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.
That’s just going to be the experience with nearly every noticeably stimulant drug (and potentially drugs with stimulant effects like weed). It’s very much not unique or notable for ADHD medications, especially since ADHD medications are actually mostly not the drug itself (it’s packaged in a way to make abuse by those without ADHD or those with SUDs harder).
Okay so idk your pharma background, it may well be more robust than mine, but I’m confident the particulars of how addiction functions IRL are not your area of expertise. all the specific real people I’m talking about are literally always either baked or drinking coffee, unless they’re taking a break from one of those to be sure they aren’t addicted.
Again, I don’t care how addictive it is-if I were going to go after nasty addictive horrible drugs we use for mental health, I’d spend a year screaming about sertraline nonstop before I so much as suggested Walter white should slow down. I’m not suggesting it should be less available (I’m generally in favor of making most things more available).
Its a close relative of some shit we use to destroy ourselves, made slightly safer and dispensed in a buffered pill/capsule so we can stuff people into shitty lityle boxes and call them productive (maybe a better society would use it fir self actualization or sonething) And that’s… As fine as anything else in this shit hole.
… what?
“close relative” is extremely vague and can mean anything, but a majority of prescription medications have at least one structurally similar illicit drug to them. This is just how chemistry works, different chemical compositions & structures have different effects and, in a medical context, is often the difference between a moderately safe drug and an extremely unsafe drug.
“slightly” is an understatement, they are much safer, especially considering you can’t get even close to recreational amounts and many times people are constantly monitored on your usage because doctors are extremely paranoid that they’ll sell them. And amphetamines/dextroamphetamines are not made from meth.
I’m not sure what you’re on about, sounds like work culture, but somehow I feel that you’re just a little upset towards the government and society.
Youre not addressing my main point here. I have actual human beings who are addicted to one thing that used the topic of discussion once and found it way too familiar, but can use most other drugs relatively safely.
When talking about drugs and what we use them for, governments and societies are not irrelevant.
Affinity for other drugs is very subjective and differs a lot between people who have SUDs and people who don’t have SUDs. People who have experienced addiction to one drug will almost always be drawn to other drugs which are relatively similar, even if they’re not very comparable in practice. People who have been addicted to hallucinogenic drugs before are significantly more likely to develop an addiction to weed, for example.
They’re very different drugs but they both have stimulant effects. A recovering meth addict would likely have an extremely strong reaction to other very different stimulants, like cocaine. It does not necessarily make them all that comparable in practice.
I’m not talking about hypotheticals. I’m talking about actual living people I have known. Some of whom do a wider variety of drugs than me.
I don’t know why youre even arguing this so passionately. I don’t actually care if it is. If your mental health requires you inject LSD into your genitals, I really don’t care unless youre willing to share your hookup, or youre cute enough for me to want to watch.