The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion
2y 2mon ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in news from www.cnbc.com
Key Points
- The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
- All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
- Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”
The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.
The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.
While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.
We have to take back that wealth. Right this is the reason why we have not the lifes we deserve. That are the funds that were siphoned off from our society. The people created this worth. Not some guys at the top.
Correct. This is the stolen education of our future generations. This is the stolen lunch’s of our children. When does America wake up? I guess it takes physically seeing it happen. We are gonna be so down trodden before someone steps up it seems.
No, don’t you see the real issues are trans people and some other random social problem Fox News tells conservatives to get in an uproar about.
Why we can’t have nice things.
Inflation is how you get fucked. Get off the train, buy deflationary assets
Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.” When consumers and investors see their stock holdings soar, they feel more confident spending and taking more risk.
I somehow suspect that this thing about the wealth effect is total and utter bullshit.
Just like trickle down economics.
What's crazy is the reason people believe in it, is total coincidence.
Bill Clinton thought it was a good idea and republicans just implemented it wrong, and then when he was president the dotcom boom happened and everyone gave credit to Clinton's policy. It stopped being a conversation on if it worked, and became how best to implement it.
Like when Biden did the "child predators" bill, it wasn't harsh punishments that got crime under control, it was the normal effect of banning leaded gasoline 20 years earlier. But we're left with two "tough on crime" options even though that approach just doesn't work.
In both cases it's reminiscent of cargo cults, a good thing happened, so we just repeat what we were doing when it happened and expect the good thing again.
But with how long political careers are and how slow science moves, by the time we can prove it, they've built huge careers off the false assumption they had something to do with it. For them to admit they've been wrong, they have to realize they spent decades doing the wrong thing and while they had good intentions they've been causing harm.
That's a big ask for anyone, but especially for someone whose over 60.
So they ignore all evidence and double down even harder
That’s a big ask for anyone, but especially for someone whose over 60.
Interesting that you reference Bill Clinton, because he is actually on record on realizing some stuff he did was the wrong choice. Specifically the idea of treating food as commodities and not a human right. Not that that invalidates your point, just an interesting note.
"Food is not a commodity like others," Clinton said. "We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves."
Clinton was 61 years old in 2008.
Uhhh...
I mean it's good he's admitted to some mistakes.
But I really don't see how African food subsidies applies to domestic economic policy....
Uhhh...
The US drives how the world economy works, and literally bullies other countries into how it wants it to be. We exported "trickle down economics" and other bullshit ideas to the whole world, and Clinton's Presidency had its hands in all of that. The reason we were able to export such policy is because it seemed like it was working domestically and worldwide, so the Clinton administration was driving a lot of what happened in worldwide economics as well as domestic economics because of the same cargo cult.
I really was only pointing out that he managed to make statements about it after 60. I actually think it's easier for these folks to admit it as they get older. See: every US Republican who turns around to criticize the party after they retire from politics.
He just said it was a bad idea to hamstring African food production as a requirement for them getting aid...
That was a terrible decision, and he has admitted that.
But it has zero to do with trickle down economics, and was in no way what he built his career/legacy after.
Like, did you just Google "Bill Clinton apologized" and grabbed the first link that want about blowjobs?
What?
I thought it would have been obvious I was referring to the Monica Lewinsky incident...
But I'm sorry, it's clear I'm not able to communicate to you in a way you understand.
I'm not confused, I know exactly what you were referring to. You've decided to ignore half of what I said because you think I'm praising Clinton.
Do you usually argue with people that are in general agreement with you?
whose over 60.
Who's. Whose is for possessive, like: whose beer is this? It's the guy whose car is outside.
Its especially bad when someone like Alan Greenspan admitted to being wrong but the cargo cult continues.
Of course its easier to look for correlations because finding actual causal relationships often takes a life's work.
I don't think that is a meaningful metric. The least wealthy 50% should be spending money on necessities like food and housing. If someone without thousands of dollars in discretionary cash said "I'm going to start investing" I'd call them a fucking idiot.
They mean spend on more stocks. Which makes the economy grow. Not spend on goods and services.
The economic models don't include distribution.
Economy is doing fine. Eat your dirt, peasant.
The stock market and bank-bonds are how factories buy more equipment so that peasants can run that equipment (ie: more jobs).
Farms don't run on peasants alone today, they need fertilizers, tractors, combines and other machines. These machines cost money, and the easiest way to raise money for such machines is from the stock market. (IE: sell stock, buy machines, distribute profits from those machines back to the shareholders). Shareholders then buy more stock from more companies, and the cycle grows.
Now maybe its a bit consumerist to be overly focusing on our production + consumption. But there's a good reason people talk about it: its the core of our economic growth strategy. Encouraging the "peasants" to participate in this through 401k plans (tax-advantaged accounts that encourage stock-buying) is one trick we have, albeit flawed but its one of the better plans that we got.
Of all methods for managing food production, capitalist free markets are one of the worst. Farmers must purchase everything to grow the crops, including the seeds and machinery. The machinery for modern farming alone costs $500k when 40 years old, used, and broken. If a large area, say the Midwest, has extremely fertile land capable of growing most crops then farmers will incentivized to purchase the machinery to grow a crop that is profitable in the moment. See the problem yet?
The farmers will then be financially forced into continuing to grow that crop, even if it's no longer profitable to do so. The government then needs to provide assistance to these farmers: subsidies, research into utilizing thousands of tons of a single crop, exporting most of the crop grown, etc.
Due to the free market, farmers in the Midwest started growing corn because it was profitable during and after WW2. Now the Midwest grows seas of corn and soybeans, because government subsidies mean that growing any other crop is an extremely risky and very expensive. The market needs to hold for multiple years to pay for the seeds and machinery, because everything about farming is expensive. Rather than take the risk, farmers use the machinery they have to purchase the subsidized crops we don't need because they need money to buy food that was imported rather than grown locally.
Of all methods for managing food production, capitalist free markets are one of the worst.
There's a few great leap forwards that suggest otherwise. Government mandating farming (or a lack of farming) also leads to problems.
For better or worse, today's farming relies upon very expensive equipment to reach the necessary yields. It doesn't matter what system of government or markets you use, you cannot get around the $Million+ equipment needed for today's farms.
The only question remaining is how do you fund such equipment? Capitalist markets provide us the shareholder + bondholder as two classes of investors. Bonds require a %yield paid ever year, while shareholders are largely content with (realistic) promises of future profits. If shareholders think one kind of crop is better, they will invest their money into different companies or equipment. If one kind of crop (and equipment for that crop) loses value, then shares will drop, shareholders will stop investing, and the shareholders will move on to better profits.
Just a few years ago, I saw shareholders get together to give Elon Musk $5 Billion to build the Nevada Gigafactory. For better or worse, shareholders here in USA are excellent at raising money. Now the decisions of shareholders (ex: trusting Elon Musk) are suspect. But no one can deny the huge efficacy at raising billions of $$$$ at a time with this methodology. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tesla-tsla-increases-secondary-public-185506659.html?_fsig=mgd.tScfuG49PuaFrUFmzA--%7EA
Now... shareholders are fucking stupid. That's the problem. But at least there's a lot of shareholders, so some shareholders are going to make the right decisions. And some smart shareholders might be smart enough to invest into the correct things (ex: an underrated crop), leading into greater profits.
Sounds like you're speaking off of ignorance. Farm collectivization has led to some severe famines, but after the collectivization was completed those nations rarely saw food insecurity. China still hasn't had major food insecurity since being collectivized. I think there are ways to prevent that from happening, because it hasn't happened in every country that collectivized the farmland.
