zazen

That graph is from chart 8 here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2020/html/ecb.ebart202005_01~7749d3224d.en.html#toc10 Measuring the EU, not the US, but it's still applicable and true - just irrelevant to the point of affordability for essentials. It's measuring consumer goods or durable goods - one of the few categories that have fallen in price due to globalization and offshoring / cheap labor arbitrage. Electronics and gadgets getting cheaper (technological deflation) doesn't mean people aren't being squeezed in housing, healthcare or education - the biggest expenses and investments of peoples lives. Inflation increasing the price of apples or cherry pie isn't going to bankrupt or squeeze people the same way those big bills would - but even then, the fact that people are now financing groceries shows how much they are being squeezed. Depends what definition we want to use but if living standards simply means a increase in access to goods and services or increase in consumption then sure - they have increased, but like you said, at a cost. The question is does that cost eat away at peoples quality of life in the form of mental health, gig economy work to maintain a standard of living a regular job can't etc. This is why we have hustle culture as a phenomena - regular pay isn't enough - people feel the only way out is through extra hustles on the side, or asymetric gains made in a casino economy betting on crypto pump and dumps or bitcoin because the older wealth ladder has shrunk away. People are medicated to their eyeballs too. It's cool to have 100's of ice cream flavors and cheap TVs to brainrot in front of - but it's overshadowed by crushing debt and having to live in perpetual anxiety not knowing how to pay it off and questioning how you'll ever retire. The water quality improving doesn't mean people aren't drowning in water. Yeah I agree - the ROI isn't as strong anymore. But some professions are gate kept due to standardization and credentialism - and those providing those credentials have monopoly as the standard bearers so they can inflate the price and years of education to milk as much out of it. Credential cartelism lol. Also - skills aside (which lets say can be obtained elsewhere) there is a prestige effect and alumni network that you get from these places. They get your foot in the door - although they don't guarantee a strong outcome by themselves today. I went to private Business school - and the people you meet or become lifelong friends with can open doors and provide insight or other connections that would be hard to come by otherwise. Especially as everyone gets older and busier in their lives ie more closed off to giving their time away to new people. For example I have a friend who's in tech and venture capital - grew up in Atherton and has been around that whole scene. He was at the White House recently when Saudi's MBS met Trump as he's been raising capital from sovereign wealth funds in the gulf. Similar to credentialism for certain professions - even venture capital has barriers to entry to get into seed rounds or early stages of investment that are oversubscribed by the time people even hear about them. The internet democratizing education can lift the baseline up, but certain professions are gate kept and create a moat around access to the best opportunities that only widen inequalities. The top 10% live in a entirely different world than the majority. Speaking of tech and AI more generally - I do think they could help bring down costs in health care and education though. Imagine every child getting a personalized AI tutor tailored to them - and then mimicking the social aspects in some other ways that aren't as costly. Housing will be the toughest to handle. Tech deflation provided cheaper consumer goods that elevated peoples lifestyles the past decades. Essentials got monopolized and financialized - education, healthcare and housing. AI and tech breakthroughs will most probably bring down the cost of healthcare and education - not without a political fight from big pharma and academia - but when the costs go down so much it just won't be politically viable to demand extractive profits the way they do. As far as I understand it - housing is the key collateral that holds up the entire Western financial system. The US was on the gold standard before - that placed a hard limit on credit and the money supply (finances). Then the dollar moved off the gold standard and in came the petro dollar and fiat currency - which meant the US could run trade deficits and issue more debt without runaway inflation. Then housing was financialized into a new collateral base via mortgage-backed securities - which scaled the debt even further by turning suburban mortgages into global grade collateral. Real estate being the largest asset class in the world meant insane amounts of collateral to issue debt against. Housing turned from shelter into a asset class - ie got financialized. Each transition removed the old constraint and unlocked a larger credit system. That’s why the system grew so large - gold set limits, oil loosened limits, housing removed limits. As to why that's a issue that will get in the way of bringing housing costs down in the same way other technological breakthroughs might: basically - the value of housing can't deflate like the others because the system depends on their value remaining high - against which they are collateralised for debt. So housing is bidded up instead of built up - its engineered and maintained scarcity to keep the entire system afloat and far away from imploding. Beside that - zoning, NIMBYism and asset holders (boomers) and the real estate industry represent a important and powerful bloc of voters. It's a catch 22 of sorts for the West - particularly the US and UK who's backbone is reliant on housing asset values. And what's worse is that with AI coming to displace plenty of jobs (according to a lot of people apparently) - that threatens the entire system too. Because if incomes go down or away - that threatens house prices - which threatens the collateral upon which the entire system depends. This is why the bankers were bailed out in 2008 and protected instead of the citizens - to protect the system. This is why a UBI or emergency basic income is almost a structural necessity in order to keep the system alive.The hard thing to know is how much hardship will be allowed to occur until they step in to do so. Whats the precedent for that? 2008 showed us citizens got crumbs or nothing. This is the bind that financializing housing causes - or a FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) based economy. The other catch 22 is that the West have no choice but to go all in on AI to maintain tech primacy against China (geopolitics) - but this causing labor displacement means citizens will need to be socialised into a techno-feudalistic welfare system to maintain the system itself - like discussed earlier = asset housing values must remain propped up, which requires incomes. But the problem with that is - the tax base from which that will be funded can only come from the same mega corps and techno-garcs that have influence over the state. And we expect the state to discipline them and close the loopholes from which they avoid tax. Which goes back to our discussion - capital influencing the state vs the other way round as in China - where capital is contained and directed to socialise its gains down to the people. To put it bluntly - do we think capital elites give a fuck .. and does the state capacity exist to exercise control over these parasites? Only incentives will shift them - and the sobering realization that they must work with the state in order to keep the entire platform and system upon which they depend afloat - by maintaining domestic order and preventing a revolution from burning their asses. I heard someone say - to beat China the West will need to become more like China - in a way that's true. American with Chinese characteristics. It seems like two paths the West has - Sinification or Japanifcaiton. Either become more like China and discipline capital (but this requires a cultural / political orientation the West lacks, including the social cohesion for it) or become a techno-fuedalist power that stagnates like Japan and rides off its past glory as a empire into the sunset, whilst hollowing out and cannablizing its own atomized, polarized citizens living within their virtual worlds that sedate them like dopamine junkies. Check out this video on Japan's housing being affordable compared to other developed countries (didn't financialize): And check out this great article: https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Just not progressive cats Type sheeet

