https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul2iW3mWl90 One thing that was really interesting about this video is near the end where he makes a distinction between fear based societies and anxiety based societies. Witness today where people are anxious about climate change 150 years from now but have no concern for food and fuel shortages today that can, are, and will continue killing the world's poorest people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfOd-kDs5g4 I don't really vtuber, but this is a great video haha

https://youtu.be/wtGqWyCRc_o Not a huge fan of the reporting about the fediverse, but it's funny seeing the Twitter folks who expected to come in and whip their dicks out on fediverse failing to realize they were and still are privileged on twitter and they're just another user of the fediverse (and nobody particularly likes them) is funny.

https://invidious.fbxl.net/watch?v=oK1UgqHz7_U A relevant passage from The Graysonian Ethic: "In a lot of ways you do not realize, the human race is entirely defined by our biology. Many of your deepest-rooted fears and ambitions are written into your blood, in a library that was passed down by millions of generations of successful creatures going all the way back to the single celled organisms that first spawned within the primordial ooze."

So I was thinking: we should finally follow the science to it's obvious conclusion: make it mandatory under the law to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe. Anti eaters, anti drinkers, anti sleepers, and anti breathers will push back against these new rules, but we need to do it to save lives.

https://invidious.fbxl.net/watch?v=i70wkxmumAw Good science is humble, and is often wrong, and admits it. This is a really cool story about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwiDlOIFlxE Imagine losing 170,000 dollars in one year. That's more than the rest of my mortgage combined.

Left wingers have a habit of mistaking capitalism for something else, and ascribing all the sins of humanity to what is an extremely recent and limited phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems. Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world. Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets. Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods. However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life. Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies. There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place. The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species. Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island. The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development. The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections. Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world. The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end. In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making. Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.

Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems. Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world. Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets. Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods. However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life. Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies. There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place. The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species. Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island. The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development. The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections. Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world. The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end. In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making. Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.

Having used ChatGPT for a few days now, it's on a completely different level. I thought AI wasn't going to be a big deal because every AI I've ever seen puts out what relatively speaking is garbage, but I've had extended conversations with it on very diverse topics, and while I can see cracks, I can't see very many. If I were all the english majors out there, I'd be very afraid because language models like this have the potential to make the tiny minority of those with 9-5 jobs in their field just as unemployable as the rest of them. If AI becomes absolutely massive, it's going to be a strangely conservative force, talking to it. By definition it can't really come up with ideas it's never been fed, so if people rely on it to find answers for them, it'll only provide answers someone else has already come up with to an extent. The answers might be even left or woke, but the answers could become trapped in time, and eventually it could end up a self-reinforcing thing like wikipedia, where someone says something on wikipedia that's wrong, journalists use wikipedia for research, the incorrect thing gets said in the media, which wikipedia can then use to justify it's incorrect thing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-23/china-estimates-covid-surge-is-infecting-37-million-people-a-day?leadSource=uverify%20wall Clearly everyone in china has now died. China is just a giant ghost city now. Nobody is alive on account of them all being dead.

https://video.fbxl.net/w/p/wncXRsWk4ucwPiGzmm2YvP The Graysonian Ethic deepfake audio book is fully released now, and this weekend I uploaded the whole thing to peertube. Here's a playlist with everything laid out in order. Totally playable without an account on fbxl social. It's also on youtube if you want to see it there.