Stop trying to force things into terms of monetary exchange, because it doesn't fit for everything. The government can provide the machine, since the US has monetary sovereignty (doesn't owe a lot of debt to other countries) in a fiat currency. This means that as long as the federal government has access to the labor and resources, it can afford to do so by issuing debt to itself and paying it off with the next year's run of fiat currency.
Now, it's impractical and wasteful to manufacture all of the different combine heads for all of the different crops that could be grown by every farmer. Establish a library of sorts where farmers can utilize these machines without cost, and can be repaired without downtime (by using a different one in good repair while the broken one is fixed). Food can then be grown and distributed locally and based on need. This will also reduce overproduction and reduce emissions to transfer food. It also makes every place more resistant to natural disaster and disrupted supply lines.
Sounds like you’re speaking off of ignorance. Farm collectivization has led to some severe famines, but after the collectivization was completed those nations rarely saw food insecurity. China still hasn’t had major food insecurity since being collectivized. I think there are ways to prevent that from happening, because it hasn’t happened in every country that collectivized the farmland.
China imported $104.6 billion in food alone just last year, mostly from the USA.
They're not the example you think they are. They are increasingly reliant upon imports (and USA's capitalist system) for food security.
Now there's plenty of downsides to capitalism. But collecing fucktons of money to fund $Billion ventures is one of the good things that capitalism does exceptionally well. You're arguing against literally Capitalism's greatest strength here. Go poke a hole at all the other problems capitalism causes, you aren't going to make progress on this front.
BTW: China's increasingly grown capitalist themselves, reliant upon huge bonds and stock markets to raise funds like the USA does. The debate is over, capital markets are widespread even in former Soviet Bloc's and former Communist countries. And its been like that for decades.
Please read what I said again. The whole thing. I'm saying that the federal government of US doesn't need to raise any money at all because of modern monetary theory.
It sounds like you just want US Government to nationalize John Deere and take over the production of tool equipment.
If there were no innovation happening (ex: Boeing situation), I think you'd have a point. But my understanding (I'm not a farmer, but just someone looking outside in), it seems like farm equipment innovation continues to skyrocket. IE: As bad and awful as John Deere is, they are doing their primary job of innovation and building new equipment.
I come from a Case family, so I'd rather they nationalized Case IH lol
On a serious note, we don't need to nationalize the companies that make the machinery to solve this issue. There are many different methods (even in socdem ideologies) to solve this problem created by capitalism. Personally I think farmers should organize amongst themselves to collectively manage farmland and machinery. I don't think we'd need to nationalize one of those farm equipment companies, we'd just have to abolish intellectual "property". Then the machinery can be made and improved by anyone, because we don't need free markets to innovate.
I'm absolutely for right-to-repair laws. I don't think patents are full evil, but they absolutely need reform. Copyrights should likely be weakened as well.
So I don't know about "abolishing intellectual property", but I can meet in the middle: I can agree that patents have become stupid as the patent office no longer can keep up with the pace of inventions and fairly evaluate who is, or isn't, deserving of patents. Reforming our country to this new reality (ie: that patents are unfairly, and inconsistently applied) is absolutely required.
The agricultural sector should be subsidised instead of relying on the stock or the futures or commodities market to survive.
And this whole free trade agreement bullshit should stop.
There's the joke. Agriculture is both subsidised and highly capitalized.
Now what?
tHe EcOnOmY iS dOiNg GrEaT
No, the stock market is doing great at making the rich richer. The economy is fucking broken. On purpose. The crushing of the working class to enrich the 1% is capitalism working exactly as intended.
I’m sure the wealth will trickle down any moment now. Been waiting about 40 years now. Must be happening soon.
It only trickles down in blood, dear. And only that you shed. Kill your masters, kill for your masters, or die for them. Those are your options.
And no one will listen to you because America has a stake in the stupidity of its people.
Some much computational energy and human talent is wasted on finance coming up with imaginary and derivative products that do nothing but make rich people richer.
It’s nothing but speculative wealth that doesn’t actually exist, but the federal government prints bonds to underwrite this garbage. Then morons talk about how the feds print money that cause inflation, but are too stupid to realize why.
Thank you! Economy is just who does what work and how we hand out the fruits. Money is just a bullshit abstraction they introduced.
We need to reset ownership. If it doesn't work for you, burn it down. Its what they do.
Most people don't have any money to invest at all, much less enough money to safely invest to live on comfortably. Most people live paycheck to paycheck just hoping nothing major comes up like a sudden illness or broken car.
What? Open for whom? Competition between who?
Not really. The stock market doing great is the result of low interest rates, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporation, and the recent covid money printing. All of that money, that the wealthy hoard, needed somewhere to go and it went into assets like stocks and housing.
The solution is to tax the corporations and wealthy. Take that money and put it back into society. For example, by fixing our infrastructure, funding our schools, and medicare for everyone. The beauty of being early in this hyperinflation cycle is that we can make actual policy decisions to reverse course before it is too late.
You are right, but you are going against the narrative of to this post, hence all the downvotes from the angry mob.
We just shouldn't allow individuals to have over a billion dollars, just 100% tax on anything over a billion when combined assets exceed that number. Both because there's no good reason for any one person to have that much money and because as pathetic as American campaign finance laws are it's a legit national security risk for someone to have that kind of money to throw at their pet causes.
I would lower that to $100 million. I don't think there's even a good reason for anyone to be that rich, but if we're going for a crazy upper limit...
I would love to hear which "certain goods" are so expensive that one hundred million dollars is insufficient for a lifetime.
You gotta protect your fortune from inflation...
You mean cars built specifically for rich people that absolutely no one needs to own? Because you probably can't own an indoors swimming pool coated in 24 carat gold and the entire pool filled with water with gold flakes suspended in it for under $100 million either. Who gives a fuck?
Rich people can drive Toyotas and Chevys like everyone else. They could even afford a Porsche.
You're not making a very good argument.
So are you going to limit how plush or high tech cars can be OR limit the MSRP ?
Yes.
Also, if you are worth $100 million, you can literally afford the most expensive cars ever made and still be a multimillionaire.
Now, please explain why anyone in this world needs a $30 million car and why it would be a hardship for someone who would still have $70 million after buying it.
Because those cars bring new technology to the world.
They are vehicles for innovation.
They inspire people involved in making that car to be better at their jobs, to push the envelope.
Wealth does not trickle down, but technology does.
And if you want to put a legal limit on innovation and invention, thats an issue.
What innovation did that $30 million car bring to the world? Please explain specifically what technology trickled down.
And you still haven't explained why it would be a hardship for someone with $100 million to spend $30 million of it on a car. Please explain that too.
One off the top of my head, the passing material science down from race cars into production quantities (albeit low but then into bmw and benz, then into sport models etc.) benefits to average drivers. More specifically, brake pads. Thier effectiveness and durability are so much better than 30 years ago. save lives all the time, and everyone is driving much faster and braking later.
I never spoke up on individual wealth and/or income. Pro UBI in fact. But you still need to incentivize learning, innovation, and development somehow. And right now we use money for that mostly. Or stock options, crypto, etc. Drugs, sex, power, indulgences have also been used historically.
My thrust is that limiting intellectual advancement is stupid.
I asked about that specific car. You didn't answer me.
That isn't even remotely the same as communism. That is capitalism with an upper income limit.
You don't have some people earning $100 million a year and others making $25,000 a year under communism. That's only possible in a capitalist economic structure.
Your understanding of communism is on par with that of Joseph McCarthy.
