In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.

Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?

  • whaleross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    260
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Because corporate greed and the economic elite around the world hoarding more resources than ever before.

    And we let them.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      ·
      9 months ago

      We don’t just let them, we cheer them on. Look at the celebrity worship culture we humans have. If you took away the person and left only their actions, most of us would happily throw the rich into a woodchipper. But they use their money to convince us that they’re special and deserve praise, and most of us go along with it because we’re sheep.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    176
    ·
    9 months ago

    Unregulated capitalism…

    This is the natural result of that.

    COVID factored in because the handful of corporations that own a shit ton of companies figured out 8% inflation could be used as justification to double/triple prices, and if they all did it, consumers had no options.

    In regulated capitalism, the government would step in to prevent this type of price fixing.

    But when both political parties are “pro business” and take donations from those huge corporations…

    Then corporations get away with lots they shouldn’t

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    9 months ago

    Covid made things worse, but the fundamentals were bad.

    We are in the middle of a massive tightening of the labor market as boomers retire and there aren’t enough young adults to fill the gap. This is causing major ripples in the market, with a very antagonistic relationship forming between capital trying to keep labor costs down and labor tired of the bullshit.

    This is causing some mild inflation, so companies are jacking up prices since they have an excuse to. This increased inflation is making the time value of money cost more. So now you have companies that were losing money having to scramble to finally generate a profit. This is causing the enshittification of the Internet and the loss of jobs in the tech sector.

    The worse economy is causing political problems as it is harder for politicians to justify their positions in power. This encourages conflict between nations and the justification to deny some people of social benefits to create an underclass to benefit voters.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree with this, and I’d like to add that the wealth gap focusing on funneling money to the top is obviously not helping the quality of products, responsible production , or fair compensation for most of the world.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, but I’m trying to explain why it is happening. You’ve hit market saturation in so many companies when the only way to fuel growth now is to reduce costs.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Cumulative generational focus on acquiring and consolidating capital explains the why comprehensively, at least in the states.

          Monopolies, market saturation, minimizing cost at all costs, poor labor compensation are all symptoms of a system focused primarily on acquiring and consolidating capital.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Capitalism. The longer Capitalism exists, the more it has to find new ways to stop/slow its own built-in death clock. If it doesn’t, it dies, due to problems like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall and rising disparity. Enshittification, so to speak.

    With each economic disaster, the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie can claim large swaths of cheaper Capital at a discount, compounding the issue into a form of neo-feudalism that will eventually collapse under its own weight.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      God forbid a post-scarcity world where the only currency is our reputation, honor, and credibility.

    • Welt@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices, and instead embracing neoliberal economics. I don’t accept that all ownership is theft. Trade in goods and services benefits both parties. I am so sick of people using this shorthand word “capitalism” to describe what’s going on here. We’ve had capitalism for millennia, and it’s brought us longer, healthier and happier lives, and reduced warfare. It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem, not the system of ownership of capital.

      • Atemu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        At the core, the issue is still deeply rooted within capitalism but governments should absolutely be doing their fucking jobs and curb the worst aspects of it a little until we’re ready for something better.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Fair point, I accept that. A bit like how democracy is the worst form of government apart from those other ones we tried.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Even then, there are still countless forms of democracy and democratic government. Democracy itself is a cool concept, the actual systems utilizing Democracy vary wildly, from the Soviet form, to the Chinese form, to the American form, to the European forms, to the forms practiced in more Anarchist societies like the EZLN and revolutionary Catalonia, and more.

            There’s direct Democracy, council Democracy, republican Democracy, proportional Democracy, parliamentary democracy, and far, far more.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Liberal Democracies are of, by, and for the bourgeoisie. Because Capitalists have immense influence, the state will bend to their will.

        Trade is good. Capitalism is not. Capitalism is not trade, its a Mode of Production by which there are individual Capitalists and non-owner workers. We have not had Capitalism for millenia, but a few hundred years.

        Capitalism did not bring us healthier, longer, and happier lives, nor reduce warfare. Development did. Capitalism drives profit, that’s it, anything else is tangential to that end.

        I think you would do yourself a lot of good by reading theory.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I agree with your last point - and I may be a bit bourgeois (not to mention ignorant) myself. I’d appreciate recommendations if you wouldn’t mind.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s a ton of reflection and openness, so I just want to commend you for that. Fantastic to hear and see.

            Initially, I want to give a general basis for what can be considered bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie are those Capitalists who do not need to perform labor to survive, and earn their money via ownership alone. One can be a business owner actively and a member of the bourgeoisie if they can simply hire someone to manage in their place, but a member of the petite bourgeoisie cannot hire a manager to take their place and still make enough money to survive.