On the other side of the fediverse, @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world brought up an interesting point, that the concept of doxxing being something with values around it is relatively new. Thought it could make an interesting conversation here. On one hand, this isn't really a thing that was discussed much for most of history. Publishing the personal information of a person who did a thing didn't really have any moral connotations to it. Under the ideal of freedom of speech, it should be considered acceptable to publish any information about a person. On the other hand, even from a libertarian mindset and from a constitutional perspective, there are limitations to freedom of speech. For example, you're not allowed to commit fraud. You're not allowed to perjure, you're not allowed to lie about someone else in a way that causes them damage, do you not allowed to claim that you are a police officer when you're not, you're not allowed to represent that you have professional licensure you don't have, there's a lot of things that you're not allowed to do. Then from another perspective, it's important to understand the difference between what is law and what is something else, any taboos against doxing aren't enshrined in law anywhere, it's just a dick move. On the other hand there, when you have a rule on a site like Twitter that is so big and so ubiquitous, even though it isn't a law per se, it can effectively stifle speech to a similar extent because of the Monopoly Powers involved. So getting past that, why exactly would someone who values Free speech consider doxing to be something worth considering to be a taboo or against the local instance rules? To me, I think that that really boils down to a change in the nature of communication. Prior to the internet, there was a non-trivial amount of effort involved with communication. In order to talk to someone on the phone, you needed to get their phone number, you needed to pick up a phone, you needed to dial the phone, and that phone call if it wasn't local could cost a lot of money. Likewise, if you wanted to send a specific message to a million people, you would have to print off a million copies of that thing, then you would need to buy a million stamps, and a million envelopes, or alternatively you'd have to walk up to a million houses and drop them in a million mailboxes. Today, if you are among the anointed few in big tech, you can get a message out to millions of people for free. The hackers who released the trucker convoy data (and keep in mind that hacking as a relatively low risk crime of breaking into computer systems didn't exist 40 years ago -- prior to that, if you wanted to steal data from a charity you would have to break into the offices of that charity) didn't need to print out a thousand copies of that data, they just had to post it online once. At that point their exploits were carried all around the world. From there, people who supported this cause had their names and email addresses and postal codes out there, and there's an entire planet full of people who might decide that they are offended, and then from there it is an incredibly low cost operation to start spamming people's employers with emails. The human brain evolved in a world of a 50 person society. In that world, you and everyone you knew made up about 50 people. Occasionally you might run into another tribe, in which case there would likely be a war. Outsiders were dangerous. In a 50 person society, social proof is incredibly important. If 10 other people in your 50 person society back a person, that person probably has some serious power. If 49 other people back that person, then that person is basically the king. I contract, if you can find 50 people on the planet Earth who disagree with you about something, congratulations that's not very impressive. But our brains tell us that it is. The key to all of this tangent is realizing that there is a particular danger to the difference between the way that our brains are wired, and the way that the internet age actually is. The famous example for first amendment case of yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't actually against the law. However, the reason that such dicta was mentioned is the self-evident danger of crowds in a physical space. If you say a thing that causes a riot in a physical space, it is clear that something bad has happened especially if it's based on things that are either not true or partially true or presented in a highly emotional way meant to manipulate. If one whips a digital crowd into a frenzy and a similar way, seems to me that innocent people could definitely be trampled in the same way. If such a thing isn't explicitly illegal, I can understand why theater owners would ban you for doing it. I said before that the left doesn't come up with bad ideas, they just are stupid about them and shut off their brains and turn them into universals when they are not. The idea of stochastic terrorism isn't based on a stupid idea. If you behave in certain ways that you are reasonably convinced will result in harm against another person, particularly when you're aiming a large group at that person, that certainly seems to be a thing. Intent seems to play into it as well. Accidentally revealing details about a certain person is patently different than intentionally revealing details about a certain person alongside a bunch of reasons why people should go off and lynch that person. I guess arguably it's the call for lynching that is the problem not the release of personal information. At the end of the day, I think the best solution to the problem of doxing would be to change in the neopuritanical culture. We really need to stop worrying about what every single person is doing and thinking and saying, and demanding that they all agree with us in every way. That cultural change may not be possible. In a large enough group you always have bad actors, and the internet provides the largest group available. So that being the case, allowing people their anonymity and at the very least making breaking that without consent a taboo, and maybe enforcing it at the service level may be the right thing to do. Anyway, this is mostly just a brain dump, what are your thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPDK7cO-JPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc I've been saying a lot lately that these people I'm up against would have been guarding the railcars to Auschwitz. This theory is chillingly accurate to today, but was written about the actual people who would end up a few years after it was written guard the railcars to Auschwitz.

https://www.paulox.net/2022/04/28/upgrading-postgresql-from-version-13-to-14-on-ubuntu-22-04-jammy-jellyfish/ This link ended up being really fantastic, the commands are the same for moving from 12 (which I was on) to 15, and I presume it'll be the same for future upgrades <code>$ pg_lsclusters $ sudo pg_dropcluster 14 main --stop $ sudo pg_upgradecluster 13 main $ sudo pg_dropcluster 13 main $ sudo apt-get purge postgresql-13 postgresql-client-13</code>