No it isn't.
You actually think if people worth $100 million getting taxed at 100% above that $100 million equals socialism or communism? Really?
Either people have unlimited income or its communism?
It is in no way the same idea.
Communism is about the workers controlling the means of production and distributing things according to people's needs. This has zero to do with that.
I mean it's not a secret what communism is, so I don't know why you don't know what it is, but here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Also, Karl Marx wrote extensively on the subject. Believe it or not, limiting upper income levels was not something he ever wrote about. Probably because that wouldn't even be a thing in a communist society.
No, that has nothing to do with socialism either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The whole idea of income requires capitalism. You don't seem to understand that basic fact.
It's almost as if they weren't actually socialist countries.
Next you'll be telling me that the elections in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are unfair, which is why we shouldn't have democracy.
I don't know, maybe because just because a country calls itself something doesn't mean it actually follows that ideology?
Believe it or not, the National Socialist German Workers' Party were also not socialists.
But I do enjoy how you keep ignoring the actual definitions of these words and instead are going with what countries do.
It's oligarchy disguising itself as socialism. If the people at the top are far richer than the people at the bottom it is neither socialism nor communism. Period.
Capping income at an upper limit is also not communism or socialism. It is still capitalism.
Now that we've straightened that out, maybe you can explain why anyone needs to be worth more than $100 million.
Imagine you have 200 million and you want to use 100m to build a hospital
This basically never happens. You must know this. People that rich pretty much only care about making more money. The exceptions can be counted on one hand.
And income is not the same as achievements. Elon Musk is not a model of a great achiever. There are people who have done far more to help the world than Elon Musk and are nowhere near as rich as him. Alexander Fleming's work has likely saved billions of lives. Do you think he was getting paid anywhere near that high? Do you think he was worth what Elon Musk is worth? Spoiler: Not even close.
I have no idea why you think wealth is always earned or deserved when it almost never is.
Please stop commenting on politics if this is your level of education on the matter. Communism is absolutely not relevant here, because communism is
a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).
You haven't even begun to understand if you think communism is related to this discussion.
Even accepting the absurdity of suggesting those as "good reasons" to need more than $100 million dollars in a lifetime, fine. You buy both of those and "only" have 30 million dollars to live on for the rest of your life. That's still very comfortable and more than most people's lifetime earnings by an order of magnitude.
If your name is Rowan Atkinson you are going to need several of those McLarens...
I doubt the billionaire will spend that $100 Mil on altruistic endeavors.
Tax shelters, itemizable donations, kickbacks into campaign funds, etc i believe.
Actual large scale altruism? Nope.
If you had a billion dollars and never earned a penny more, you would actually find it hard to spend it all before you die. It could probably fully support several generations of your family. I'm totally fine with saying, "Congratulations! You maxed out the money counter in the game of Life!"
We could give them a trophy and everything
I'd be quite content with 999 million dollars.
Buy your lottery tickets...
Aren't there some billion dollar super yachts out there? There's always a reason for the stupidity rich to claim they need more.
Ahh, boo hoo. I guess they'll need to take out a loan like the rest of us plebians.
Of course, repayment of loans for billionaires is entirely optional. Just raise the overdraft fees of the normies to compensate.
We used to have a super high tax rate on the wealthy (91%) in the past, but it got repealed.
Let your house representative know you'd like that to return.
Make it a million, with an M. Adjusted for inflation after inception, and including stock income. I've been saying it for years. Good luck convincing those in power who it would actually effect to enact it though.
It is possible to become a millionaire without exploiting others in the same way the 1% do. I would find a limit somewhere in the tens of millions more reasonable
Fine, I'm willing to compromise, just so that you don't think I'm a radical or anything. Let's make it 99,99%.
"Raises just aren't in the budget". Yeah, because the guys at the top took it all.
There's an argument that any one person controlling that much money is harmful to everyone else. Above $1 billion what can you even spend the money on?
Private planes don't cost that much. Even a super yacht or the most expensive house in the world cost less. You can buy islands for less.
Once you have a billion dollars you can live off of 4% without touching the principal. You can just blow $40 million every year. No wonder billionaires think they can do anything. They can as long as they don't spend too much.
Edit: I calculated wrong. They can live off 6% to 9% every year, since they will have to spend all their extra money so it's not taxed 100% at the end of the year.
That's $60 - $90 million. Just wasting it every year and replenished by growth the next year. It's essentially risk-free, unless they pull an Elon and lose billions for no reason.
That spending would actually be really good for the economy. I like this idea better now.
Society is harmed because these people can buy up news and TV companies, donate unlimited amounts to politicians, and generally fuck with the economy. No one can tell them what to do because they have so much money.
It seems like an aristocracy, which is very un-American. Once people run out of things to buy, how is their life affected by having more money? It essentially appoints them to a job they haven't earned.
There's no reason why Elon should run Twitter. He has no experience in Social Media. Imagine someone you work with just purchased their position and didn't have to interview or know anything about the field. Would you respect that person? Do you think they would do the job well? It would affect you, the company, and your customers negatively.
Once you have over $100 million dollars, earning money is not a matter of skill. It's an inevitability. Compound interest will make sure you and your family are wealthy for generations, unless you pull an Elon.
What I'm telling you is many of these people are bad stewards of capital. Gilded Age robber barons sucked for many other reasons, but they at least understood their industry. Carnegie or JP Morgan would have slapped most of these nepo-babies across the face.
Imagine a sports team composed based on the amount of money people have. It would suck because people are not chosen based on skill. That's how we're choosing executive leadership in America right now, and it's honestly stupid.
So your point is, you think someone should be able to buy a successful enterprise that's important for society and run it into the ground? And you think that's an argument in favor of billionaires?
I'm saying the opposite. You should not be able to lose more than a billion dollars. Bets like that should rely on the judgment of many investors, hopefully people who have expertise in the industry.
We don't allow doctors or lawyers to practice without being educated and licensed. There need to be requirements for strategically important companies too.
There's no real impact on anyone's standard of living. Literally no one's life is worse off, and the country is better off. What's the downside?
Where did that gap of the median 99%'s assets and the assets of the 1% come from? Could it have come from wages that could have been yours if excess profit was based on how much you contributed to the organization's productivity?
I quit working for the establishment and corporations about 8 years ago. No more.
Could you explain what communism is?
Thanks Reagan, still waiting for it to trickle down you fucking liar.
Milton Freidman is the one who convinced that POS it would work
This POS also taught Milton.
Think we should end all Economists
Nuke Chicago?
No they have really good food and also real people live there too.
Disproportionately well armed real people, which sounds like a solution to me.
So just a tactical one on the campus?
Ask a meteorologist, but that's my only objection. If they didn't want fallout in their backyards, I guess they would've fixed it themselves at some point in the last century.
If I ever get a time machine, I've got a baby to go delete real quick.
The 1% would have hired some other actor...
It should be trickling down any second now. Meanwhile, the Kellogg's CEO is telling people to eat cereal for dinner because they are poor.
Not to mention that per weight beef is cheaper
“Let them eat Corn Flakes” appears to be Kellogg’s CEO Gary Pilnick’s advice to cash-strapped shoppers who are spending the highest portion of their income on food than at any point in the last 30 years.
In an interview with CNBC last week, WK Kellogg CEO Pilnick said the company was advertising cereal for dinner to consumers looking for more affordable options. “Give chicken the night off,” the ad’s cheery tagline reads.