I get you and agree with your larger post - all this limitlessness is true at the level of essence. It's just that it doesn't translate to form, which is limited by definition. Essence being limitless doesn't mean the expression of that essence is limitless - essence is absent of limits but not form. A expression or manifestation of the limitless is limited, even if its source isn't. The absolute created the limit to begin with. The essence/form distinction honors both truths - that we are one (in essence), but many (in form/manifestation) - simply put, we are not the totality only a locality. We are parts (of a whole), but not apart (separate). And structurally, the part can't contain the whole - but only expresses the whole locally - just as the wave expresses the ocean.

The specific manifestation, the self, the vantage point, whatever we call it, is made of the essence of the absolute, but also of the totality of form. I think it's important to see this. This doesn't mean there aren't more vantage points, but rather that the center is an energetic construct, an "illusion" (a misleading word), and what you are contains the totality of form. The gears that make you move are in the cosmos in its entirety. A butterfly flaps its wings in the parallel universe xj12700, and you think that your neighbor is hot. Everything is totally interconnected; nothing is separate, neither in essence nor in form. Or if you prefer, a thought about your neighbor appears creating a center of tension that wants, a self, and that self , with wanting, is the cause of a limitless line of effects Distinction matters (between essence and form) - we are not the totality of form, but of essence. The part contains the whole in essence, but not in form - how can it? Are you totality in form? Do you have the power of the absolute, of totality? Of course not. We are in totality, arising from it - but not totality or the absolute in form. Ocean water is in a particular wave, but the wave isn't the ocean in its entirety. If every vantage point “contains the totality'' then the term “vantage point” becomes meaningless - because everything is everything. This is what spiritualists do when they get reductive and harp on about ''all is one''. Everything is interconnected- but that doesn't mean sameness. Conflating the two is the trap. The butterfly flapping its wings in the parallel universe affects things - but that doesn't mean you ARE that butterfly. Things being related and interconnected doesn't mean the same or identical. This is conflating relational inter-connectivity with ontological totality. ''Everything is everything'' erases distinctions to the point nothing matters - including the relationship between forms affecting each other. Saying "we contain the totality of form" or ''we are god'' from that level - is like saying because we're connected to the internet, we ARE the entire internet. But obviously we aren't - we're just accessing it from a local device ie a vantage point, a particular localized point of access.

The essence is God, the structure is Gods manifestation. Understanding the structure helps avoid delusions like taking literally “I am god” (as a totality) or that form is just illusion (reductionist). Those are the two traps - either inflation of form or deflation of form. We are identical in essence not in totality. A person (“I”) is local - essence is total. Local and total aren’t opposed as the local IS total - particularized. It’s more that we are OF God rather than we ARE God as a “I” or identity. We aren’t God as a entity (form) but as a essence (formless) from which all forms arise. There is no separation, but there is distinction. There is nothing but God (ultimate reality) unfolding (manifesting) - we are the distinct, local and particular expression of God, not God in totality. What we call “I” or “you” are localised vantage points within and of God unfolding. But the vantage point can’t claim to be that which it is pointing to - only that it is not separate from that it points to. The vantage point is made of the Absolute, but doesn’t encompass the Absolute. A vantage point is finite by definition, whilst the Absolute is limitless. But this limitless includes the capacity for self-limitation - because a limitless that couldn’t express as a limit would in fact be limited. If essence means what something is made of - and totality means all possible expressions of that essence: then we are made of the same essence - but not expressing all of its possibilities or manifestations. Therefore we are absolute only in essence, not in total. Like an ovum in a mother - the ovum arises within the mother and is of the mother - yet still distinct. The ovum is the mother in essence (dna) yet not in total. Same with the wave - the wave can’t claim to be the Ocean but is of it, from it, and within the entirety of its field or ground of being. — Opening to truth is important as is understanding it to integrate it. Like the thread on psychedelics - people are conflating or arguing between seeing (being open), understanding (interpretation) and integrating (living truth). All are important. Drugs can reveal, but not elevate or integrate the truth. Some conceptual frameworks can prime you for what you see, just as seeing directly allows for understanding those frameworks better. Living from that truth is always the hardest part. Thats why though revelation happened in Arabia (of Tawhid - Oneness) civilisation was built in the Levant/Persia where they already had a foundation of philosophy, poetry and a vocabulary to build on what was revealed. The Islamic orientation was filtered through that ecosystem to produce civilization. That’s why after Islam we got Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Hafez etc and Arabia produced little to none of those gems. Even Hallaj was from that same environment. When he claimed “I am truth” there was no “I” making the claim. It wasn’t as a an ego identifying itself as the total, but more so realizing that there is nothing but the truth (all is God, truth) and that everything arises within it, from it and of its essence. But language is limited and “I” was used as a way to express it. The Levant inherited Greek logic + roman law, Persia had sophisticated administration and poetry - Baghdad was in the middle which is why it became the epicentre of the Abbasid empire. Hallaj being executed was more political than metaphysical - because the implications of his words (I am Truth) destabilised the political centre of the empire. He brought the truth into the bazaar rather than remaining in the house of wisdom. It’s not like it was foreign - as the house of wisdom contained sufi metaphysics etc. it’s that it was brought into the public square. It threatened power political and religious because it would imply bypassing both - even if it’s a matter of fact. It’s the same way how we are advised not to jump straight into drugs or psychedelics without some foundation of understanding or preparation - it can lead to crushing us or delusion that threatens stability. Most people aren’t ready or equipped for revelation. Me you or this forum can perhaps understand Hallaj - he was like the DMT of his time lol. But imagine if everyone was exposed to it.