One of the keys to building models is coming out with actionable predictions. Human beings are mastery rationalizers, so it's very easy to come up with a model to justify any course of action, but the important question is: when you take that course of action you've justified, did things play out the way that your model predicts? Of course, there are Black swan events that no one could predict. There is no model that would have predicted that in 2020 the entire world economy would be shut down due to a pandemic. On the other hand, a model should account for some level of unexpected events, because the world isn't static. It is no great miracle producing a set of predictions that tomorrow will be largely the same as today. Most of the time such a model will be absolutely correct. The value comes in trying to predict what might change, in figuring out what the next Black swan event could be, or in trying to see with unbiased eyes the White swan event that is sitting right in front of you. Human beings have the tremendously huge brains we do in part so that we can try to predict the future. That is our superpower as a species. That's why our tool use is on a completely different level than any other species, because we can imagine how we might use some incredibly complicated tool that has no present use. It also allows us to behave in ways that are insanely social. For example, one person building a piece of software that allows different social media websites to connect together. They did that imagining a future that could have thousands of different websites existing and communicating. And today we have the fediverse. It also allows us to plan ahead at a level that no other creature even comes close to. How many other species do you think have 5-year plans? How many other species do you think have 10-year plans? How many species do you think have any conception of 15 or 20 years from now? That's incredible, and it's a superpower that we have as humans. The thing is, we need to use that superpower. Just listening to other people and letting them tell us what to do means that we're going to be doing the exact same thing as everyone else and we're never going to get ahead. Just sitting and dogmatically reciting orthodoxy in the face of new information means we're never going to get ahead. We as individuals needed to take in information as much as we can, try to build models for ourselves, and most importantly take in additional new information from the outside world to test our previous predictions, honestly and lies whether our predictions were correct, and modify our models based on that feedback from The real world so that we can make better decisions based on better predictions tomorrow. It sure sounds like a lot of work, having to go around and put all this effort into building models, and learning more information, and testing our models, and modifying your models, but the thing is if we don't do that then we're not going to be able to make predictions ahead of the pack, and we're not going to be able to get any sort of comparative advantage. Moreover when everyone else is hurting, you could be ok because you successfully predicted the bad thing others who were relying on others to do it for you. Once you start putting in the work, many things become much more obvious. Then you start to see the establishment saying "nobody could have predicted this!" And you sort of have to shake your head because once you're out of the echo chamber, it's just not true anymore.

The state of perpetually growing debt is a relatively new invention. In 1776 the US government accrued credit debt, and over the next couple decades ended up accumulating additional debt paying off the loans of the different states that have joined the union. On January 8, 1835, president Andrew Jackson paid off the entire national debt. The United States civil war resulted in a very large Federal debt, and over the next 47 years paid off 55% of that debt. A large debt was accrued during world war 1, and eventually 36% of that debt was paid off prior to world war II. From 1945 to 1949, the federal government paid back about six billion dollars of the massive debts that it had accrued. By that time there was a lot of inflation going on so from 1950s onwards the inflation adjusted value of the debt shrank but the real value of the debt grew until the 1970s when it started to grow in inflation adjusted terms again. There's one year in 2000 when there was a budget surplus, but since 2000 it's basically been rushing from crisis to crisis running up dangerously high debts the whole way. Government policy since 2001 has not been sustainable and is not sustainable, but in 2001 the federal debt was equal to roughly 55% of the US economy, and now it is worth approximately 125% of the US economy. This path wasn't sustainable 20 years ago, but it's not sustainable in the short term the way things are going. The bridge is out ahead, it's a long way down from here.

Recently, someone said to me that excessive government debt is nothing like not balancing a personal checkbook. They're correct, but they're also dangerously wrong. Let's look at why. Debt service is similar to what it was in 2008 when the federal debt was a quarter of what it is today because of the central bank inducing record low interest rates. Those low interest rates caused massive debt bubbles that have priced an entire generation out of owning a home, massively increased household debt, created massive wealth inequality, and driven inflation to the highest levels in 40 years. The productive economy has been stagnant or shrinking for 20 years, while people get rich on get rich quick schemes and many others lose everything on scams. Finally central banks are loosening up on the extreme measures because cost of living rising is becoming a problem, debt costs are rising for everyone. No problem for people who planned for debt costs to rise, but big problem for individuals who took out huge variable rate mortgages, big problem for companies that are holding massive amounts of debt because that's what kept their companies running for the past 20 years, and big problem for governments who suddenly have to pay 2008 debt service costs for 2022 levels of debt. So a few things happen: First, rates rise so the amount of money getting sent to bond holders increases. This starts off with short-term debt, then spreads over time to longer term debt. Second, in order to get more debt governments around the world need to sell bonds, and it can happen and has happened that governments go out to sell some debt and they come back no-bid. This just happened to Japan, leading to some very extreme actions just to keep things from totally collapsing (which incidentally resulted in more treasuries on the market which isn't going to help the debt costs or the trip towards no-bid). What happens third depends on the decision makers. If decision-makers decide to get things back on track, then it means much higher taxes and much lower spending. This happened in Canada when they went no-bid in the late 1990s. Alternatively, they can bring in QE infinity, and just have the central bank buy up all the bonds to keep a market. This will prevent bond rates from going to the moon, but it'll cause a currency crisis. That's what happened in Japan recently due to their yield control strategy of QE. At this point, the Bank of Japan owns almost 70% of bonds, and the yen has been on the precipice of falling into oblivion for months. The BoJ has had to sell massive amounts of US Treasuries to buy back enough Yen to keep the value from becoming totally worthless, and they have lots of US treasuries but it's a limited amount. Once that happens, quality of life for any Japanese people not holding their assets in foreign denominations will collapse because the cost of everything will be going up while their savings, wages, and government income streams will all be staying the same. Same as we're getting a taste of over here. This isn't like a home budget. You can't just wipe the slate and start over like you can in a consumer bankruptcy. 6 years and the credit bureau doesn't even care anymore. It's a nation, and excess debts have destroyed economies, destroyed countries, destroyed empires. It's left millions begging in the streets and caused civil revolutions that killed millions. Even if the shit doesn't hit the fan, the measures used to deal with these problems have massive consequences for innocent people on the ground, and they already have in countless examples around the world and at home.

