Honestly I found it hard to apprehend the meaning of most of the text. This is a failing on my part and something I associate with reading authors like Yuval Noah Harari, it seems to be a combination of my not possessing a context which is assumed, and perhaps a logical progression which doesn't map well onto my own thought processes. Whatever the reason, the result is that the statements appear pointlessly vague and the argument which is being constructed appears to me to be merely a disorganised heap.

A sibling comment did a good job of responding to your question, but I could point to the phrase "a slowly declining society in a weird type of fast growing stasis" as typifying just this sort of (to me) impenetrable description.

> adjusted by the M2 a lot of the financial indicators haven't improved as much as people like to pretend

When you wrote this, did you have in mind particular indicators, people who like to pretend they've improved, how they should be adjusted by the money supply? Did you expect that the reader would find this statement familiar? I'm not a particularly sophisticated follower of contemporary economics, but I didn't have any idea what you were getting at here, unless it was something similar to, e.g. "median household purchasing power relative to the national budget has declined so much that the tax burden today hurts the consumer's quality of life much more than it did in 1960, contrary to recent editorials I've seen in The Economist". However I don't believe you intended such a blunt interpretation, as if you did it could have been stated much more straightforwardly.