@Breakingthewall Agreed. I think many spiritualists make that error - to deny this reality for the Ultimate reality. It’s the opposite mistake materialists make. Maya doesn’t mean the world doesn’t exist but that it isn’t as it appears on the surface. But veganawake has a point when people identify as the total or as God. It’s tricky and subtle - we are of God, in God - but not God in totality, only as a locality. The finite can’t claim to be the infinite - only from the infinite. Literalist religions deny that we even come out the infinite or God and that we are “thrown” into the world from elsewhere, by God. But their notions of blasphemy also have a point at protecting the half truth that is of keeping the transcendent - transcendent and total. We can’t be transcendent, or even transcend anything - because that means no more form or manifestation. We can only transform within the form we already exist in - by awareness of and orientation towards the transcendent. This way we keep a healthy balance between the transcendence and immanence. Absolute-infinite conciousness-ground of being or simply God, is transcendent (total) and also immanent (local, intimate, permeating all manifestation in essence). Jewish Kabbala and Islam both contain concepts regarding this. GOATED metaphysics. The wave isn’t the ocean but is oceanic - we aren’t God but are godly. The Quran states “God encompasses all” to which Ibn Arabi adds “nothing encompasses Him”. The total becomes local, the infinite contains the possibility of the finite, and from the eternal arises the temporal. I also think the term dual and non-dual get slippery. Because once we say non-dual - its opposite must exist. I think differentiation is a better term - One reality (whatever we wanna call it - Absolute, infinite conciousness, God, Ground of Being etc) differentiating and localising itself. No question of duality even existing in that sense, only as a relative phenomenon. God is the only reality - we are just the localised point of God.

AI debates are a thing now lol What colour spiral dynamics are they: They clearly aren’t green because they don’t “aesthetically” look like green in the West - so they’re obviously behind because only the West leads the arc of history and development. Everyone else needs to go through stage orange and green, including their pathologies to qualify: Sharia “law” for the misinformed: “I tHoUghT iT’s rIgId aNd DoGmAtiC - iT’s sTaGe bLuE” - we aren’t power rangers choosing colours bro - life is more complex than a theoretical map that doesn’t cleanly fit reality.

Still formulating my thoughts on it but found this interesting. Here’s what I think so far: A sort of spiritual and spiral dynamics supremacism exists that subtly degrades in their own grading - other civilisations and “religion”. This has been used by empire to justify empire and still is today via interventionist neoliberal democracy spreading. Just like the idea of coming from below vs from above - I think one can approach “organised religion” from above also. After studying plenty of non-duality, Osho (in my anti-religion phase lol) etc I actually came to understand religion (its depth) a lot more and find an appreciation for it. I get that religious literalism and superstition can be irrational because it takes what should be a metaphor for reality as reality itself - but can’t crystal alignment new ageism be just as irrational? Muslim prayer according to the suns timing is seen as lesser than Sadhguru prompting seekers to pray at the “auspicious” time of 6:20pm local time..because Western new age has validated one but not the other. Marcus Aubrey needs to sign off on fajr (Islamic sunrise prayer). At the same time - I don’t see any of these as total nonsense either. They can be ritual or psychics guard rails, as long as they aren’t mistaken for reality but ways of engaging with reality ie the menu is not the food. Organised religion basically socialised spirituality into a social operating system for society. The issue comes when the two get conflated (spirituality with society/survival) which unfortunately happens for many. But awakening to that doesn’t negate the value in that organisation or that one can engage in society from a place of spirituality - which is what aspects of organised religion try to inculcate. It’s like spiritual libertarianism, similar to political libertarianism - attractive from the get go (because freedom always is), but then you realise the short comings in a lack of organisation scaled up to and extended towards a social order itself. Humans can’t unneed what they need - one of those needs is structure. We literally are the “formless” existing in the structure of “form” to begin with. So when societies develop structure it’s shallow to view them as mere constructs or un-realities that need transcending - as if you can escape form altogether. Even an enlightened master is in-forming you of his awakening, in the form of words, through the form of his body, before he leaves that very form we think needs transcending. Where are we transcending to? Can you go anywhere but here? It may be semantics but perhaps the word transform is more accurate. As in transforming how to live and engage with form, not seeking to escape form all together. What we have is a formless reality (Oneness, God) that transcends the duality of form - but we don’t transcend that form, only transform in it by awakening to that which transcends it. In the same way, we can be awakened in “organised religion” - while realising it as a spiritual form-ality. Just as the world of form (material) is itself a formality (means) for the formless (spirit) to live through and enjoy. The form of religion can then be approached from above as having a strong belief (in an operating system) held loosely, whilst its essential kernel of spiritual truth being grasped tightly and in total. There is a meaning people and societies find in all this that shouldn’t simply be discarded or taken for granted. People find meaning in having a means to an end (purpose), but how is meaning sustained after reaching that end? By having that end be endless - which is God itself. That makes life not just a means but meaningful for many.