I have reviewed a large number of recessions going back centuries, and there seems to be a common thread. A situation occurs where there is excess money in the money supply. This makes it much easier to acquire debt. With all this money sloshing around, eventually a thing comes about that appears to be very profitable to a lot of people so people take out debt to invest in the profitable thing. Eventually, the apparently profitable thing ends up proving not to be nearly as profitable as everyone thought, causing the value of that thing to collapse. At that time, the banks are holding excessive debt which all goes bad at the same time, the banks have to eat that loss, and this causes a massive reduction in the money supply. This is the business cycle. It's not the only thing that causes recessions as we will see, but it is a major theme occurring throughout many recessions. The government spent too much money in 1812, expanding the money supply and artificially making credit easy to get. European governments artificially induced a state where US food producers were doing very good by fighting the Napoleonic wars and destroying a lot of food production capacity, which created a speculative bubble in US farming. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. In 1837, the government began forcing people to pay for government land with gold or silver. Andrew Jackson had eliminated the central bank during his presidency, with the intent of removing cheap debt from the economy. The banks responded by printing paper currency, which meant debt was artificially easy to get(Why was this legal?). The restriction on buying government land drove up land prices, which led to a speculative bubble in which people took out paper debt to buy gold or silver. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. In 1857, the California gold rush caused a huge influx of gold into the economy. This had two effects: First, a speculative bubble in railroads, and second, easy access to credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. In 1873, following the end of the civil war, a huge number of people were released from military service, and the money supply was massively increased by federal spending. This created a speculative bubble in railway industries, and provided easy access to credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. In 1893, the Sherman Silver Purchase act remonetized silver, causing inflation which led to an easy supply of credit. Unlike other recessions, this one was caused by massive protective tarrifs of the McKinley tarrif act, which instead of causing an artificial bubble, instead collapsed the value of healthy markets by forcing a heavy tax burden on manufacturers and farms who relied on imported parts. In 1907, J. P. Morgan stopped a recession from happening by providing capital during a period that saw many central banks around the world, which led to the creation of the New York federal reserve bank. European governments once again destroyed their agricultural output with the onset of World War I. Further, the creation of the New York federal reserve bank made credit easily available by eliminating the risk of bank runs. The Homesteader's act was altered to allow land that couldn't be irrigated to be sold. The combination of Europe's war and America's deregulation created a massive speculative bubble, which was supported by a few unusually wet seasons. The unusually wet seasons ended causing a collapse of the speculative market, one of the worst environmental catastrophes of American history. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back AND suddenly had farms they couldn't even farm on, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. The Y2k bubble was one of the few bubbles fueled by non-government interference. A simple mathematics issue caused every industry on the planet to spend money ensuring their businesses would continue functioning during the year 2000, causing the incredible speculative bubble in tech. This speculative bubble was fueled by record low interest rates, leading to easy credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, but a new speculative bubble in housing was brewed and interest rates were brought even lower. In 2008, housing prices were artificially driven up by reducing legislation regulating lending standards sending lots of people into the market at once. Then, interest rates were driven very low by the central bank, both of which created a climate of incredibly easy credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession. Today, we have a situation that seems tailor made to cause a recession. The COVID lockdowns led to unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus, which has caused the markets to boom for no good reason. Despite the world economy being markedly worse than 2 years ago, most markets are at or near record highs. Interest rates spent a long time at or near zero, and the central bank pumped massive amounts of liquidity into the system. It appears inevitable now that inflation is rising that rates must rise, the bubble will collapse, a huge number of people won't be able to pay their debts back, causing defaults, bank closures, and a recession.