            As for general reading recommendations? You have a lot of paths you can go. I don’t personally recommend going full ML or full Anarchist right off the bat, usually it takes a lot of reflection to pick a tendency. I myself don’t even have a tendency I identify with, as I believe the process towards progress is unique for each country and state.

            If you want a real quick intro: Principles of Communism, by Engels, is an extremely quick read. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein is another fantastic paper. The Communist Manifesto is good, but it’s extremely fiery and usually is better after you’re familiar with Marxism.

            If you want to get a quick intro that breaks more into the theory side (as in, you’ll be more well-read than the vast majority of online leftists with little effort), read both Value, Price, and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital by Marx. They are condensed and simplified versions of what Marx greatly elaborates on in Capital, his seminal masterwork.

            For Anarchism, An Anarchist FAQ is a good starting point. Note that Anarchists usually align with Marxists on analysis, but not on strategy.

            There’s also topics like Syndicalism, Market Socialism, the idea of Reform vs Revolution (Rosa Luxembourg has a good paper on that), and more, but those are fantastic bang for buck reads.

            If you still want more, you can always read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and The Conquest of Bread, the former for Marxism and the latter for Anarchism.

            Hope this helps! There are tons of YouTube videos as well that simplify Marxism as much as possible.

      • pbbp [tous, any]@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        We’ve had capitalism for millennia

        No we haven’t. The historians that think capitalism started the earliest place its birth in the XIVth century. I think you’re confused about the definition of capitalism.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s come and gone throughout the millennia, like certain pieces of knowledge. Eratosthenes very accurately calculated the circumference of the world in Ptolemaic Egypt and later on people thought the Earth was flat (and some morons still do). As for capitalism, look at prehistoric societies using shells as currency. What is that currency for?

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices

        It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem

        Hmm, I’m trying to remember what economic system both these countries have… Let’s call it “Bappitalism”. And if the economic model is so powerful that it influences the governmental one (lobbyists, military spending, etc), then yes, that is a problem.

      • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Capitalism is not millennia old. Capitalism (as commonly defined) only stared to take root after the black death (1350ish) flipped feudalism on its head. Suddenly the free and unfree peasant class had some control of their own destiny and could sell their skills to whomever they wanted at whatever price they could get. Serfs could declare themselves free. Land was often up for grabs.

  • Leraje
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    9 months ago

    Capitalist governments are pro-finance, not pro-people. Totalitarian gvmts (China etc) are pro-system, not pro-people. They’re just different ways of maintaining classes of people who control the power/finances.

    There’s always been an uber-rich elite, all the way from the first tribal chieftain or Pharaoh or whatever until now and there’s always been a huge underclass of the rest of us. The first law of any hierarchy is to protect the people at the top.

    What we see today (in Westernised countries) is the natural, logical progression of economics driven democracy. Economic theorists say wealthy people create wealth by purposefully distributing it via jobs etc but in reality they do everything possible to minimise the loss of what they see as their money by abusing labour laws, privatising everything, trying to kill unions, creating convoluted laws to protect their fortunes, avoiding taxes and hiking prices up to the point most of us are just about surviving with enough carrot to ignore or pretend we don’t see the stick.

    And we’re willing participants in that system. We know this is happening but we’re dazzled by lotteries holding out the chance to join the rich, promises of work making us rich and a media which lionises the elite as some kind of fabulous aspirational status to the point we have people on social media faking a rich lifestyle for internet points.

    The uber rich believe they’re better than us and our acquiescence with this system really means we agree with them.

    • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree broadly with much of your assessment of history and many of the problems that bely current western society. The rich might be exploiting capitalism to their benefit but a capitalist system with proper regulation will always be better (in terms of Quality of life and freedom) for larger groups of people Than a planned economy.

      • Leraje
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Possibly but I can’t think of a time that’s been attempted, let alone successfully implemented. Capitalism always (it seems to me) ends up morphing into a system to protect wealth and the wealthy. They would never, ever allow ‘proper regulation’ (by which I assume you mean regulation to protect workers as much as the rich) to happen.

        Capitalism isn’t a national thing - its global - there’s always going to be places where what one country forbids another country allows. All a rich person or company has to do is transfer their base of operations there to circumnavigate most laws and pay lip service to the laws of the countries they operate in. Look at Amazon or Starbucks.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Planned economies were the means to the end not the end. Basing it around authoritarian, suppressive, dictatorial government is what made it the end. That said, apart from freedom of speech issues. Capitalism struggles in most aspects to truly be better, even at its best. Because capitalism ends up authoritarian and suppressive as well. Those with all the wealthy and resources don’t tolerate those who are against their theft.

