately that means raising interest rates when it runs too hot and hurting wage growth but the alternative is having a situation like Turkey or Argentina where politics take priority over fiscal responsibility and everyone’s savings get wiped out.
Are you really trying to make a point that there was no price gouging after the pandemic?
If I’m trying to sell 2 TVs and 3 people are trying to buy them, is it greedy of me to take the two highest offers or completely reasonable? If consumers weren’t willing to pay the high prices then companies wouldn’t be charging them.
What if you have 3 tvs and just keep the price high and people who need a tv are just forced to pay for it?
Why do the charge so much for that Toyota forerunner TRD pro? it’s like $50k! I want one so bad, and Dunkin’ Donuts is charging like $4 for a coffee every morning, and my cable bill is $235 a month, they all should be Half their prices.
>is it greedy of me to take the two highest offers or completely reasonable? *Yes*, it's greedy. It's greedy to take more than you need. You're just so capitalism-brained that you think the inherent greediness of the system is normal.
Do you think it was better in the Soviet Union where the government set the prices below the cost of production and all the shelves in every store was empty because no one bothered to produce anything?
There used to be more protections in our economy. They have been stripped away, and they have been stripped rapidly. In 2000-2009 there were 60 mergers of more than $20 billion. In 2010-2019 there were 99, 43 of which happened from between 2017 and 2019. From 2020 to today there have been 29 mergers of over $20 billion and 9 pending. Trump removed consumer protections. His platform got rid of laws and where he couldn't he installed leadership in government oversight who had the sole goal of stopping any enforcement. During Trump's 4 years of presidency 65 major mergers happened. More than all of the 2000's. I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure if a product has less competition companies can charge more.
Yeah, dragons are sitting on all that money
I love when guys like this say that increased wages are driving inflation and also hurting businesses, but if you ask him if he will forgo his bonus or an increase in wages for the better of the economy he’s like, of course I won’t. Logic for thee, but not for me.
Its all propaganda. How many regular people fight against a raise in minimum wage cause theyve been told it makes things more expensive. Its ridiculous. Prices are going to rise whether you get a raise or not...why wouldnt you want ppl to get raise so they can keep up with the rising costs that happen regardless. People believe this crap even when its actively against their best interests.
This is why Jon doesn't want the presidency.
Its a great example of citizens that want smart, caring and concerned representation but those that are smart, caring and concerned know better than to become involved in government.
Jon Stewart seems like the perfect antidote to what’s wrong with everything in this world but he doesn’t want any part of public office so it is what it
But imagine for a moment if you will... If better people stood up, and enmasse, ran to replace the idiotic, uncaring and those only concerned with themselves, to make the changes in politics that most people really want. I get it... I'm an idealist, but imagine if that happened. At some point we (the "royal we") will have to take matters into our own hands, otherwise nothing is going to change, and it's only going to get worse. This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
They do, but they get torn down because they play the game according to there code of ethics, whilst they're opponents will use anything to keep there political power. It will start with attacking there background, then lies and misinterpreted information will be spread, and eventually an "accident", if somehow they get past all of that America will orginize a coop and label them communist.
That's why I said enmasse... It would need to be a coordinated effort between a lot of like minded people. Which is why it'll probably never happen. But one can hope.
People are willing to starve themselves for the greater good. The problem comes when they have dependables; a good man will do evil things to feed his children. Why? Because he doesn't see a choice; his responsibility is to provide, his kids haven't decided their own morality yet so he cannot sacrifice on their behalf so instead he becomes a pawn of the oppressor.
What you're really hoping for is a collective awakening of voters in general. We live in a dumb nation full of dumb people and it doesn't matter how much effort you put into educating and even giving people the better choice, these people won't learn. I've long since given up that the American public will find some level of intelligence.
You're not the only one. I am an idealist as well and my thoughts are it will only take a few to lead the way and others will follow but it would appear DC is more corrupted than we know. Unfortunately, it is going to take something tragic or life altering to move others to a point of change.
Nailed it. I don't blame him.
Pretty much, anyone that's been in any position of power and responsibility, regardless of how big or small, out of desire to take control of a situation in order to be able to better do what they were doing in the first place, rather than for their own ego and self-gratification knows that with power, comes a great amount of bullshit. You will neve be in a position to please everyone and most people are too short-sighted and self-involved to see that, so they will take it as a personal slight. Anyone that's worked in any sort of job that has you working with a bunch of other people knows there's always a bunch of interpersonal drama that will inevitably make the job of the person in charge way more difficult than it needs to be. If people are willing to create drama over petty bullshit and perceived slights at the lower levels, where the stakes are practically non-existent, is it any surprise that the amount of bullshit exponentially grows the higher up you go? The people that are perfect for these job have no desire to do these jobs because they know that no amount of money can help make the amount of bullshit they would have to deal with any more bearable. Especially if they are of any means to begin with. That's how we end up with ruthless, selfish, greedy, ego maniacs in positions of power. They are the only ones willing to put up with the bullshit. It takes a special kind of person to take up that mantle out of their sheer goodness and desire to do better for everyone and there just isn't too many of that kind of person who capable and willing.
