Topic: Can anyone here good with money explain this chart.
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #110,068
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 55 seconds later[^] [v] #1,226,729
Biden.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,734
"Change in deposits from peak"
Peak of what? When?
Peak of what? When?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 25 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,735
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,741
@1,226,734 (C)
> Peak of what?
Peak deposits. The most that's been deposited at one time.
> When?
The X axis says when.
> Peak of what?
Peak deposits. The most that's been deposited at one time.
> When?
The X axis says when.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,742
@previous (A)
> The X axis says when.
Then the line should remain at 0 for all x. Deviation of deposits from the present time. Meaningless.
But that's clearly not what's being shown since the line is not always at 0.
Try again.
> The X axis says when.
Then the line should remain at 0 for all x. Deviation of deposits from the present time. Meaningless.
But that's clearly not what's being shown since the line is not always at 0.
Try again.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,744
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,746
@1,226,742 (C)
The peak doesn't change unless it goes up. The current total deposits is either at that, or lower.
The peak doesn't change unless it goes up. The current total deposits is either at that, or lower.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,747
Sorry I withdrew my cash to buy a yacht. My bad I'll put it back.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,749
@1,226,744 (D)
I find that somewhat hard to believe. But even if that's so, it's a really weird way to plot the data since inflation over literally 50 years is going to compress the y-axis deviations in all the earlier years substantially. Would've been better to plot a fraction, or better still, simply the raw data. Seeing weird metrics like this always makes me suspicious.
I find that somewhat hard to believe. But even if that's so, it's a really weird way to plot the data since inflation over literally 50 years is going to compress the y-axis deviations in all the earlier years substantially. Would've been better to plot a fraction, or better still, simply the raw data. Seeing weird metrics like this always makes me suspicious.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,750
@1,226,747 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You fool, if you get a refund the yachtmonger will have to withdraw that cash from their deposits.
When we are already this far down, that return could be the tipping point.
You fool, if you get a refund the yachtmonger will have to withdraw that cash from their deposits.
When we are already this far down, that return could be the tipping point.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,752
@1,226,749 (C)
> I find that somewhat hard to believe
I don't know what else it could be referring to.
> I find that somewhat hard to believe
I don't know what else it could be referring to.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,754
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,755
@1,226,752 (D)
Neither do I, but when I see weird looking plots like this where the trend line is almost always at the floor or the ceiling of the range and I've looked into it I often find the metric used is very contrived. And by changing it slightly or simply expanding the x-axis ever so slightly, the trends look very different.
The further a plot is from the raw data, the more I'm going to assume until shown otherwise that I'm being lied to.
Neither do I, but when I see weird looking plots like this where the trend line is almost always at the floor or the ceiling of the range and I've looked into it I often find the metric used is very contrived. And by changing it slightly or simply expanding the x-axis ever so slightly, the trends look very different.
The further a plot is from the raw data, the more I'm going to assume until shown otherwise that I'm being lied to.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,756
@1,226,754 (D)
You might be.
"over a particular period of time" it says. This is what I wonder about. That could be anything, like the first of each month or something else equally arbitrary. Just try all of the options until the plot looks as we want. That's the game of modern economics research (And beyond).
You might be.
"over a particular period of time" it says. This is what I wonder about. That could be anything, like the first of each month or something else equally arbitrary. Just try all of the options until the plot looks as we want. That's the game of modern economics research (And beyond).
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 26 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,757
@1,226,755 (C)
Can't disagree that it's probably set up that way to paint a specific picture, maybe to make everything seem all doom and gloom.
Can't disagree that it's probably set up that way to paint a specific picture, maybe to make everything seem all doom and gloom.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,758
@1,226,755 (C)
Ok, you figured out it's a fraud, but do you understand why?
Monetary inflation means the rightmost panics will always be greater than those on the left which had lower nominal money overall.
For the graph to have meaning, it would need to be adjusted for the total money supply, a percentage figure that showed how much cash was banked.
Ok, you figured out it's a fraud, but do you understand why?
Monetary inflation means the rightmost panics will always be greater than those on the left which had lower nominal money overall.
For the graph to have meaning, it would need to be adjusted for the total money supply, a percentage figure that showed how much cash was banked.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,760
@1,226,754 (D)
You just misread the answer, the "current period" is referring to "current deposits" not total historical record, while the "peak" does refer to the total historical record, not just a peak from the same period being measured currently.
Your interpretation has to be wrong, because if the current and peak were the same figure, what would be the point of the chart?
You just misread the answer, the "current period" is referring to "current deposits" not total historical record, while the "peak" does refer to the total historical record, not just a peak from the same period being measured currently.
Your interpretation has to be wrong, because if the current and peak were the same figure, what would be the point of the chart?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,761
@previous (A)
wut. Where are you even seeing the terms "current period" and "current deposits"? You aren't making any sense.