“The cereal category has always been quite affordable, and it tends to be a great destination when consumers are under pressure,” Pilnick said. “If you think about the cost of cereal for a family versus what they might otherwise do, that’s going to be much more affordable.”
That same guy, further known as "Asshat", made more than $4M in 2023. What a fuckin asshole.
I wonder what his advice would be on other topics.
"Man, I wish I could buy a house so that I have a stable living condition and a roof over my head."
Asshat: "A cardboard box on the street seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you're asking for! I sell them, give me money!"
Next time he complains about something, we should give him similar advice.
Asshat: "Man, I wish I could own a yacht like the other rich guys in my golf club."
Us: "This rowboat seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you're asking for! I sell them, give me money!"
Eat the rich
Plenty of meat on those bones.
And the marbling!
It's to die kill for
So I’m not against eating (or better yet taxing) the rich, but if this article talks about the 1% global/worldwide, you’re likely in that 1%. The cutoff is like anyone with a job that makes 60k$ a year and no kids.
According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.” Source
So, yeah, but only if you've been saving your entire wage and paying no tax for the past 15 years.
I was going off this article; https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich
44 trillion would end world… problems.
Let’s END… the… problem.
🍽️ the 🤑
Nice! Good job all. It sucks that our wealth is being harvested by a few psychos but dam we are working our asses off and generating vasts amounts of it. For someone else but still damn, super impressed.
They deserve all their pederasty and cocaine, after such a hard day harvesting our labor.
Meh, it's not all.
It's mostly by not working as a collective and getting rid of more jobs and having a select few work overworked even more efficiently using hyper advanced tools to do so that steal work from previous humans.
You can usually spot them cause they brag about how much more efficient they are now that they microdose on Meth-Lite™ every day.
Also I know people will argue it helps, of course it helps, it's taking a daily stimulant the same way cocaine helped in the 80s. Doesn't make it less true.
I have literally never met anyone that has bragged about microdosing on meth. Meth isn't even legal here (although that doesn't make it uncommon)
Adderall.
How tf do you mix up Adderall and meth? And Adderall is used to treat ADHD, for neurotypical people a clinical amount literally just has nearly the same effects as caffeine or some antidepressants.
Uhh I don't mix them up. But Adderall and Ritalin (whoops not Ritalin) are literally amphetamines. I literally know people who when they run out take "street Adderall" granted they are certainly abusing Adderall because it makes them feel better.
But just cause it's a prescription and used to treat ADHD doesn't make it not an amphetamine. It's a stimulant. It's stronger than caffeine (which people are addicted enough too at the moment that lethal doses have been found in Panera lemonade) and being taken like people took cocaine in the 80s to stimulate and assist in keeping up.
Useful or not, taking Adderall is taking Meth's sibling and praising how effective it is at being a chemical stimulant.
Edit: did you know if you have an Adderall addiction you get treated at the same places that handle meth addictions? Fun little fact.
Uhh I don't mix them up. But Adderall and Ritalin are literally amphetamines.
Buddy that means you are mixing them up because "amphetamine" (alpha-methylphenethylamine) and "methamphetamine" (N-dimethylamphetamine) are completely different classes of chemicals and affect the brain in different ways. Their names look similar because they're both substituted amphetamines, which is a generalized type of drugs that literally includes ephedrine, Wellbutrin, MDMA, Parnate, Ionamin, methoxyphenamine, etc., a LOT of drugs that have extremely different effects and are used for extremely different things. You clearly are uneducated on chemistry if you think those are "basically meth".
But just cause it's a prescription and used to treat ADHD doesn't make it not an amphetamine.
Yeah that's LITERALLY THE GENERIC NAME OF THE MEDICINE. One which has a different chemical structure than meth.
It's a stimulant.
So are multiple very common chemicals, some that we even eat and drink on a regular basis.
It's stronger than caffeine
This is a meaningless statement.
caffeine (which people are addicted enough too at the moment
Wtf does this even mean? How do you rationalize "2 people with heart problems died from drinking caffeinated lemonade" as "we have a caffeine drug abuse problem on our hands"? That is a very naïve take on epidemiology.
that lethal doses have been found in Panera lemonade)
The lethal dosage of caffeine for the average person is around 10,000 mg (about 26 of those full lemonades at once). Those people died because they had heart problems and had no idea the lemonade had as much caffeine as an energy drink, they didn't die from "addiction" you imbecile lol.
and being taken like people took cocaine in the 80s to stimulate and assist in keeping up.
Sorry but this is delusional. Also I don't know if you can tell, but cocaine/crack abuse is still everywhere, it's not like it just went away. Do you get all of your drug information from movies?
Useful or not, taking Adderall is taking Meth's sibling
That is one of the dumbest chemistry takes I've ever heard. "These two drugs have a similar shortened generic names so they're basically the same".
and praising how effective it is at being a chemical stimulant.
What does this even mean?
It's pretty tiring hearing people peddle bullshit like "X stimulant drug is basically meth", clearly having not even a basic understanding of pharmacology. Meth and Adderall have extremely differing intended effects and side effects (in particular, meth has VERY bad side-effects and is far more addictive compared to amphetamines), they literally are just both stimulants (as opposed to depressants, hallucinogens, anxiolytics, antidepressants, or antipsychotics) which is a very wide classification of drug.
I don't know how you turned "everyone microdoses meth these days" into "Adderall is meth" into "we have a fatal caffeine addiction problem" but here we are.
That's a very emotional response, (which I expect, people have a lot of feelings about chemical stimulants)
So firstly, amphetamines are stimulants. All of them. Yes they do slightly different things but it's like saying a red pen is vastly different from a blue pen. Both are still pens, these all stimulate chemical signals and have a high addiction threshold. Funny that you would list MDMA, and Wellbutrin (poor man's cocaine) as alternatives trying to prove they aren't still amphetamines.
And I mean that people are so craving caffeine, that we are adding amounts equal to that of strong energy drinks to standard soft drinks. The addiction is selling a 24oz lemonade that has the same caffeine per volume as the 2oz 5 hour energy. An amount that chemical dependent people find not a problem but that can kill people with heart problems (twice). They aren't dying from their addiction but that of the people who don't get their rush anymore from smaller doses of caffeine.
And yes cocaine use is still prevalent cause people still argue it works to keep them stimulated and helps them get through the day. Like taking other addictive stimulants, say like prescribed amphetamines. I'm just pointing out the parallels of people being addicted to different stimulants and excusing it away as part of the eras current in drug of choice.
It's not a similar name that is important it's the chemical action they have that speeds up chemical signal passing like adrenaline that these amphetamines do. And you are specifically ignoring it so that you can claim it's bullshit on arguments you are making.
You are having an emotional response that you don't want to be wrong about and that's not my concern. In fact it happens every time I point this out and it doesn't change the reality of it at all.
While useful to some Adderall, Ritalin, Wellbutrin, are all addictive chemical stimulants that we have deemed effective in getting a stimulated active populace that can resist fatigue and discomfort better than those not taking it. While it might be effective it does nothing to resolve or slow down potential environmental factors that make it a dangerous long term fix due to addictive nature of it, that don't resolve underlying issues.
I've noticed you completely ignored that people suffering from dextroamphetamine addiction go to meth clinics as Adderall is just amphetamine and dextroamphetamine.
It really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, people actively taking small amounts of a highly addictive habit forming stimulant to get through life at an alarmingly increasing rate. And that's reality. And your emotional response to belittle me does nothing to change that.
That's a very emotional response
Emotions are an inseparable part of being human. Engaging with them in a productive manner is extremely important and does not invalidate an individual's points (emotional vs logical is a false dichotomy that you appear to be using to dismiss them and avoid examining the factuality of your statements). They make some very logical and scientifically-backed points.