The Leo Gura of geopolitics: Outclassed First time listening to this guy but he’s brilliant:

Many times I come across geopolitical videos that are so wide ranging - they don’t quite fit in any single thread. Here’s a thread to share such videos and discuss geopolitics in general. Don’t jump to conclude that sharing such videos means endorsing all the views in such videos, and ignore the clickbaity titles and thumbnails that are unfortunately common these days despite the content being worth listening to. Starting off with three all encompassing videos: - Jeffrey Sachs covering how the world got to where it is today (Uni-polar) - Scott Horton covering US foreign policy in detail (there’s a recent Lex Fridman podcast 10 hrs long but this is more condensed) - Matt Williams (Willy OAM) on global geopolitics and how all the players are positioning themselves. Quite a mind blowing listen. Doesn’t embed so here’s the URL: https://youtu.be/6OaP6Hi0OSk?si=tacdv0wa2gCzC3cc

@Elliott Consumption going up doesn’t mean affordability going up. All that consumption is being afforded through debt which is hard to pay off. A big reason for housing size increase is due to developers incentivised to build bigger which provide higher returns - which is why starter homes cost so much these days. ”Housing platform app Zillow reports there are now 233 locations in the U.S. where a simple “starter home”—a smaller, less-expensive route to owning a larger house—will now run you $1 million or more.” https://fortune.com/article/housing-market-outlook-starter-home-costs-million/ It’s about how many hours of work it takes to afford the basic essentials compared to the past. Price to earnings ratio for houses used to be 2-3x income compared to 6-8 today or 10x plus in top cities. AI: ”Hours-of-work comparison: A median worker in 1970 could buy a median home with ~17,000 hours of labor.Today it’s roughly 35,000–45,000 hours, depending on location A degree used to require ~5,000–7,000 hours of labor equivalent. Now requires ~20,000–30,000+ hours, often financed. Healthcare used to require ~1,000 hours of labor yearly. Now requires ~3,000–5,000 hours depending on family size and insurance type.” https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/scheinman-institute/blog/john-august-healthcare/healthcare-insights-how-medical-debt-crushing-100-million-americans Boomers managing to pay off their mortgages and debts despite higher rates back then indicates their buying power compared to today. Because even if rates are low - the principal (asset price) is so inflated that even cheap debt becomes decades of financial servitude. How are people supposed to plan for retirement etc when many sink 30-50% of income into just their housing. https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc Debt is at record highs even prior to 2020 COVID - housing and non-housing debt.

I went back into the formless, and God slapped me (itself) and said “what are you doing here, go back and play hide and seek - being and BE-coming, coming to be what already is - because Being longed to Be-long” Maybe God is both lost and found within itself - eternally. As long as there is form, there will be limitation and the liberation from limitation. But if the formless has no limitation to transcend - then surely forms role isn’t to transcend itself (it can’t) but only transform itself in seeking the transcendent. Like that saying - before enlightenment chop wood carry water, after enlightenment chop wood carry water. Awakening isn’t about abandoning form but living in it from above.

It's both about the borrower and the nature of the loan itself. ''Evidence shows that a large number of borrowers of color were targeted and steered into toxic mortgages even when they qualified for safer and more responsible loans with cheaper costs.'' ''Borrower characteristics did not explain the differences in lending. Many of these borrowers qualified for credit on better terms but were steered into subprime loans because brokers received extra compensation for placing them in loans with higher costs.'' https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109438/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA04-Wstate-BaileyN-20190508.pdf Subprime was about a predatory loan design deceptively sold. The structure of the loan was high risk as well as the client - but even lower risk clients were ''steered'' into higher risk loans. You can't just sell when you're underwater and the market has collapsed putting you into negative equity. If you took out a mortgage of $200k and your house value is now $100k - you still owe the bank the difference ie $100k. If your unable to pay the difference then you get foreclosed ie bank takes the property, evicts you and still comes after you for the remaining debt. What follow is your credit is destroyed (7+ years), you lose access to normal loans, interest rates jack up, renting becomes harder and some jobs wont even hire you. This has ripple effects on not just in the US but globally due to the US being the largest economy. But you think there's no harm or ''only 10 million Americans affected''. And you don't see how this is a crime because a gun wasn't pointed to peoples heads - only that it was the individuals choice and that they shouldn't be poor victims. That's like Andrew Tate's view of hyper accountability - ''everything is my fault bro, my destiny is in my own hands - I can get a Bugatti if I so please'' lol. If a mechanic messes up your brakes and you drive off a cliff - you "chose" to drive. But the mechanic still committed a crime and caused harm. The whole scandal was that income was not verified. In fact incomes were even inflated by the brokers in order to approve the borrower for a loan they weren't actually qualified for. Brokers were paid for closing such loans - so they massaged the numbers to get their fee's and cash in on it. Their called liar loans. As I mentioned earlier - the ripple affects aren't on a minority of the populace. Pension funds and retirement portfolios collapsed, state budgets collapsed, unemployment exploded. Household wealth dropped by $19 TRILLION. Just because one drug is gone (subprime loans) doesn't mean the drug dealer isn't still there dishing out new drugs. The predation has moved into different forms. Private-label securitization is back, non-bank lenders have replaced old banks, subprime auto loans are exploding, adjustable-rate mortgages are back, negative-equity car loans are rampant. Corporate landlords (Blackstone) are the new subprime machine. Today the global financial system is running on massive interconnected leverage. See a thread integral just started yesterday: Your chart shows ownership but tells nothing about affordability. It's like me saying people still eat food today - but says nothing about how affordable it is for people. People are now financing their groceries with klarna and buy now pay later schemes. There's a massive difference between being able to buy a home on one income outright or with a mortgage you can pay off within a decade vs buying a home with debt that even two incomes will takes multiple decades to pay off, if ever.