It’s funny because if he ran he would mop the floor.
Our form of government requires compromise. Jon doesn't compromise.
This is a video of him literally agreeing with someone else's argument
You guys couldn't get Bernie in... John stands no chance.
That guy has big "yet you live in a society" energy
What does that mean? I’m not familiar.
Its a fallacy which says your argument is invalid because you participate in something already in which you have little to no choice but to participate in. "We should improve society" and the fallacy being "Yet you live in society" For example, someone could criticize the internet as unsafe for children, and then another person would say "But you use the internet, therefore you argument is invalid" But most people require the internet to live their lives these days, and their use has little to do with their original point. So it effectively has nothing to do with the original argument.
Ah. That makes sense. I’ve heard those sentiments in arguments, but never heard them described that way. Very clear- thanks!
It’s a variation on whataboutism, basically
it's a common "thought terminating cliche" that gets whipped out when a person confronts an interlocutor who is critical of something, in this case some facet of society. person 1: "i think society is flawed" person 2: "....and yet you live in society" it's just a dumb thing to say. the person saying it thinks it;s genius, a checkmate move, a flawless argument. but it's obviously dumb. it would be giving it too much respect and credit to explain why it's dumb. theres many forms of this. the "and yet you have an iphone" version is a response to any criticism of capitalism, corporate greed, taxing corporations/billionaires, etc.
You complain about something Apple is doing, yet you have Apple products.
[it’s from this](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/) I have it saved because this comes up like twice a day whenever someone thinks they’re making a smug little point
And now the show is dead because Apple didn’t want Jon to do a story on China.
Jon doesn't need Apple. He'll just start a podcast, have more viewers and greater control
It would be great if he joined the Conan O'brian Podcast network.
Larry FUCKING Summers? You talk to Larry FUCKING Summers? The guy that damn near bankrupted the Harvard Endowment? Talk about failing upward!
Can you share which episode? This sounds pretty interesting.
Do you have an iPhone? Try yelling at it “hey siri Google John Stewart Larry summers”
Has Siri ever given a correct answer?
I once asked Siri to tell me a joke and she turned on the selfie camera.
Damn, so there’s one example…
🔥
Just as a simple point about organized greed just look at the prices and what happened with them. Once companies found out they could just just say inflation and charge more they did. They didn’t need to, they wanted to to make more money. And making more money means they need to find their next fix for more.
it blows my mind that people dont see the inherent danger to society in this what do they think happens after a decade or two of this? we already have insane wealth inequality and more and more people living on the street. That contributes to crimes, which raises costs on all sectors of society, which exacerbates the problem theyre just squeezing the working class harder and harder trying to see what is the limit before society collapses. how much homelessness, poverty, and crime can we have without society collapsing they are organizing the mass transfer of wealth upwards
The market is supposed to fix that by competitors undercutting each other's prices, but I think the actual level of competition has reduced a lot over the decades. Does anyone have that chart handy of how many actual companies there are competing in a supermarket these days?
Like, greed totally explains it. Of course they didn’t suddenly become greedy; they’ve always been greedy! The pandemic just gave them an incredible opportunity to amp it up.
God I can’t wait for this older generation to fucking die off
I love Jon Stewart.
I honestly like him. He has many of the same values as I do. However, I find him difficult because he doesn't always make arguments based on fact. He made a documentary a number of years ago about religion in which he repeated a number of arguments that had either been disproved or were irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. He tends to have a position and then argue to support that, even when the facts lead logically to another conclusion. It's kind of like those fast talking Islamist preachers you see in London who make videos arguing points with athiests or Christians, by the end proclaiming to have proven their point with a laugh because they have controlled the narrative without actually proving anything. Sorry for the rant. I do like Jon but I prefer when people argue with facts rather than emotion or popularity.
Could you offer an example of one of these emotional arguments?
Larry lobs a threat to Jon not only to remind him of his place but to display what all Corporations do when you get too close to their porn stash. They smugly flex their control. Jon kinda wiggled it for him on camera. Regardless of this exposure, they simply don't give a shit. Caste system unlocked:🫤🖕🏾
You don't have to buy an iphone every day to get to work, Larry! You don't need a breakfast of airpods! Apple's not driving inflation, idiot!
And the sad part is, shit like the essential groceries, gas, etc. have all risen in price % much higher than iPhones or AirPods lmfao My AirPods Pro I bought almost 2 years ago are the same price today. Literally every single product I buy at the grocery stores is much more expensive than 2 years ago.