        We should be moving past both.

        • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Okay, but what does a system look like that moves past both? How do you ensure people get resources if you don’t want capitalism or a planned economy?

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            By implementing the thing Marxist-leninists were loathe to implement despite giving a lot of lip service. Actual communism. Not the Engles lenin variety. But the kind Marx spoke on. The thing to remember is that the Soviet Communist party was as communist as the national socialist party of Germany was socialist. Which is to say neither of them were.

            This of course all starts with actual large scale engagement. We absolutely need to change the voting system etc as a start. For all the flaws and problems of the founding fathers, the fact that they saw us needing to largely rewrite the Constitution every few decades, let alone every few hundred years was not one of their flaws.

            Then we need to uncap the House of Representatives. That’s a century overdue. Followed by abolishing the electoral college. Then reforming the house, Senate, judiciary and even the concept of the presidency. Basically take as many steps as necessary to make things as democratic/granular as possible. Dilute power.

            One of the other important things we could do is abolishing the concept of private property. Private property is little more than theft. Allowing the wealthy to horde resources to the detriment of everyone else. If you own a home, you should be living in it. It shouldn’t be some sort of an investment that you never spend time in. Used for speculation on markets etc. Replace private property with something much more sane like the more limited concept of personal property. As in property, a person would actually use themselves. Tying legal fines and fees to a person’s income and wealth along with impartial enforcement is another good start.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Really? What kind of tyranny would increasing democracy while reducing concentration of power cause? Lol I’d really like to know.

                • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  There’s a reason the people who wrote the Constitution decided upon federalism as our form of government. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This concept is especially important as the urban majority seeks to assert its ignorant tyranny on the rural minority these days.

                  The United States isn’t a single government like most non-federal nations. There is plenty of democracy in our local and state governments, and we have our bicameral Congress which accounts for both the equality of the states, no matter their populations, as well as the inequality of the states, taking into account their populations. Remove that equality and you will be unable to get enough states to ratify your new constitution.

    • Xavier@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Thank you for this excellent writeup.

      A lot of mistakes/repercussions was readily documented beforehand and could have been avoided by proper regulations (even by not removing sane ones such as the Glass–Steagall legislation).

      Moreover, Climate Change is affecting a larger and larger part of the stochastic increases in instability: from extreme localized weather and regional aberration to global temperature anomaly affecting every part of the planet differently.

      However, we live in a world whereas bombastic contrarians are lauded, even elevated to positions of power or at the center of important decision making processes. No wonder we keep being surprised by avoidable disasters.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    9 months ago

    You see it all started when some dumb motherfuckers decided to leave the relatively plentiful African Savannah for the dead-land that was the desert. Then they had to invent agriculture and it was all downhill from there.

    • Phoonzang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      “Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen the argument made that there was no mental illness (non phyiso-neurological, I suppose?) And therefore civilization is worse per se.

      I mean… animals, disease, murder, rape, starvation, hydration… but still not living in the same ongoing trauma anxiety state of today

      There’s no objective “answer” to this, just sharing an idea I’ve seen

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    9 months ago

    The question “Why has the world gone to shit in the past 5 to 10 years” has routinely been asked every five to ten years throughout history. It’s largely due to the perceptual biases of the human mind.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s true, but the information age allows us to be more keenly aware of problems that aren’t just local. Our new ability to be online has contributed to an uptick in mental health issues.

      Fortunately, being able to shine a spotlight on problems in the world also puts pressure on us to improve. We do have issues like financial inequality and global warming that have recently gotten worse, but if you look at trends like violent crime, illiteracy, global hunger, extreme poverty, child mortality, or deaths to many longstanding diseases, it is hard not to realize that we’re actually collectively doing a good job of making the world better.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        Non-Capitalist societies face entirely different issues, usually due to lack of development. They don’t quite face the same issues of enshittification that developed Capitalist countries are currently seeing.

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    9 months ago

    In the UK, 14 years of Conservative government has really made the rot grow.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Y’all have been going hard at Americanism for a minute now. I remember the beginning of the new world media thinking, “oh shit, there as obese and decrepit as us”

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    9 months ago

    Shareholder value. Companies are cutting everything they can to increase stakeholder value: wages, quality, support, ownership, etc.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Of course, neoliberals don’t actually believe in neoliberalism, they profit off it’s failure.