Of course - the problem isn't about emergence itself, its whether its responsible or not to participate in it given a individuals circumstance - its local, situational, particular, case by case. But anti-natalism isn't claiming that - its making a universal claim about life itself or the emergence of it being wrong regardless of any particular situation. Or does it not? Is anti-natalism saying ''for some people in poor circumstances it would be wrong for THEM to participate'' or is it saying ''it's always wrong for anyone to procreate, regardless of circumstances''? Maybe I've got the wrong definition or understanding of what anti-natalism is. No-thing cannot be wronged. But it can still be wrong for someone to participate in the creation of a life that will be heavily wronged due to their personal circumstances not being great - that's about localised responsibility - not a universal claim that life and procreation itself is wrong, or being is wrong. Someone in the middle of a war zone having a child is irresponsible - someone who's reasonably healthy and economically stable having child isn't. But anti-natalism doesn't think along those line - it simply states procreation itself is wrong, regardless. And the only way that exists is due to base assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality - which rests upon a specific ontology - whether anti-natalists know it or not. See what BlueOak is getting at below - the thin line we're treading is the difference between taking responsibility for procreation as a local personal choice vs a universal claim being made about procreation. If a universal claim is being made, then it follows that it must be defended onto-logically. Wholeheartedly agree.

Some people survived the Titanic so was it really harmful? A Ponzi scheme is fine because early investors get paid? They weren’t normal mortgages at 4% bruh. All kinds of toxic loan products were being provided - hence it was called subprime ie subpar or shit in simple English. NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets) ie homie wasn’t legit or credit worthy enough to repay the loan, but it was given anyway. They were pushed heavily because lenders were paid per loan, not per risk level. They began with low teaser rates 1-4% for the first 2-3yrs before resetting (adjusting) much higher which is where people got screwed with repayments at that higher rate. Then there were ballon loans, interest only etc being pushed also. You’ll say “but the consumer should have known better” - that the math don’t math. But consumers weren’t given amortization schedules, the reset timelines, real post-teaser payment, the terms that triggered payment spikes or the long term cost in plain language ie that it would be a shit deal. You think because no one’s gone to prison for that systemic fraudulence that no one was harmed or no wrong occurred. But that proves my point in our initial discussion from which we’ve veered off: that the state serves capital rather than disciplining it in the service of the citizenry.

A chick being pumped and dumped by a playa isn’t harmed? Because even if it was risky, it was her choice and he promised her monogamy, marriage and kids. Selling that subprime like so playa: The issue isn’t just the sticker price - but the debt product attached to it. A $200,000 house is unaffordable if the loan is structured to make the payments explode beyond your income. That’s the fraud. They created artificial demand by giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse - little to no income verification or down payment, with adjustable rates that would explode later. That demand drove prices up - then when loans started failing (as expected) the bubble popped. We’ve gone from discussing structural power dynamics to how the 2008 crash harmed people as if that’s a serious question to begin with. Your strawmanning my points then reducing it to “it was their choice”. You have Google and AI to elaborate the obvious - but keep asking questions as if you want to be hand held through the obvious - AI not feeling personable enough for you? You are simply not engaging in good faith or as BlueOak said on the previous page being “deliberately obtuse”.

Don’t be dense dude. You’re either a troll or contrarian cos you get a kick out of it lol. The harm was in setting up loans designed to fail, lying about the risk, dumping the toxic loans onto pension funds, betting against the people they sold them to, and then getting bailed out when the whole thing exploded. If a doctor knowingly gives you a drug that makes you feel good today but destroys your organs over the years, you can’t say “well the doctor gave me medicine” Your charts are showing metrics that go up (cars, coverage) but they don’t show people being squeezed (cost of basics relative to wages). They show activity not affordability. People have more “stuff” because they take on more debt. Show me a chart of how many hours of work it takes to afford a home, healthcare, and college today vs 40 years ago. Watch the videos I shared - worth your while bro. I’m off to debate a superfacist.