(which I expect, people have a lot of feelings about chemical stimulants)
As one who went their entire childhood and most of adulthood without any treatment for ADHD, I think that this statement is correct but not in the way that it appears that you intend it. People with ADHD have well-studied neuro-physiological changes in their brains, as compared to neurotypical individuals. Notably, in the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with administrative thought, including emotional regulation and behavior related task and time management. Things that are extremely important to surviving and thriving in the modern world.
Having experienced going from the struggle of trying to function without treatment and the positive impact that treatment has had in my life, there are definitely emotions associated and that's not a bad thing.
Wellbutrin (poor man's cocaine)
JFC. This is why we can't have nice things. Humans will try to get high off of or screw anything.
"Here's a SNDRI medication with fairly low dependency-forming characteristics that is literally saving the lives of people suffering from major depressive disorders and addictions. Can I have sex with it? Not in a practical sense. What if I cram that shit up my nose or mainline it?"
Whippits are also a thing. They contain milk products. Should we ban dairy and treat people who have milk in their tea and infants like addicts? People ARE going to try to abuse anything. It's a fact of human history. There was even a mesoamerican empire that was united entirely by drugs and tamales.
Many cancer treatments are literally poisons, acting on either characteristics that occur me frequently in cancer cells or lower resiliency against the toxins. They can be used to murder people. Should we ban them and let those with cancer die without treatment to avoid that risk?
You come across as demonizing medications that show low addiction potential in the people who need them to function in a meaningful way in the modern world. Have you ever been treated like a junkie by a pharmacist for trying to pickup your prescription?
It really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, people actively taking small amounts of a highly addictive habit forming stimulant to get through life at an alarmingly increasing rate. And that's reality. And your emotional response to belittle me does nothing to change that.
This statement makes me suspect that you are falling for a reporting bias as well as potential a bias against the existence of documented mental illnesses (I certainly hope that is not the case). In the past, adult ADHD was completely untreated. Prior to research involving brain imaging, it was assumed to be a disorder only impacting children (a great example survivorship bias - those diagnosed as children were often given tools to cope as adults, and those who were not diagnosed had little study into reasons for their negative outcomes). So, the greater number of people being treated with medications for ADHD and major depressive disorder is heavily influenced by these disorders actually being diagnosed and treated, rather than ignored.
Oh for sure to be emotional is to be human, I was simply trying to point it out so we could move past the obvious emotional side of their argument and argue based on facts and not pedantry meant to make me appear wholly uninformed in an area that I do have knowledge in for various academic and personal stakes.
But also yeah I understand that people who have felt supported by these drugs would very much have an emotional response to them. And the fact that they are needed to function no less true for the modern age. But man does it feel insane to be taking synonymous drugs that were taken during war time to keep your gunners alert for air raids to keep up in your work life balance.
And excusing it away by saying their is a perfect version of a brain that needs to be achieved by taking this drug causes an emotional response in myself.
But again I have never suggested a ban or restrictions on any of these items. Go back through the conversation and you will see I don't stoop to tell people we shouldn't have a thing even if it's abused or even if it helps or not. But pointing out the insanity of taking neurologically modifying drug that alters chemistry of your nervous system to survive what should be a better world because of less direct environmental dangers is what I'm trying to point out. And that there are inherent risks with handing out large amounts of these drugs much the same way we later discovered to be true of opioids.
Pain killers are useful, but it can go to far and has fucked up a lot of people's lives with addiction and having experiences they would rather not and it affecting those around them. I point out that people rather blindly or very happily hold up drugs as an incredible cure all answer while either happy to or all to ignorant of underlying issues, and an over-reliance would be negative as well.
This statement makes me suspect that you are falling for a reporting bias as well as potential a bias against the existence of documented mental illnesses (I certainly hope that is not the case). In the past, adult ADHD was completely untreated. Prior to research involving brain imaging, it was assumed to be a disorder only impacting children (a great example survivorship bias - those diagnosed as children were often given tools to cope as adults, and those who were not diagnosed had little study into reasons for their negative outcomes). So, the greater number of people being treated with medications for ADHD and major depressive disorder is heavily influenced by these disorders actually being diagnosed and treated, rather than ignored.
And this is where you lost me as you seem to imply that I'm thinking mental illness doesn't exist, which as someone who suffers from rather severe depression I can tell you I don't doubt the existence of neurological issues, but this idea that it's just all people who are being under diagnosed and that there might not be environmental issues that are at play rising the numbers means you also think that brain chemistry is a thing to be controlled and fixed at will of those with the chemicals to try them out on other people's brains.
I assume likely that reality is as always a mix of multiple directional influences but this concept that just more people are being discovered to have issues is one I find utterly without base as a singular response and the narrowing of a single version of a good brain to be sickening. It goes to far as to feel like wish fulfillment and coping mechanisms for issues that as a whole humanity ignores.
Edit: Also I'm too poor and overworked to see a doctor, so my pharmacologist doesn't treat me like anything as I have never really interacted with one. But I get it, you don't want to feel like you are taking an analogous drug to an illicit one when you are just trying to feel better about yourself but that's an internal thing you need to deal with and respect that it is in fact related to harder drugs.
And this is where you lost me as you seem to imply that I'm thinking mental illness doesn't exist, which as someone who suffers from rather severe depression I can tell you I don't doubt the existence of neurological issues
That is honestly a relief and why I mentioned that I was hoping that I was misreading you.
this idea that it's just all people who are being under diagnosed and that there might not be environmental issues that are at play ...
I do not think that it is likely one or the other but a combination of multiple things. I also strongly suspect that there are environmental issues at play too. With the well-established like between lead poisoning and aggressive behavior (not to mention the slew of other neurological problems), I strongly suspect that we're likely to see similar from microplastics or another widespread exposure that we're not yet aware of. And that's just chemical environmental exposure. Not even touching on harmful social exposures. The high-stress environment of the modern world is extremely harmful to physical and psychological health.
... rising the numbers means you also think that brain chemistry is a thing to be controlled and fixed at will of those with the chemicals to try them out on other people's brains.
I think of it as a spectrum running from "needed to survive without harming self or others" to necessary for harm reduction/mitigation due to neurodivergence that makes functioning in modern society very challenging. It's not that there's an "ideal" neurochemistry or neurophysiology but that there are neurobiological phenotypes and conditions that are either not well-adapted to modern society (or, in some, extreme cases, any society). Use of chemical and other available therapeutic means allows for such individuals to survive or thrive in an environment that is not ideal for them.
But man does it feel insane to be taking synonymous drugs that were taken during war time to keep your gunners alert for air raids to keep up in your work life balance.
Absolutely, it does. Medicine can be a bizarre thing. Similarly, like I hinted earlier, nitrogen mustards, as in "mustard gas" were the first chemotherapy agents for cancer treatment. Mustine (chlormethine) is still in actively used for this purpose.
And excusing it away by saying their is a perfect version of a brain that needs to be achieved by taking this drug causes an emotional response in myself.
Indeed. There can indeed be some denial, etc but, I suspect that a lot of it comes down to defensiveness due to societal issues. When people make a comparison to illicit stimulants, it often comes back to things like the ongoing shortage that has impacted a lot of people with ADHD. The shortage is caused, pretty definitively, by the DEA overcorrecting their enforcement of controlled substance, after they did fuck all about opioids. Amphetamines are a convenient target to "show that they're doing something" because they sound like meth and are used to treat disorders that are either rare or not taken seriously.