> Your interpretation has to be wrong, because if the current and peak were the same figure, what would be the point of the chart?
That isn't my interpretation at all, you need to read my post again.
wut. Where are you even seeing the terms "current period" and "current deposits"? You aren't making any sense.
> Your interpretation has to be wrong, because if the current and peak were the same figure, what would be the point of the chart?
That isn't my interpretation at all, you need to read my post again.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,762
@1,226,758 (A)
> Monetary inflation means the rightmost panics will always be greater than those on the left which had lower nominal money overall.
>
> For the graph to have meaning, it would need to be adjusted for the total money supply, a percentage figure that showed how much cash was banked.
Did you not see my earlier post? @1,226,749 (C)
> Monetary inflation means the rightmost panics will always be greater than those on the left which had lower nominal money overall.
>
> For the graph to have meaning, it would need to be adjusted for the total money supply, a percentage figure that showed how much cash was banked.
Did you not see my earlier post? @1,226,749 (C)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,764
@1,226,761 (D)
What do you think "peak deposits" means? It's not the current level for that period, because that's that the line is graphing for that period.
What do you think "peak deposits" means? It's not the current level for that period, because that's that the line is graphing for that period.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,765
@previous (A)
The line isn't showing the peak deposits, or the current deposits, it's showing the difference between current deposits and the peak deposits at that point in time.
The line isn't showing the peak deposits, or the current deposits, it's showing the difference between current deposits and the peak deposits at that point in time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,775
squeegee joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,777
omg, what do we do about this? surely this is a job for us to argue about and resolve. let's get to work, gang!
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,779
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,789
@1,226,777 (squeegee)
No reason why we can't since the monetary system is no more than ideas and dreams at this point. As it has been for quite some time. Nothing that can't be solved by shifting a few decimal points to the left or right if we all insist on it. The solution can be literally as simple as we make it.
No reason why we can't since the monetary system is no more than ideas and dreams at this point. As it has been for quite some time. Nothing that can't be solved by shifting a few decimal points to the left or right if we all insist on it. The solution can be literally as simple as we make it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,791
@1,226,777 (squeegee)
> intelligible sentences
fuck off
@1,226,779 (D)
So the last period listed shows a bank run. It's never been that low.
> intelligible sentences
fuck off
@1,226,779 (D)
So the last period listed shows a bank run. It's never been that low.
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,816
@1,226,789 (C)
my solution is to not worry about problems I can't solve on my own. I have enough things I should be doing I don't have to worry about things I might could be doing. I like to think, "what can I do right now that is a solution to a problem that I know i can have an effect on."
that's how I impacted changes in my business from my role as an owner in a partnership for 18 years and I could have been in a panic through every economic downturn or fearful over interest rates, consumer spending, inflation, market collapse, because yeah, we felt it very directly. our revenue year to year could fluctuate by hundreds of thousands of dollars off from projections. we had lean years and we had fat years, the 08 collapse was real bad and we barely scraped through. but even in our worst years we got through it in exactly 1 way.
"what can I do right now that is a solution to a problem that I know I can have an effect on." no one really sounded any major alarms about the 08 collapse. not that could be gleaned from discussing figures like this, and definitely nothing about politics averts problems that amass over decades or spans even years is much of an administrative issue. don't be dumb and over reach on things you don't have direct control over. like, take out massive loans to grow a business based on speculative fat years or a surprise lean year will cause defaults you can't absorb. that kind of long term planning is generally a decent strategy. and debit is a resource with overhead, but, credit is not the same as collateralized loans, so debit is a bad strategy for individuals outside of mortgages, but for businesses we're talking growth resources which are treated very differently than personal resources.
right now what I imagine my old partners are doing is not borrowing and making sure vendors are paid and they're reducing debt because it's a good year for that, the economy is shit, and investing in general is being done in the housing market because home prices are inflating -again, and investment banks are speculating as landlords through property holding companies and the more they do that the more that heats up, prices grow and the keep pumping it up -all with the eventual goal of dumping assets and putting investments somewhere more profitable. but as long as they make more money off real estate than underwriting loans and collecting off of interest rates they'll purge money and hold assets.
thats my armchair opinion, I doubt it's worth much, I have no idea if that's right since I guess no one does there's any question about "what does it matter" to see one aspect of one metric of one industry within complex financial markets. except it sounds like "banks are running out of money," but, banks don't hold on to money. it's an asset and they spend it to make other money. banks are faucets and they run continuously at some volume of flow, the networked economy is "the bank," and the only thing like a bank that holds money in a vault for safe keeping is a personal savings account. so don't look at it like economies or country's are scaled up versions of a family with bills, and credit, mortgage and retirement plans and a checking account.
banks don't fail because they ran out of mattress money. they fail because they do something stupid that other banks don't do. like make ill advised and aggressive speculative gambles or take on poorly backed securities because it's worked for so long no one is bothering to check the sacks of nickels for stones and assume weight=count.
that's not my business to kick sacks of nickels, and I'm probably not where I'm supposed to be worrying too much about the business of other business' business liquidity. idk if that even makes any sense to say!
