this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
538 points (96.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
4619 readers
862 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's supply and demand, if your raise the demand of course the products cost more. What did they expect?
Things only cost more if the people pay more. With spending discipline, people could have had actually more. Most things are industrially produced. Supply likely was no bottleneck and the increased demand could have been matched.
The implication is that people already own everything that they can buy. Wage increases only increase inflation. Fighting for higher wages only increases the prices.
There was no increase to amount of kids conceived after the "financial help" was redistributed. Prices of child necessities grew after the funding was passed, before first money reached the parents.
And we are surprised? That exactly how the market works.
And, as I said, this will exactly happen in the USA - they will give handouts, necessities will grow and all the handout money will just pass back to billionaires with interest.
That exactly what would happen. I agree.
If supply is, for example, 10.000 units a day, and demand rises from 5.000 to 8.000, there is no reason why the price should increase, other than corporate greed.
This isn't what was happening. Supply was 10k, and demand was 10k. They gave out money to people, and supply stayed 10k. Of course prices increases under these conditions.