BurnAphterRead

What's wrong with a massive wave of bankruptcies, exactly? Proper bottom-up restructuring seems to me like a good way to stimulate a more robust economy at the expense of some temporary resettlement pains. Not to mention the erasure of a catastrophically building debt which is largely a product of mass-manipulation driving people to desire things which they do not need which leads them to dissatisfaction and leaves them vulnerable to squeezes which HR takes advantage of with the panopticon and massive insecurity. The culture needs shook't. The status quo is broken. This is just a bandaid to maintain spreadsheets while 99% of people take a spanking for a system that works against the human condition.

We pull gold out of the ground when it is economical to do so. That is to say when the exchange of gold to currency is favorable for extraction, which can also be conveyed to mean that when there isn't enough gold to the demand of currency for gold.

I don't know that the individual is a substantial figure in the patterns of distribution. Sure Suzy took out a $40k loan and is paycheck to paycheck because of it. But that's a very small fraction of the whole. And application of stimulus, while remedying some people's serviceability, gives others the basis to leverage up. As a whole, the system is highly circular, it's where you've got exuberantly large gravity that things start to bend and twist. And estimations in this system are designed to bust. Despite the fact that the whole system is manmade, we know very little. Estimates of oil prices 3 months in the future will be wrong, and nobody can actually predict the closing price of the indexes, let alone individual stocks, so to assume those estimates are even probable is ridiculous.

What I think we need to be considering is the highly concentrated nature of monolithic corporate capital and power. Like, for example, Amazon. The immeasurable value of the exchanges that took place globally for goods through Amazon. And Amazon tends to invest that wealth, which would be a net decrease in "capital entropy", while Amazon nets increased value despite the fact that they don't hold the capital. They do briefly inject a small sum of capital over a wide range of industries, though, like building materials, construction labor, engineering, and etc... But ultimately that money loses velocity, it doesn't have the momentum it needs because everything is so expensive now, and as a product most people opt to leverage.

On that latter part, as a miser of sorts, it's actually far more effective, even in the case of depreciating assets, to leverage. I could've been "educated" by now if I wasn't exceedingly scrupulous in avoiding usury. I spent many years of my life accumulating the relatively meager wealth I did collect and it's only put me at a disadvantage due to the nature of federal grants weighing personal holdings, from which I'm only able to draw in tax refunds, and only a fraction of what the ultimate costs will be it also puts me in a morally precarious position as far as other modes of welfare. That is to say you're dually (and quite possibly triply, with inflation) punished for choosing the "responsible" path of self-funding. To ossify that point, 0% interest increased sticker prices, so now buying big ticket goods comes with interest embedded.

Precisely. I know a lot of people, and I know that a lot of those people all display distinctive disorders of one kind or another. Like alcoholism, or risk-insensitivity, body dysmorphia, depression, narcissism, psychopathy. All normal does is describe the fact they can spin about in place for their social contract quota, once that's over they're all fucked up, in one way or another. Some ways are just less salient than others I suppose.

Fetal imprinting, perhaps. It'd be hard to quantify. But with all the societal shifts occurring around the 70's, economics drastically shifted. I'm not even going to pretend like I know anything about maternity, but with the constant slew of shit the modern human has to deal with, usually something somehow novel, I'd be willing to point fingers at a shift in the baseline hormone profile before during and after pregnancy. Particularly in fetal development. There's undoubtedly research on the effects of elevated glucocorticoid levels in pre-, during, and postnatal development. But that's only one end.

So, this is to be taken with a grain of salt:

A nurse once told me about this. I guess in the 90's(?) or so, there were a lot of children that were cognitively deficient to the extent that they required specialized care and such, but didn't necessarily fall into a category that would allot the parents funding. Lo and behold, autism becomes one of those categories, and the medical industrial complex has no qualms helping families to find funding. Autism is a perfect dragnet, lots of features to latch on to.

Something like that. So maybe a lot of the autism diagnoses fall into the category of "we can't define this, but this family is fucked without the funds, so that's autism."

But I never validated his claims, just food for thought. Good luck in the rabbit hole.

There is no real neurotypical.