- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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?
Removed by mod
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.
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--~A
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, the stock market is doing great and it it possible even for those that don’t have millions to take advantage of that.
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.
Hence why the government should strive for as open economy as possible, so there is competition in the market and so the wages go up. Or if the government is not capable of doing that, they can move.
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.
Taxing corporations is of course needed. However, you cannot do it in a brutal way. Oftentimes higher taxes result in higher prices of their products and that will be eventually paid by the people.
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…
Considering the price of certain goods, this is extremely low.
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…
Let’s say cars such as McLaren F1 and Ferrari 250 GTO.
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.
That would be a very much communist way of doing things. Do I need to explain why communism didn’t work, doesn’t work and won’t work?
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.
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…
But why should the person be limited? If they are capable of achieving that amount of wealth, why should we limit them to 100 million and give the rest to the government. I am not necessarily convinced the government would spend the money wiser…
Edit: Better approach would be to sanction certain useless activities they practice such as using a plane for 100 kilometers, etc.
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
That would be so communistic. I agree their taxes should be higher but definitely not 100%.
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%.
That also won’t work. Imagine someone has now 40 billion and this law comes into effect. Pretty much they would have to get rid of 39 billion. What would they do? Move it to their company and problem fixed. Instead of people having luxuries, you would end up with huge companies owning these.
“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.
I don’t necessarily see Elon’s billions harm me. I see that limit can be limiting when the individual wants to buy, let’s say, a company.
That’s why I see a hard limit like this wrong.
Far better approach would be to sanction shenanigans like private flights for 100 kilometers, uselessly huge yachts, etc. These luxuries actually make my life worse. They fuck up the air I breathe.
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.
I get your point but that would be genuinely impossible to implement it.
Imagine you would have to know how to bake before being able to buy a flour. Monitoring what can/cannot people buy based on their profession does not make a lot of sense.
Also, the person didn’t have to go through the interview process but he had to go through the process of earning that money.
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.
Well yes, such a team would suck and they would loose all matches. Just like a company would collapse if a billionaire chose to run a business he has zero clue about.
But it’s his money. He would lose it and I think he should be free to lose his money. And that’s the beauty of free market. If you are cunning, you win and if you are an idiot, you loose.
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?
Basically a system where the society is classless there is common ownership of property.
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 $4M in 2023. What a fuckin asshole.
I wonder what his advice would be on other topics.
“Man, I wish I could buy a house so that I have a stable living condition and a roof over my head.”
Asshat: “A cardboard box on the street seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you’re asking for! I sell them, give me money!”Next time he complains about something, we should give him similar advice.
Asshat: “Man, I wish I could own a yacht like the other rich guys in my golf club.”
Us: “This rowboat seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you’re asking for! I sell them, give me money!”
Eat the rich
Plenty of meat on those bones.
And the marbling!
It’s to
diekill for
So I’m not against eating (or better yet taxing) the rich, but if this article talks about the 1% global/worldwide, you’re likely in that 1%. The cutoff is like anyone with a job that makes 60k$ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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…???
Because it was a private organization, not a government organization. Its violent actions could be considered state-funded terrorism, but not state violence itself.
It’s not recognized as such
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
Ionno. Anybody near Los angeles wanna learn carpentry together?
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
Absolutely disgusting. And conservatives are itching to cut taxes on the wealthy even further.