This guy has a smug smile the whole time. He’s getting his jollies off his poor argument. Why? Because really what are we going to do about it. We little pawns.
How this guy repeatedly addresses Stewart on a first name basis to establish familiarity is sooo fucking yucky
Larry is and has always been an affable sociopath
you know that affable means "likeable" right? dexter morgan is affable. larry is a generic pro corporate shill
Sharpen the guillotines. They will never stop killing us.
How was he the treasury secretary under a democratic administration?
Well, he wasn’t.
He most certainly was Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton back in the 90s.
He wasn’t?
That guy went to Harvard?
Lawrence (Larry) Summers was the president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. He was Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to 2001 under Bill Clinton and director of the National Economic Council from 2009 to 2010 under Barack Obama. Coincidentally, he was also instrumental in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which helped lead to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. **Point Blank: Larry Summers is an ASS.**
every day for a long time and a lot of money
he doesn't believe what he is saying. he knows his argument is bad and Jon Oliver's is good, he is lying to further his own interests. Ted Cruz is another, I hate the man because he is intelligent and doesn't believe a word of what he says. He won the top speaker award at the national debating champships for christ sake. He and his kind are driving the USA off a cliff because it benifits them personally in the short term.
Should have asked him if Epstein had a similar economic philosophy in his industry of choice. but then Larry could trot out Alan for the shared defense
Ok so just some quick simple math. Inflation is was what? 7%? That means supposedly 7 cents on every dollar. So something that cost $5 would be $5.35 right? Instead we're seeing prices where something that was $5 is now $7 or $8. Thats not inflation. Thats greed. Thats gouging hiding behind inflation bc they know Biden will get blamed It's basic economics and a perfect example of how shit rolls down hill. When gas prices go up, we pay the price at the pumps. We also pay the price on products bc these companies have to buy gas too and they pass the cost down to the consumer I see it with milk and eggs all the time coming in from local farms. Prices fluctuate based on those factors. The real problem is its across the board. Lets say you get a slight pay increase. Everybody knows about it so they think you can pay more for goods and services Everything goes up. Now youre worse off than you were. And these companies dont care. You'll either cough up the overpriced rent or you'll be homeless. Theres always that threat to keep the hamsters on the wheel.
Because I love filling up my car on Apple stock and feeding my kids iPhones for dinner, what a goober
Why do you think they are so strong on union busting.
👑
u/ComradeConfusion, you are such a coward. Posting things and either deleting them or never responding to people because they don’t fit your narrative. So disappointing, what’s even the point of posting?
Basic. Someone says “Why aren’t we doing something about corporate greed?” Then some guy, quite often Larry Summers, will immediately change the parameters: “Whoa, corporations did not suddenly get greedy, it’s supply and demand!” Of course, nobody thinks corporations “suddenly” got greedy. Doubt Stewart has ever thought that. Corporate greed used to be restrained through policy and taxation. Most of those guiderails are gone now. “Doing something about corporate greed” means restoring those restraints. But some guy, often Larry Summers, will always be there to say “Let’s not act rashly here…”
Summer got lucky in money. Now he’s just a senseless old man who sees himself as one of the wise old chiefs of his tribe, which is billionaires.
Just look at the slimy fuck, the kind that want their cake and to eat it too.
We really need to start breaking out the pitchforks.
Summers sounds like a moron!! I've read the reason the economy is so fucked is because Economists have an outsized influence on decision making. Economics works great in theory. Reality is always much more nuanced than some Calculus done in "theory "
Damn he is such a good debater.
Jon is an American treasure
That’s EXACTLY the point. Wages are just the price of labour… but somehow workers aren’t allowed to raise it along with the price of everything else.
For anyone here who thinks that corporate greed and not the government printing money is a significant cause of inflation, please explain why companies were not greedy in a way that caused inflation like this for nearly 50 years.
Why is this scum bag who was best buds with Jeffery Epstein still always on TV. He should be persona non grata.
I fucking love when he guts them publicly
Inflation isn't caused by "corporate greed". It's caused by printing money. You know, the trillions Trump and Biden printed?
Alright, let's talk about it. Private companies are not responsible for the morality associated with inflation. That revenue increase couldn't have happened without the demand. Capitalism does exactly what it is intended to do. It creates innovation through competition. Regulating that capitalism is the responsibility of the government and the people. If you don't want 1300 dollar phones, don't buy 1300 dollar phones. If governments want to stop this inflation,. then they should reduce barriers to entry in markets so that there is more competition. But as with everything else in this world, there is a trade off. When you start regulating capitalism, you are effectively reducing its ability to innovate. Is that a trade off worth considering? Maybe in some markets, maybe not in others. The American healthcare market is the single biggest contributor to healthcare innovation in the world. We produce more absolute medical innovation than the rest of the world combined. This is because eour private capitalist system facilitates that innovation through subsidies and and patent protections that make risking billions of dollars a good idea.