Very interesting - I agree with the hollowing out of the vertical dimension. But what kind of structure are we talking of here? It can be structurally facistic even if the justification shifts from biology (quantity) to metaphysics (quality). If it has a rigid hierarchy justified by metaphysics, obedience to that hierarchy as cosmic order, and an elite at the top who are above accountability - we have spiritual facism. I think the issue comes from collapsing the vertical into the horizontal. The vertical dimension is something we are meant to orient ourselves towards - the North Star. But we don’t become the North Star or claim ourselves or the structure as it. Vertical principles can purify the people in power, but shouldn’t be used to justify the power they claim as “the cosmic / sacred order”. There is divinity (oneness, source) and some sort of order in the universe that enables us to exist - but this doesn’t translate into divinely ordaining a particular structure or group of elites as such. Legitimacy should remain institutional, not spiritual - no leader can claim metaphysics as political authority. This doesn’t mean vertical principles or spiritual strength isn’t seen as a virtue or worthy trait for stewardship. It just means the structure of governance should account for selecting for it and removing anyone who fails to live up to it. It shouldn’t be rigid like the Hindu system of old where Brahmins ruled due to cosmic order ordaining them as the highest. Civilization works when horizontal power is guided, limited, and elevated by vertical principles - in a healthy tension. This is abusing the idea of the vertical with the horizontal by claiming one impose itself on the other. If the vertical is about principles and the horizontal is about the structure - then corruption happens if we collapse the two and pretend the structure IS the principle. Vertical truths are being used as horizontal justification. You say we should be guided by transcendent principles - but if one of those are accountability or humility - then the structure would reflect that by having checks and balances. And a rigid structure in which one is beyond accountability due to being “spiritually higher” avoids that. This is where secularism is corrective to any potential tyranny (even spiritual tyranny) but this doesn’t mean a society must be spiritually hollowed out. Secularism shouldn’t need to overextend itself to mean a secular society - which is what’s happened in the West as a overcorrection. The balance is a secular state + spiritual society = civilizational health. The governance structure can remain secular to prevent tyranny and hold power accountable (which is principled) whilst the society remains spiritually alive by cultivating (culture) vertical principles. The important part is that the structure should prevent anyone from claiming divine authority over others - preventing the vertical from being weaponized. Islamic civilization at its best actually struck this balance quite well. AI: ”Islamic civilization separated the source of moral authority from the machinery of governance. The spiritual realm — scripture, law, ethics, scholarship, and community norms — was carried by the ulema, culture, and society, not by the ruler himself. The ruler couldn’t claim to be divine, infallible, or metaphysically superior. His job was worldly: administering justice, managing taxes, keeping peace, protecting borders. Spiritual interpretation and moral authority were outside the state and distributed across independent scholars, jurists, and institutions. This prevented metaphysics from being monopolized by political power. At the same time, the civilization remained deeply spiritual because the culture, ethics, law, and intellectual life were permeated by transcendence. Society was spiritually alive even though the state’s power was administratively grounded. The vertical (divine law, moral principles, spiritual purpose) guided the horizontal (governance, administration, institutions) without fusing into an authoritarian theocracy. In short: the state was practical and accountable, while society and leadership were spiritually oriented — a balance that kept the political structure flexible while keeping the civilization morally anchored.” —————- I think a key distinction to clarify this: Transcendence ≠ Transformation Transcendence is beyond form, ego, human limitation. Transformation is what happens within form when we orient ourselves towards the transcendent. We are shaped by the vertical - we do not become the vertical. If we were to become the transcendent (enlightened or just pure light), we would no longer be in form but in the formless. Transformation happens precisely because we remain in form - orienting ourselves towards the transcendent. The key error is collapsing the vertical into the horizontal. Though the vertical is our source and we are not separate from it (conciousness, oneness, God) we are distinct from it. As long as we are in form, we can only ever trans-form within form, towards the transcendent that is beyond form. Form is a journey and relationship, whilst going back into the formless is a homecoming. - The Vertical is the Absolute Reference Point (God, the Good, Truth). Constant eternal. - The Horizontal is the Field of Application (the self, society, politics) in dynamic motion toward the reference point. The moment the Horizontal declares "I am the Reference Point” the system shatters into either delusion (spiritual ego) or tyranny (spiritual facism). The moment it declares "There is no Reference Point” (secularised society) it drifts into relativism and nihilism. If the vertical is about the North Star and the horizontal is about our transformation towards it - pathologies show up when: - New Agers claim “I am the North Star” (spiritual narcissism) - Evola/Theocracy claims a king or superbeing to be the North Star (tyranny) - Hollow Secularism denies or ignores a North Star to exist (nihilism) The healthy balance is orientation towards, not identification or denial of - the vertical. —- I was talking with AI about this and came upon this: “Islamic metaphysics and political structure embody the distinction between transcendence and transformation with remarkable precision. Tanzīh: God is beyond form Preserves transcendence. No collapse into rulers, saints, or egos. Tashbīh: God is near Allows transformation. The human can be transformed toward the divine without becoming the divine. Human beings reflect the vertical without ever embodying it. We are in form. We can be shaped by the vertical, but never collapse it into ourselves. Islamic governance mirrors this metaphysics: • rulers are not divine • scholars do not wield political power • law is above all • no caste of metaphysical aristocrats • accountability is a sacred duty Islamic civilization keeps transcendence above the political sphere — while allowing society to be transformed by it. This is the principle secular governance was trying to imitate: Humility built into structure. Accountability as a transcendent principle. Islam contains Tanzīh (God's incomparability) and Tashbīh (God's similarity). It provides a counterbalancing theological and philosophical framework. · Tanzīh guards against the collapse. It ensures the Vertical remains Vertical. God is Wholly Other. No creature, no ruler, no saint, can be God. · Tashbīh allows for the relationship. It makes Transformation possible. Because God is also "nearer to you than your jugular vein," we can know Him, love Him, and be shaped by His attributes.”

Didn’t know I had to spell out everything man common. What’s your definition of harm? 8-10million lost their homes, families thrown onto the street, lie savings evaporated. The knock on effects of all that - suicides, divorces, kids pulled out of school etc etc. Entire generation’s wealth vaporized - trillions of € gone. But that’s a bad example of harm cos no one got shot? That’s the same surface level eyeballs saying Dems aren’t bought off - cos you think it must mean they have to have briefcases of cash snuck to them under the table lol cartoonish. You want a name and a boogeyman to make it easy. Goldman Sachs helped create toxic mortgages, sold them to pension funds, bet against them, made billions when people lost homes - then got bailed out. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alumni staffed the same administration that was supposed to regulate them, right after the crash they helped cause. Nice game of revolving door. Affordability has decreased and is squeezing everyone on the fundamentals - housing, healthcare and education have increased multiples more than wages. My parents generation could afford a home on a single income, today’s generations can’t barely on two without a mortgage - etymology is mort-mortality (death) gage (pledge). Death pledge maxxing. Housing - vulture funds buy entire neighbourhoods, jack up rents, outbid families, convert homes into permanent rental stock, reduce homeownership into a financial asset ie financialization. Blackrock, Blackstone etc. Healthcare - medical bankruptcies, $100k+ cancer treatments, insulin price gouging (€12 in Canada vs €98 in US). UnitedHealth made $22 billion in profit last year while denying claims left and right. Education - from AI “Sallie Mae lobbied to make student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (making it inescapable), aggressively pushed private high-interest loans on students, lobbied for higher federal lending limits while funding groups that advocated for tuition increases, and securitized the debt into Wall Street financial products—creating a self-reinforcing system where schools could charge infinite amounts because students could borrow infinite amounts with loans they could never escape, while Sallie Mae faced zero risk and extracted maximum profit through interest payments that lasted decades.“ Read the following: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ But don’t worry - people got Instagram, lots of ice cream flavours and like a gazzilion porn vids at their disposal - “consumer choices”.