      If you give a rich person even more money and it never trickles down, you just gave a rich person money. If you’re claim companies will regulate themselves and they don’t, you just gave companies the freedom to do exploitative, dangerous things in search of bigger profits.

      If neoliberalism actually delivered on any of its promises, neoliberals wouldn’t support it.

      It’s nothing more than a book of pre-made lies that sound plausible enough for a press conference and signal to other neoliberals that their feeding trough is being filled.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, but him writing that op-ed in the NYT popularized it to the degree that it became an explicit goal of pretty much all corporate leadership people from that point on.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think the enshitification of the Internet was sort of just what happens to everything once it gets monetized. It was already happening before COVID.

    On the other hand - when I was growing up, my city was rough. So much violent crime, bands would not come here, it was notorious. Now? No. Violet crime has decreased sharply, my kids grew up in a different world than I did.

    Jobs haven’t become less secure, or at least not in my experience, that change happened in the 1980s, and it’s been about the same since.

    Everyone is broke because of Ronald Reagan, for lack of a better way to explain it. Deregulation. Workers have gotten ever more productive without getting their cut of that increase in productivity and this is the endgame of that trend.

    • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The rise in interest rates meant easy money dried up for corporations. They all had to “monitize” at the same time. That’s why enshitification happened everywhere at the same time. Things are easing. Enshitification will slow down.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it is the natural result of capitalism, that’s what happens when you let it run. The system makes it inevitable.

      • butterflyattack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, this is why capitalism should be treated like a dangerous dog and kept on a short leash. It can kind of work out for a while when a government restrains it, ensures that legislation exists and is enforced to protect workers, the environment, and consumers. Strong unions are a good sign. This never seems to last though, because the governments get bought eventually.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich. Is this a sarcastic meme or is this like shaming ‘welfare queens’?

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          “The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich.” - Yes, absolutely! The parasitical rich benefit most of all! All the more reason to abolish the host - abolish the state! When the poor have more opportunity to enter the market, due to the abolishion of the state and it crony class, then the free market can raise the tide for all leaving the need for charity far less. There will be no constructed dependent class. There will be a rising again of mutual societies, unities etc that benefited the poor before gov coopted those services.

          • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I agree we should abolish the state but you imply markets to help the poor, do you envision a capitalist structure without a state? What would stop the current hoarders of wealth from continuing their dominance and creating an even more unequal corporate feudal state?

      • Ashelyn
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        nice meme, bold of you to assume however that all rich people don’t take all the money from the state they can get their hands on

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s is on the graph. But it neglects the soft benefits of government that disproportionately help the rich: like the expensive police state that keeps them from the guillotine.

          • Ashelyn
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Ah but if you ask this guy that’s because of big gubmint meddling in an imaginary, utopian free and fair market

            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you ask me there is no utopia - but there is the attempt to minimize away coercion & manipulation. It is completely Utopian to think you can create an all powerful political class and not expect exploitation by psychopaths and sociopaths.

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          ALL rich people? That would be quite the assumption! Many rich are parasites that use regulatory capture, artificial cartels, lobbying, bribery, threats etc because the state exists. Other rich have attained great value by giving the world much value. Don’t let envy eat you away!

          • Ashelyn
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Do you think they would be unable to form their cartels if the state was abolished? Pray tell, what’s to stop them from doing so?

            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The question should be who will enable their cartel without the state law enforcing it? What is to stop them get a large share of the market - cartel status? Well, their competition providing better goods and services!

              • Ashelyn
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                But what is there to stop them from simply hiring a private militia to kill their competition? The NAP?

                • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  NAP, aka respect for private property rights. If a society does not respect the NAP then it is a society based foremost on the threat of violence. What is government - the threat of violence - the threat of force. So, if a society allowed private militia to kill competitors you would end up with a gang ruling over others - you know - like government. So, yes you need a society with respect for private property rights/NAP. Would all people be peaceful? Heck no! Does this mean there will also not be private institutions that uphold the law - uphold respect for private property rights? Of course! People will still need security, decision making and justice! A peaceful society with respect for the NAP would NOT allow a private militia to violate others rights! Business (in the absence of government favouritism) survives on good products, services and reputation. Sending a militia against you opponents does not do well for your reputation! So ultimately you have a choice - government, which is an involuntary institution with a monopoly on force and rule making that serves the elite to the detriment of others OR A free society with respect for private property rights that is more decentralised and snuffs out any trouble makers.

  • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    Are you American? Because I seem to recall between five and ten years ago a particular event that changed the way we ran a lot of the government.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      People underestimate the depths of the fuckedupedness of practical every day functioning regulating govt shit as a result of it