fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I too hope this continues to unfold in the ways we're seeing.

True, though this is considered feeding into disinflation in the article, so it may not lead to ill effects of deflation.

U.S. consumer prices fell for the first time in four years in June amid cheaper gasoline and moderating rents, firmly putting disinflation back on track and drawing the Federal Reserve another step closer to cutting interest rates in September.

If you're in the US, congrats yourself.

There's recent research showing that may not be the case entirely, though that's not to say price gouging isn't happening in places.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/corporate-greed-not-blame-price-pressures-fed-study-shows-2024-05-13/

Corporate price gouging has not been a primary driver of U.S. inflation, according to research published on Monday by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

While markups for motor vehicles and petroleum products did rise sharply during the 2021-2022 inflation surge, markups across the entire spectrum of U.S. goods and services have been relatively flat during the post-pandemic recovery, the bank's latest Economic Letter showed.

"As such, rising markups have not been a main driver of the recent surge and subsequent decline in inflation during the current recovery," wrote the bank's research chief Sylvain Leduc and colleagues Huiyu Li and Zheng Liu.

Yes, that's progress.

Consumer price index falls 0.1% in June

CPI increases 3.0% year-on-year

Core CPI gains 0.1%; rises 3.3% year-on-year

Weekly jobless claims fall 17,000 to 222,000

Continuing claims decline 4,000 to 1.852 million

I can say for myself, I'm certainly not apathetic towards progress.

Reposted, oversight on the amp link previously, my bad.

True, though I think "allies" is selling things rather strongly.

Please see my reply to another user for clarification. I don't know that simply because outlets are carrying the same message that it's propaganda, it could be that it's just information worth reporting on. But again I haven't been as deep into news as of recently. This doesn't strike me as propaganda personally (a larger comparison, for example, Sinclair outlets repeating the same script).

Edit: and no apology necessary, I wasn't taking your comment so harshly, all good :)

Understood, I wasn't seeing articles discussing this angle either. Not that I'm challenging the perspective outright, I myself just haven't seen that to be the case. I haven't been as attentive to news recently too, so I very well could be wrong.

Edit: no bad blood here, I'm not taking anything as an accusation, don't want this misinterpreted.

I did a search for it and couldn't find it posted. My apologies if this has already been posted here, I do make efforts to ensure I'm not doubling up on articles. If I missed it that's my fault.

Considering the article was written on the 6th, I find it hard to believe there's is a suspicious pattern of it popping up every few days.

A manual scan of the news community indicates this article has not been posted since the 6th. Nor another story like it.

I wholly disagree with the characterization that a lawsuit about Oct 7 is "any excuse to shit on the global south." I won't be continuing anything close to this discussion.

It being tried in the US does not afford relevancy to the idea that the US should be sued for the same thing. It is similar in that they both involve the US, but you're wrong to assume it's relevant. It is whataboutism. Period. From Google even:

Similar

resembling without being identical.

Relevant

closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

article about suing hamas/their supporters

ITT: but what about Israel?

:)

There are plenty of articles about Israel people can comment on, this article is about Hamas, and the aggressive nature users are taking towards redirecting discussion is disgusting.

The only thing dismissed by your comment was the posted article, such that you could distract from the article's premise and substitute a different subject for discussion. This is a bad faith attempt to turn users away from what is posted, and deflect to a different issue.

Goodbye.

And I reject the facile equation of this to systemic racism against the black population. That is an obtuse comparison completely outside of the scope of the justice outlined in the article.

This type of lawsuit is questionably in the interest of justice when directed at Hamas/it's benefactors, but you want to know when it's directed at the US and Israel? I don't understand what "type" of lawsuit this is where justice is questioned if directed at them. Sounds more like whataboutism and double standards...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

FTA:

Under U.S. law, foreign governments can be held liable, in some circumstances, for deaths or injuries caused by acts of terrorism or by providing material support or resources for them.

The 1976 statute cited in the lawsuit, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, is a frequent tool for American plaintiffs seeking to hold foreign governments accountable. In one example, a federal judge in Washington ordered North Korea in 2018 to pay $500 million in a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of Otto Warmbier, an American college student who died shortly after being released from that country.

People held as prisoners by Iran in the past have successfully sued Iran in U.S. federal court, seeking money earlier frozen by the U.S.

I didn't say anything. You'd have to quote me, which you can't :)

You have a problem with what Blinken and the resolution itself are saying, and they say Israel accepted the deal. Take it up with them. I'm done with you, this exact situation was discussed with you in a previous thread by another user. This is a bad faith effort to muddy the waters, and I reject this kind of discussion.

Goodbye.

Edit: since reading the original article is not a thing here:

Driving the news: Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked back the proposal and told Israel's Channel 14 that he is interested in a "partial deal" with Hamas that will free "some of the hostages" held in Gaza and allow Israel to continue fighting in the enclave.

A day later, under pressure from the U.S., Qatar and hostages families, Netanyahu corrected his comments and recommitted to the proposal.

But if it were up to the above user, this wouldn't have been mentioned.

I guess I'll post this again...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj77j7ppj52o.amp

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that if a ceasefire plan backed by the US and UN does not progress, Hamas will be to blame.

Mr Blinken reiterated his call for Hamas to accept the plan as outlined by President Biden 11 days ago.

He said the onus was on “one guy” hiding “ten storeys underground in Gaza” to make the casting vote, referring to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

Mr Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “reaffirmed his commitment” to the proposal when they held talks in Jerusalem on Monday.

Mr Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed what Mr Biden outlined nor said whether it matches an Israeli proposal on which Mr Biden’s statement was based.

Mr Blinken described as a “hopeful sign” Hamas’s response to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Monday supporting what Mr Biden had announced.

The resolution noted that Israel had accepted what Mr Biden had presented and called on Hamas to do so as well.

Hamas issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming “what was included” in the resolution.

But Mr Blinken said Hamas’s response was not conclusive, adding that that “what counts” is what is said by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, “and that’s what we don’t have”.

If the proposal did not proceed then it was “on them”, he said.

And I'll tack on, why had Hamas rejected in written form the proposal and responded with a counter proposal?

Additionally, your source says they signal support. No where did it say Israel rejected it. Even from your article:

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Tel Aviv to meet Israeli officials, called this a "hopeful sign" but said it was not conclusive.

More important "is the word coming from Gaza and from the Hamas leadership in Gaza. That’s what counts, and that’s what we don’t have yet," Blinken told reporters in Tel Aviv.

You are lying. Also, considering it was a cease fire, not negotiations, that was proposed, this seems like a feeble attempt to obfuscate the situation.