Loose enforcement of the past allowed pill mills to thrive and supply the illicit market. Now, they've clamped down, causing measurable harm to those legitimately prescribed. They don't care because they're just in it to justify their budget increases and get camera time.
entirely by drugs and tamales
Living the dream
What in the god damn fuck? Did you just call Wellbutrin, a mostly non-addictive, non-stimulant antidepressant, an addictive stimulant? And did you just equate Wellbutrin, again a non-stimulant antidepressant with no connection to cocaine, to cocaine? Holy shit there's no way. It's literally impossible to get addicted to clinical doses of it, you'd have to be taking an ABSURDLY high, probably illegal, amount over a long period of time to even be able to develop a psychological addiction to Wellbutrin, it's not even close to dangerous unless you have epilepsy or sometimes heart disease. It's actually extremely common to use it in addiction recovery / drug abuse clinics to help patients deal with the neurological affects of withdrawal from other drugs because of how safe it is.
It's also insane that you think "MDMA is an abused drug, so it's the same as meth, also Adderall is meth too". MDMA is a drug with PSYCHEDELIC PROPERTIES. It is figuratively in no way, shape, or form comparable to either meth nor (dextro)amphetamines. You are genuinely delusional making this comparison.
You quite obviously have not read almost all of what I posted. Saying "people with X drug addiction and people with Y drug addiction go to the same clinics, they must be basically the same drug" is possibly the stupidest thing you can say in the context of drug abuse treatment.
The next stupidest thing you could say is that "they increase adrenaline/dopamine/norepinephrine production so they must be the same". Do you know how little that narrows it down? You are now including many antidepressants, anxiety meds, in fact a LOT of non-stimulants and hallucinogens.
I also never stated that ADHD meds aren't stimulants. Where did you pull that out of? In fact I explicitly stated that they are.
You can cry "emotional response" all you want but that does not change the absurdity of calling Wellbutrin an addictive stimulant like cocaine, literally saying that Adderall is meth, and saying drinking 2 panera lemonades on a visit to the restaurant constitutes an addiction and establishing a lethal dosage of caffeine.
I can't even begin to express the absurdity of the take "medicines for mental disorders aren't cures for those disorders so we should get rid of them". That's not even the conversation.
Sorry but you're genuinely crazy. There is absolutely no way you aren't trolling at this point. I could believe you weren't at the "everyone brags about microdosing meth, oh btw meth means all stimulant ADHD medications" because that is a common, and stupid, take by people who don't know anything about drugs. But you've headed in a direction which is just unbelievable.
I can't even bring myself to respond to any more of your garbage anti-science.
Lots of chemicals have relationships like this.
A glass of 10% ethanol - 2 carbons and a hydroxide (OH) - will at best make you slightly intoxicated, that's a strong beer or weak wine. Cut off one of those carbons and you have methanol, now that glass will render you hospitalized and permanently blind at best, more likely dead.
The reality is that for most illicit drugs, there is a medication with a similar structure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10104426/
You are making jumps in logic that I'm not stating. I really don't care. You aren't having a discussion with me either just being upset and jumping through hoops to make me sound even more irrational in your head.
Sorry but linking a study of abuse by a population mostly consisted of people who already have SUDs says absolutely nothing about how addictive Wellbutrin is other than it has some possibility of addiction for people who already have drug addiction issues.
You can literally abuse anything, even mostly or even entirely non-addictive drugs. People with SUDs have even been shown to develop addictions to placebos with no psychoactive properties. You are very poorly educated if you think that this makes Wellbutrin an "addictive stimulant like cocaine".
The fact of the matter is that Wellbutrin abuse is extremely rare and there is no evidence of it being present in populations without prior history of SUDs. Therefore it is almost always labelled by pharmacologists as "non-addictive".
It's even crazier to imply that, because Wellbutrin can be abused, that somehow makes Adderall = meth??? Clearly you thought it was relevant considering you thought it was relevant that I mentioned specifically MDMA (being an addictive drug) and Wellbutrin (being one that could be abused).
Also the original comments literally said "people are bragging about microdosing meth" and when I said I've never experienced that you responded "Adderall". That is just saying that Adderall is meth. There is no logical jumps there, you literally stated it. How do you twist that as not stating that Adderall is meth?
I'm sorry I stated that Wellbutrin (street name poor man's cocaine) was addictive in a way that your pedantry took as singularly chemical dependant instead of just addictive in the sense that people will addictively abuse it as seen by multiple studies but I get it. You are sure no one is abusing it cause your brain tells you, you are right. And why would other people do something wrong. Now get off it.
And Adderall is literally amphetamine and dextroamphetamine which is very similar to the chemical response and dependency that occurs when taking meth. Again with people I know literally taking small amounts of meth when they run out of Adderall because it gives them the exact same feeling. Things I stated before and you ignored to argue against other things I said focusing heavily on addiction to lemonade that I never stated.
I have also never once advocated in this argument that people stop taking anything. People take their drug of choice to get through this world. I'm just pointing out that right now the world has the leaning towards an amphetamine addiction under the guise that prescription makes it better when we know from the opioid wave to not be true. Adderall is highly addictive as it's literally Amphetamine. And I hold to it despite the emotional response of those taking it stating it helps because it's just the actual reality.
Edit: also my original argument was just that people are using hard stimulant drugs even if prescribed it to work harder. Something society started advocating for during WW2.
I have literally never said in this entire conversation that Wellbutrin isn't being abused (even though it is very clearly a non-stimulant and mostly non-addictive drug). I stated multiple times that people with SUDs can abuse it. I just pointed out how absurd it is that you think the ability to abuse MDMA and Wellbutrin at all relates to your claim that Adderall is meth.
An apology that would actually mean something is apologizing for your implication that Adderall is meth. This was never about your views on the effects of medications on society. Prescribed stimulant ADHD drugs, despite having some similarities to meth, are completely different to meth, are not even close to as addictive nor do they have nearly as severe side effects as meth. This, plus the fact that prescription ADHD meds are extremely impure, and even compared to pure amphetamines the effects are significantly neutered.
The drugs that the people you speak of are taking are not comparable to meth, and saying "meth" when you mean "Adderall" or "Ritalin" is literally just an insult to psychiatrists and people who use those medications. People use calling it "meth" as a way to push to mostly ban it like meth.
I know this as someone who has used ADHD medications and has immediate family who have had extremely bad meth abuse problems in the past (I live in Georgia, meth is extremely common here and probably the most abused drug other than opiates) and have used ADHD meds before they developed SUDs (ADHD runs in the family). The effects aren't even close to similar, other than things most stimulants have in common like increased heart rate and kind of similar-ish effects on certain chemicals like dopamine and norepinephrine.
Adderall mostly decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, while meth PUMPS you full of dopamine and also decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, for example. When taking clinical dosages of Adderall as a neurotypical, you'll at most feel more confident in your decisions and like you just drank a bunch of caffeine. Take the same amount of street meth and it's not the same story.
You can complain about Adderall abuse, but substituting the word "meth" in its place is extremely misleading at best and downright disinformation at worst.
And did you just equate Wellbutrin, again a non-stimulant antidepressant with no connection to cocaine, to cocaine? Holy shit there's no way.
And you only refer to the possibility of abuse after I show reports of it. Your multiple times is in a single response. But apparently speaking afterwards and gently agreeing without agreeing is the same as being correct the whole time.
You are coming into this assuming you are correct about the entire argument and swinging the goalposts to match whatever part of the argument you have the most interest in at any given moment in your response. Yes I have been incorrect about parts but you fail to see anything other than you vs me with the only outcome being your total victory.