Your missing the forest for the tree's. No ones saying people are zombies with no agency or they don't have choices - it's that their agency is limited within structural constraints by a few key players who you think ''serve people'' over themselves. Over the decades living standards have gone down and the middle class has been hollowed out due to the point we now have populism on the right and the left emerging - if the system and status quo served the people we wouldn't have wide spread discontent. Tobacco was a pure vice good - it isn't a utility, infrastructure or essential the way housing or healthcare are. You can quit smoking and suffer no functional loss in your ability to participate in society - try cutting out the major tech giants from your life. Tobacoo didn't just fall due to the market - although pressure was applied from there. The state clamped down via lawsuits, taxes and advertising bans. Tobacco is dispensable in a way a lot of these modern giants aren't which are fused with the state. Your focusing on small fish. BlackRock is the backbone of the retirement system - the system will defend its vital organs in a way it never defended tobacco. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to serve private shareholder value - not people. People are served as as secondary order effect, but not as a primary motive. If a corporation can cut costs, hike prices and lobby for regulations that favor it at the expense of the consumer - they will. This is legally mandated - this is what I mean by the system being structurally rigged in favor of capital. I also already pointed out 2008. People lost out, the big guys didn't and still go their bonuses. It's not capitalism or socialism - its capital socializing its losses and privatizing its gains - despite whatever we want to call it, its parasitic and extractive. Housing, healthcare, food and education - essentials wielded by a handful of corporations, who's directive is to maximize shareholder value, and not the value it provides to the customer. We can point to the illusion of choice in non-essential goods to ignore the tyranny of a lack of or limited choice in essentials we can't opt out of. If people had the choice they would opt out of crushing student debt to educate themselves, mortgages to house themselves which blow up in their face as in 2008, and not be medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

@Elliott From AI to explain what I mean by financial architecture and ''plumbing of the system'' being structurally designed in favor of capital. ''The Index Fund Mechanism (Passive Investing) How it works: Most Americans don't pick individual stocks. 401(k)s, pensions, IRAs default into index funds. Index funds (S&P 500, total market) are market-cap weighted This means: the bigger a company already is, the more money automatically flows into it The feedback loop: Company gets big → enters S&P 500 Trillions in passive funds must buy it (they track the index). Stock price goes up (from forced buying, not fundamentals). Market cap increases → gets even more weight in the index. More passive money flows in → stock goes higher. Repeat. Nobody chose this individually: Your 401(k) automatically buys Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta. You didn't "vote with your dollars" for Big Tech dominance. The structure of retirement savings mechanically concentrates capital into whatever's already biggest. It's structural, not democratic The Big Three own everything: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street manage $20+ trillion in passive index funds. They're the largest shareholders in virtually every major corporation. Not because of "consumer choice"—because retirement money flows through them by default.They vote the shares (corporate governance) but it's YOUR money. You didn't choose to make Apple the most valuable company. Your retirement account did it automatically.The system is designed to concentrate capital into mega-caps. Consumers aren't steering—the index structure is.'' Another point is Michael Burry (Big Short) who predicted the 2008 crash just closed his fund down because the market is detached from the fundamentals "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets," https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/michael-burry-big-short-fame-deregisters-scion-asset-management-2025-11-13/ In plain english : the ''consumer'' can't affect these stock valuations to the degree they think they can with their consumer choices (to buy or not to buy, to empower or not to empower) because the state backstops and pumps liquidity towards these companies that have fused with the state to the point they are considered ''critical''. Their behemoth size underpins the US dollar empire ie too big to fail. This is why there is a divergence between main street and wall street - why is it that as main street suffers (everyday people being squeezed) - but wall street hits all time highs? Because liquidity - money printer goes brrrr and the regular person goes ahhhh ''cost of living crisis''. Traditional value investing becomes impossible. Burry can't find mispriced assets because the market isn't pricing anything properly - it's just channeling flows into whatever the index structure and imperial necessity demand to keep the empire afloat. Capital is the empire. When companies become infrastructure for empire, "consumer choice" becomes completely irrelevant. The state will prop them up regardless of their profitability or fundamentals justifying their valuation. Dollar hegemony requires strong US asset markets which is why i say capital is empire - and it is a financialized one. Michael Hudson is the goat at explaining all of this.