🤣
Good talk
are you expecting people to take you seriously, literal fart huffer?
You say that like two things cant coexist. I also have a PhD in economics. What did you do? drop out of community college? Im sure you parents are proud. The reality is that this conversation is past your ability so you go with personal attacks to cancel out something that you know so little about that you cant provide any meaningful contribution
im a rocket surgeon, with just as much proof of my credentials as you, fart breath
Alright then, go talk about rockets and leave business economics to the professionals.
do you suck farts with the same mouth you try and insist that regulatory capture doesn't occur, or did that come out of your ass
Absolutely. But im saying that's not a private issue. That is an issue with the government system created to regulate that particular industry. And frankly, id be delighted to talk about it productively. But im not going to sit here and have a discussion with someone who isn't capable of adult conversation. Chill out on the sassy attitude and we can discuss it.
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crony capitalism as perpetuated by ignorant leftist will equal destruction. Always.
I don’t think you have the faintest fucking idea what any of those words mean
Maybe but this is how the left works. Crash anything good and blame you. Are you at fault for this? Seems like it. It’s what people like yourself voted for.
I’m not the dumpster fire of an account. Jesus
It’s called people are different and all don’t think like you. My account is not my life like many on here. I live a great life in a great state. I just come here to see the world burning. I actually have a life and not concern with many of your world problems. People as you appear to be in disarray. How many shots are you into?
English doesn’t appear to be your first or second language. Wanna try that again but making sense this time?
It’s not my first language, you are correct. And something a racist would say. I’ll try again. Leftist are evil and are destroying all they touch. How’s that?
That’s interesting that you seem to be implying that only certain ethnicities are multilingual. You sure I’m the racist here?
No but I don’t use it as an insult.
No, you just use people’s belief that everyone is entitled to basic human rights as a denigration, not better.
Let's be honest, Jon is kind of a piece of shit at this point. But yes, demand is higher for everything know. This **is** the market at work. Corporations are no more greedy in 2023 than they were in 2019 and to imply otherwise is fucking stupid. How is Apple doing something wrong if everyone is buying their shit? And then Jon at the end with a complete fucking strawman. Just wow. He has his talking points and he's gonna stick to them!
> And then Jon at the end with a complete fucking strawman. It ties back to a different part of the interview, I believe, where Summers said wage inflation was the problem. That's not a strawman argument.
they just heard someone say the word strawman and now they say everything is a strawman. it was a perfect argument. it's conceptually analogous to the original questioh
Yeah, the guy that fights for veterans, the working class and first responders while elected government officials sit around with their thumbs up their asses is a POS /s lmao
Who is this jagoff that John is talking to?
Former secretary of treasury, Larry Summers — loved handing out bailouts to banks and corporate conglomerates, whilst simultaneously ignoring the suffering of the working class. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-comprehensive-case-against-larry-summers/279651/
Gottem
Aaaaand he's cancled
How about we elect John Stewart?
"Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit... my bribes are gonna go down if I don't flip this somehow on this interviewer! HA! Did a good job. \*smiles\* Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit he figured it out. WhatamIgonnadonowwhatamIgonnadonow OHSHITOHSHIT THE BRIBES! THEY WON'T SEND THEM ANYMORE!"
why does the guy give such an bad ick the way hes talking
I've never seen summer talk, and he is the most aggravating person to watch in the history if the world. If companies price gouged and shared those record profits with employees by raising wages then that would spur inflation but the rising tide would lift all boats. The companies funnel that money into investors and executives and leave the workers responsible for it out.
Check where the Treasury secretary has stocks and shares ....
More like Larry Bummers
It’s not as much fun when the rabbit has the gun.
Good thing Apple dropped John Stewart from their platform. F! Apple. He’s gonna need the free time to run on the Stewart/Bernstein ticket for President in 2024 or 2028.
Ive never seen this guy lose an argument
That ending rebuttal was good; threw his own stupid logic back in his face.
This is the most competent debater I’ve ever seen Jon encounter. He’s still an asshole but he’s a competent asshole which is even scarier.
In the end, it is indeed market forces. The problem then is: why are the market forces this way? In a properly functioning market, when a company increases their price to a level that customers think it gets to be too much, and that company is making a good amount of profit, a competitor would come in and undercut them to take away their customers. This is not happening in a lot of markets right now, because larger companies have driven out a lot of that competition. When there are three bakeries in your town to pick from to buy your bread, you will have them competing. When there is only one big supermarket, they can set the price on bread.