People love to abuse drugs and potentially harmful ones being simplified into nicer things when they have direct relations to their harder siblings say like a drug that is literally an amphetamine that can spiral into addiction of other amphetamines is not ridiculous despite your insisting incorrectly that Adderall (a prescribed ADHD medication) is absolutely addictive, and has similar affects to meth when taken in comparable doses. People I know swap between them.
I get that you have an emotional attachment to these types of drugs because you take them. I could tell at the very beginning of you arguing with me because it's a pretty common thing to assume incorrect things about stuff you have good feelings towards and you want to feel good about this. But it doesn't make it true.
Is my substitution of Adderall as "Meth" overboard. Sure, of course it is. I use to illicit an emotional response to try and raise awareness of negative qualities so as to shame society into using other drugs with less direct pathways to abuse. I don't care that people get angry about this topic because I expect and want them to because it's open use I wish for people to question taking especially if "neurotypical" so as to dissuade recreational use.
It's a drug literally designed to make you feel good and more alert. It's directly made with amphetamines which are historically not great and it's closest drug you can take available on the market is meth. I continue to disagree with its marketing as safe.
Adderall and Ritalin are literally amphetamines.
This is factually incorrect. Ritalin is a brand name for methylphenidate, which is chemically very different from amphetamines. Both are carbon compounds that have a phenyl ring and a nitrogen two carbons away from it but beyond that, they are very distinct. Additionally, they have different mechanisms of action.
Oh color me correct on that.
Literally not an amphetamine, I'm not entirely sure why I thought they were other than just phenyl ring.
Guess speaking out my ass on that one since I know that it was sold in the same circles as Adderall but looking into you are correct and it's completely different.
All good!
Its an amphetamine. People sober from meth cannot have that shit in the house, they're afraid of it.
It is also all the things you said.
Why do you people keep saying "it's an amphetamine" like it actually means anything? I don't want to have to explain again that generic drug names looking similar doesn't mean they're even remotely the same. Just like how "sodium chloride" has completely different chemical properties to standalone sodium and chlorine.
People with SUDs can't be around medications that can be addictive to people with SUDs. What's your point? This has nothing to do with meth, anyone with a history of drug addictions is heavily scrutinized or just outright denied psychoactive substances, you can be a recovering nicotine addict and many will deny giving you Adderall even if the person has completely debilitating ADD. That's just the nature of drug abuse disorders.
Ive met multiple people who are clean from street meth who tried ADHD meds once and then were, like 'okay I can't have that in my house ever, its too close'.
I think youre attaching a moral dimension to my statement here. I have known (in the past, who were not me) plenty of people who used illegal, or even genuinely dangerous shit to keep their (third person!) mental health some semblance of together.
That's just going to be the experience with nearly every noticeably stimulant drug (and potentially drugs with stimulant effects like weed). It's very much not unique or notable for ADHD medications, especially since ADHD medications are actually mostly not the drug itself (it's packaged in a way to make abuse by those without ADHD or those with SUDs harder).
Okay so idk your pharma background, it may well be more robust than mine, but I'm confident the particulars of how addiction functions IRL are not your area of expertise. all the specific real people I'm talking about are literally always either baked or drinking coffee, unless they're taking a break from one of those to be sure they aren't addicted.
Again, I don't care how addictive it is-if I were going to go after nasty addictive horrible drugs we use for mental health, I'd spend a year screaming about sertraline nonstop before I so much as suggested Walter white should slow down. I'm not suggesting it should be less available (I'm generally in favor of making most things more available).
Its a close relative of some shit we use to destroy ourselves, made slightly safer and dispensed in a buffered pill/capsule so we can stuff people into shitty lityle boxes and call them productive (maybe a better society would use it fir self actualization or sonething) And that's... As fine as anything else in this shit hole.
Again, I don't care how addictive it is-if I were going to go after nasty addictive horrible drugs we use for mental health, I'd spend a year screaming about sertraline nonstop before I so much as suggested Walter white should slow down.
... what?
Its a close relative of some shit we use to destroy ourselves
"close relative" is extremely vague and can mean anything, but a majority of prescription medications have at least one structurally similar illicit drug to them. This is just how chemistry works, different chemical compositions & structures have different effects and, in a medical context, is often the difference between a moderately safe drug and an extremely unsafe drug.
made slightly safer
"slightly" is an understatement, they are much safer, especially considering you can't get even close to recreational amounts and many times people are constantly monitored on your usage because doctors are extremely paranoid that they'll sell them. And amphetamines/dextroamphetamines are not made from meth.
and dispensed in a buffered pill/capsule so we can stuff people into shitty lityle boxes and call them productive (maybe a better society would use it fir self actualization or sonething) And that's... As fine as anything else in this shit hole.
I'm not sure what you're on about, sounds like work culture, but somehow I feel that you're just a little upset towards the government and society.
Youre not addressing my main point here. I have actual human beings who are addicted to one thing that used the topic of discussion once and found it way too familiar, but can use most other drugs relatively safely.
When talking about drugs and what we use them for, governments and societies are not irrelevant.
Affinity for other drugs is very subjective and differs a lot between people who have SUDs and people who don't have SUDs. People who have experienced addiction to one drug will almost always be drawn to other drugs which are relatively similar, even if they're not very comparable in practice. People who have been addicted to hallucinogenic drugs before are significantly more likely to develop an addiction to weed, for example.
They're very different drugs but they both have stimulant effects. A recovering meth addict would likely have an extremely strong reaction to other very different stimulants, like cocaine. It does not necessarily make them all that comparable in practice.
I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I'm talking about actual living people I have known. Some of whom do a wider variety of drugs than me.
I don't know why youre even arguing this so passionately. I don't actually care if it is. If your mental health requires you inject LSD into your genitals, I really don't care unless youre willing to share your hookup, or youre cute enough for me to want to watch.
And here I am terrified to spend a penny.
Maybe the billionaires will buy each other’s shit and we can all just die already and let them play with resources without us.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say. Going to bed for my back to back 16 hour shifts over the next two days.
Good night fellow poors.
"I could hire half the poor to kill the other half."
And in the end, even those jobs were automated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/08/07/flying-sniper-drone-takes-aim/?sh=77de157153fd
You know what's wild...
Very much just a modern version of Samson and some foxes with burning branches tied to their tails.
The whole episteme of ownership we operate under would be a brilliant farce if it wasnt floating on an ocean of blood. Disrespect ownership. That doesn't just mean taking shit (but it absolutely also means taking shit)
Capitalism is working as intended, support ticket closed.
Out-of-control. The USA should return to the 1960's tax brackets.
It's too late. We need to be even more aggressive now to correct the egregious imbalance.
Sadly that wouldn’t have an impact on this. This is just unrealized stock wealth until it’s actually sold afaik. I think we shouldn’t allow people to take out loans on their stock holdings though. Or however it is people like Elon and such get their low risk loans to play with while keeping their money in the market.
The market adjusts.
When Elon was forced to buy Twitter, all those loans came due as Elon Musk had to sell TSLA stock to pay for capital gains, then sell TSLA stock to bring down his margin and stay good, then finally sell TSLA stock to pay for Twitter.
There's no free lunch anywhere. Elon Musk is the kind of guy who takes insane risks (and honestly, its beginning to look like its all collapsing). Yes, USA has a lot of opporunity and we provide a lot of loans for dumbasses to hurt themselves, but that's a good thing in the great scheme of things. Eventually, it always collapses. It does take 10 to 20 years sometimes for the bad effects to build up though.