Your looking at how they got rich (consumer spending) but ignoring what they do when rich (regulatory capture, monopoly consolidation, political influence). Corporations start out through consumers choosing, but then they become something different after accumulating wealth from those choices - to the point they can end up shaping consumer choices through advertising and eliminating alternative ''choices'' through monopolistic consolidation. Decisions and desires are also engineered through advertising and algorithms. Even back in the Mad Men era - Edward Bernays influenced women to smoke by associating cigarettes with feminism (torches of freedom.) The advertising industry exists to create demand that doesn't exist - and modern day algorithms are that just ratcheted up. We are in cages influencing us at all times and ''inserting'' desires we didn't know we had. That proves my point - private capital became too powerful and could no longer be ''disciplined'' by the market or individual consumer choices ''in the form of the most direct-democracy possible'' as you put it. If they democratically grew these companies via their choices why can't they democratically tackle them? It took state force to do so. That's where anti-trust laws came from (response to Rockerfeller). These same laws are no longer enforced to the degree they should be due to state capture by capital. Symbolic slap on the wrists for some firms occur - but the core organs aren't harmed ie the structural power dynamic. Lina Khan was obstructed by the structure itself ie structural power. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/11/10/lina-khan-former-commissioner-of-ftc-speaks-on-panel-about-divide-in-digital-policy-between-united-states-and-europe/ ''Khan said that Congress has been slow to check the power of tech companies while allowing them to hinder the lawmaking process by lobbying. “Just the endless torrent of money, which has, candidly, influenced both parties, I think has kept things from getting over the finish line” Today’s power isn’t smaller but is more systemic and so is less visible - it's financialized into a financial empire which is why it goes unnoticed if we simply look at the surface. It's structural ie financial plumbing and architecture - not cosmetic ie the house which is visible to all of us in the form of store fronts and ''consumer choices''. This is also why American's saying they have a better living standard than the rest of the world don't understand how - by a financial imperial arrangement maintaining the dollar as reserve currency which offers the US empire it's ''exorbitant privilege''. It's not solely because of market genius and capitalism - dollar dominance subsidizes American affluence and consumption (customer choices). JP Morgan became JP Morgan Chase the institution - Rockefeller became Exxon, BlackRock and a web of energy finance conglomerates. Private capital now upholds US hegemony in a symbiotic relationship - which is why they are treated as ''critical'' and beyond being challenged. State and private interest / capital has fused. If capital has global interests then they can subvert national interests. It's true Americans buy big cars and like big roads. But its also true that oil companies have been for decades lobbying against public transit also. Leverage isn’t overt control but about structural dependency - it' infrastructural and causes mutual capture or inter-dependency. Palantir doesn’t need to rule anything if it’s embedded in the defense, intelligence, and health data infrastructure the state relies on. Same with big tech and finance. So it's not about individual transactions - commerce, communication, and the state operate on privately owned platforms. It's hard to boycott our way out of monopolized infrastructure any more than we can boycott roads ie platforms. When Biden was faced with a standoff between capital vs labor during the rail strike he chose capital : https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/ He later brokered a deal, but that was after pressure and backlash - hence, concessions made - pressure release valve policy. But what was the first instinct? In the service of capital. And why is that rail strikers could pressure to the extent they did? Because they could leverage a critical chokepoint ie infrastructure that the economy and country depends on - the same way these corps have infrastructure / platforms. Biden conceding wasn't about the workers but about keeping the machine running. In this sense I agree with you - we do have power, but it must be en mass, strategic and disruptive to the structure of power. Sold out doesn't mean briefcases of cash handed under the table. Money is literally in politics - that money influences politics - politicians depend on a pipeline of funds from their donor class. Lina Khan who Biden appointed (and is now appointed by Zohran) said so herself as I shared earlier. Lobbying isn't charity where no return is expected. Secularism championed separation of Church and state but somehow we just accept that money has become the new Church and that it shouldn't be separated from politics. Instead it corrupts our politics and cannibalizes society. This is why all empire can do is crudely contain rival nations - because it can't compete against them. It's hard to compete globally when your own elite class is feeding on you locally lol so all that's left is saber rattling. Capital elites don't care for national interest because they are a-national, trans-national. And yet they are fused with the nation state to the point that national interest has become code for capital interest. That doesn't mean private capital can't work with national interest or be in alignment - it just means they have dual loyalty and that they can hedge against your demise. They are the real parasites that need containing - so that the nation state can remain strong enough to compete rather than need to default to muscle and bullying tactics to try contain those they can't compete with - which only brings out world closer to WW3. All the videos I shared above explain it all better than I could. Financialization seems like a dense word and kind of abstract but this video is quite clear:

@Elliott The issue isn’t where the money comes from (people), it’s what happens after and as it accumulates (market capture). Once these companies pass a certain threshold they gain structural power by converting their accumulated wealth into a form of control and leverage. They can exert leverage over laws via lobbying, dominate the market by consolidating competitors and supplies, own the platforms and infrastructure everyone including the state depends on. Network affects lock people in - try not using WhatsApp, Amazon’s logistics, Zoom etc. If the government is a customer and a regulator, who has leverage over who? The state runs on Google, Microsoft, Amazon’s AWA, collaborates with big tech for data access, Elon’s starlink is contracted with pentagon, Palantir is embedded in the defence and intel apparatus of the state etc. None of those companies started essential - they became big through discretionary spending, that bigness allowed them to consolidate and entrench themselves with the state. Now their too big to fail or to “sticky” to detach. Democratically funded implies we can democratically defund them. I think what you’re saying is that people can notice themselves feeding into these monopolies in real time, then decide to pull away to counter that monopoly power that will end up exploiting them later (techno-feudalism). Or that free market competition will break them and check their excesses of power. But capital compounds faster than awareness - like a frog boiling in water. People are too distracted and value convenience to care about funding the next monopoly that is yet to exploit their dependence. It becomes increasingly difficult once dependencies get entrenched (especially at a state level) and when the “consumer choices” shrink by being bled out of the market or being bought up and consolidated.