Or however it is people like Elon and such get their low risk loans to play with while keeping their money in the market.
That was interest-rate policy. Today loans are 10%+ for such effects. Our mistake was keeping rates too low for so long. But that's different than our tax policy.
Thank you so much for the insight. 🙌🙏
1960’s
1960s. Unless it's one year.
deleted by creator
When do we start taking heads?
Be the change you want to see in the world
But it won’t accomplish much, we have terrorism (or freedom fighters depending on your side) as is and the ruling class isn’t swayed
"Terrorism" is a nonsense word. State terror forces who exist to brutalize and terrorize populations into stillness so much like the fucking grave are never terrorists. If I post myself consentually making out with another adult I find hot, I'd be one in like fifteen time zones.
Its nonsense, and if we want to go to the 'real' definition of terrorism; using violence to scare people into your agenda; that's literally all a state is.
Not raking an intentional editorial position on any kind of violence here; just that innocence is no protection, and truth is no defense.
Terrorism is the use of force to achieve a political objective by a group of people not internationally recognized as a state
So Los Angeles is a state? Chicago is a state?
Uh, yeah, those are state entities. They have governments.
But the KKK isnt, because...???
It’s not recognized as such
By whom? I can't tell the fucking difference, its most if the same guys. Explain to me how its not the same thing.
Hell, in various time periods, its been official. The state itself has recognized them, used them for law enforcement, or offered members sweetheart deals during recruitment.
The U.N. is the convention for recognizing statehood
So no state ever participated in a world war?
Do you realize what year it is?
If you want to go back to colonial time then a state was just what Europe recognizes. Which meant that Africa, America, and most of Asia were up for taking. Convention changes
Because it was a private organization, not a government organization. Its violent actions could be considered state-funded terrorism, but not state violence itself.
But what about the times it was literally an organ of the state? That has happened, especially while the Volstead act is in effect. Or when they all take off their badges and put on their white hoods, because basically every cop is in the KKK?
You're stumbling through lots of tautology and appeals to authority (the UN was formed post ww2, did we not have states before then? What about all the cops doing terrorism before the UN existed?) But not actually defining anything.
City states exist
But those are more commonly recognized as part of the larger USA state
But the KKK isn't. Because...???
And why are 'states' special exclusions where we use a different word?
I already answered that the first time you said it
Because when the states came up with the rules they decided to give them exclusions
For states the general equivalent is war crime and the resolution is that the common person that belongs to the group isn’t punished as much as the leaders or people who commit those actions
So the states came up with the special category of state and the rules about being states. That's some crazy bootstrapping. Pure tautology. Does that mean you and I can be states?
Also, lol, someone being punished for war crimes. Such an adorably twee concept.
If the UN recognizes us then yes
People are punished for war crimes but your state has to recognize the ICC and allow a trial
Ionno. Anybody near Los angeles wanna learn carpentry together?
Absolutely disgusting. And conservatives are itching to cut taxes on the wealthy even further.
... But it's the poor mother pulling herself up by the bootstraps, making the perilous journey north to work comparatively-shit jobs to help give her kids a brighter future that is apparently the problem to righties — who, by the way — we all benefit from their cheap labor in the first place...
$20 spent to a person making 100,000/year...
... Is the same as a single-billionaire spending $200,000.
May be unpopular but congrats to all 7 of them
Your comment made me think. Realistically, the top 1% represents tens of millions of people, but I would very much like to know if the top 1% has gotten bigger or smaller with wealth being more and more concentrated to the top.
How does that boot taste
(it was sarcasm) 🙂
That's over 5k per human currently alive.
Wealth tax when?
Taxes are just taking money by force for the common good.
We don't need to wait for Congress to do anything.
Ok hear me out. I just want to do quick maths. The world population is according to worldometer just over 8,1 billion people. So 81 million people make up the top 1%. So this article says they have now 44,6 trillion dollars. So $44600000000000/81000000 is equal to $550617.28 per person in the one percent. So that means if you have more than $550 000 in wealth, you are a one percenter.
I am curious if the wealth of the top % as a value has grown or outpaced the rate of inflation and population growth added together.
The article is talking about the US. (Because of course it is).
So, it's only 3.3 million people, so it's $13.5 million each on average.
So that means if you have more than $550 000 in wealth, you are a one percenter.
No, that's not how distributions work.
If Elon Musk walks into a bar, it's a Nazi bar now. Also, if he walks into a bar with 99 other people in it, the average wealth of everyone in the bar is $2 billion. But, that doesn't mean that the typical person in that group has over $2b in wealth.
The top 1% contains Elon Musk plus about 3.3 million other people, but he skews the distribution considerably. That means the bottom of the distribution of the top 1% is around $6m, and it also includes people like Musk and Bezos who bring the average up to $13.5m per person.
Nit: The population of the US is 340 million, not 3.3 million, but your point stands
They are taking 1% of 330 Million. TIL its now 340.
3.3 million is the number of people in the 1%
3.3 is 1% of 330
You'll be in the top 1% on much less than that. It's still heavily skewed towards the 0.0001%.
Great math!
Global 1% and USA 1% are vastly different things. I wish which one was called out in headline. Based on first chart, this is USA 1%. Makes result of dividing by world population even more wild.
Ok so I am looking at America specifically, they have since the 1928 till now had an inflation rate of about 3,3%. Now the Fortune 400 companies had a growth of 9,9% during that same period. So if a kids parents invests in their name $1350 a month for 18 years, assuming semiannually compound, that would make the kid top 1% globally.
According to Washington Post, that places the kid at top 38.5% in USA
I assume that includes house valuations and retirement savings and stuff which would include a bunch of upper middle class people over 40
Well it seems I made wrong assumptions in my initial calculations. But they are using wealth, so yes house valuations and retirements plus investment. But here is the caveat, you have to minus dept. So if you have houses and cars worth let's make this figure up, $15mil, maybe $1mil in retirement, savings, investment and loose cash you might be worth $16mil to the common people. But if you have let's say $20mil in dept, then according to wealth valuations a homeless person has more wealth than you. Remember wealth estimates like this does not include income and earning potential
OFF. WITH. THEIR. HEADS.
It’s Guillotime™️
Was Reagan in Australia when he mentioned trickle-down economics?
There was a coalition of conservative governments during that time. Thatcher in the UK, Mulroney in Canada and Bon Hawke in Australia.
Even if Hawke was the labour party, he still made significant economic reforms to align with what was going on in the western world.
And don't worry, "endless growth" means that you need to get up bright and early today to make them even more!
Wow, this is great news!! Imagine all the trickle down. 😂 😂 😂
Oxfam released an analysis saying the top 1% got 63% of all new wealth generated from 2020-2022. According to UN analysis the top 10% own 85% of all the wealth.
According to Oxfam, "an annual wealth tax of up to 5 percent on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7 trillion a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, fully fund the shortfalls on existing humanitarian appeals, deliver a 10-year plan to end hunger, support poorer countries being ravaged by climate impacts, and deliver universal healthcare and social protection for everyone living in low- and lower middle-income countries."
Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”
Read: the economy is re-adjusting to cater to the luxuries of the ultra-rich, not to more efficiently fulfill the needs of the vast majority. So we can't even have that little relief now.
That's great! Congratulations to all those wealthy individuals! They prove that hard work does pay off.
Bribing public officials is soooo exhausting
But have you tried being born rich?
Seize the means of guillotine mass production when?
Does anyone know what the wealth of the bottom 99% is?