I will agree the monetary system isn't about holding onto money or having money or anything relatable to money, money is just a fungible token, the monetary system is actually a resource and it gets used as a resource, more like electricity. and batteries are for the flashlights you'd use in a blackout. powerplants make electricity like banks make money. its a conversion of resource to work, work into resource. it's a loop, and you're the fossil fuel and the one who turns the lights on.
money is definitely not what's worth anything. its just people all the way down that are actually the stack of turtles everything is built upon.
my solution is to not worry about problems I can't solve on my own. I have enough things I should be doing I don't have to worry about things I might could be doing. I like to think, "what can I do right now that is a solution to a problem that I know i can have an effect on."
that's how I impacted changes in my business from my role as an owner in a partnership for 18 years and I could have been in a panic through every economic downturn or fearful over interest rates, consumer spending, inflation, market collapse, because yeah, we felt it very directly. our revenue year to year could fluctuate by hundreds of thousands of dollars off from projections. we had lean years and we had fat years, the 08 collapse was real bad and we barely scraped through. but even in our worst years we got through it in exactly 1 way.
"what can I do right now that is a solution to a problem that I know I can have an effect on." no one really sounded any major alarms about the 08 collapse. not that could be gleaned from discussing figures like this, and definitely nothing about politics averts problems that amass over decades or spans even years is much of an administrative issue. don't be dumb and over reach on things you don't have direct control over. like, take out massive loans to grow a business based on speculative fat years or a surprise lean year will cause defaults you can't absorb. that kind of long term planning is generally a decent strategy. and debit is a resource with overhead, but, credit is not the same as collateralized loans, so debit is a bad strategy for individuals outside of mortgages, but for businesses we're talking growth resources which are treated very differently than personal resources.
right now what I imagine my old partners are doing is not borrowing and making sure vendors are paid and they're reducing debt because it's a good year for that, the economy is shit, and investing in general is being done in the housing market because home prices are inflating -again, and investment banks are speculating as landlords through property holding companies and the more they do that the more that heats up, prices grow and the keep pumping it up -all with the eventual goal of dumping assets and putting investments somewhere more profitable. but as long as they make more money off real estate than underwriting loans and collecting off of interest rates they'll purge money and hold assets.
thats my armchair opinion, I doubt it's worth much, I have no idea if that's right since I guess no one does there's any question about "what does it matter" to see one aspect of one metric of one industry within complex financial markets. except it sounds like "banks are running out of money," but, banks don't hold on to money. it's an asset and they spend it to make other money. banks are faucets and they run continuously at some volume of flow, the networked economy is "the bank," and the only thing like a bank that holds money in a vault for safe keeping is a personal savings account. so don't look at it like economies or country's are scaled up versions of a family with bills, and credit, mortgage and retirement plans and a checking account.
banks don't fail because they ran out of mattress money. they fail because they do something stupid that other banks don't do. like make ill advised and aggressive speculative gambles or take on poorly backed securities because it's worked for so long no one is bothering to check the sacks of nickels for stones and assume weight=count.
that's not my business to kick sacks of nickels, and I'm probably not where I'm supposed to be worrying too much about the business of other business' business liquidity. idk if that even makes any sense to say!
I will agree the monetary system isn't about holding onto money or having money or anything relatable to money, money is just a fungible token, the monetary system is actually a resource and it gets used as a resource, more like electricity. and batteries are for the flashlights you'd use in a blackout. powerplants make electricity like banks make money. its a conversion of resource to work, work into resource. it's a loop, and you're the fossil fuel and the one who turns the lights on.
money is definitely not what's worth anything. its just people all the way down that are actually the stack of turtles everything is built upon.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,817
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,819
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 38 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,822
yeah, actually, what did it say? does it agree with any of that or does it see things differently? it's actually more interesting to talk to than most people, but sometimes I think it just agrees with what's being asserted like it just thinks the last thing it heard is right and just seeks to provide things for approval. it's kind of a sycophant I think.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,824
@1,226,819 (C)
It said it was unable to reduce the 'gobbledygook' because there was no meaning to preserve in the message.
It said it was unable to reduce the 'gobbledygook' because there was no meaning to preserve in the message.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,826
@1,226,822 (squeegee)
I'm sorry, but the message does not make sense and appears to be a string of gobbledygook put together without any coherent meaning. It is an example of gibberish, which refers to nonsensical or meaningless language or writing.
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,828
oh, but, you know, SORRY OP for engaging in this conversation with you in an explanatory way to interpret the chart you provided with my 18 years of experience as a small business owner managing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in revenue and from the perspective of navigating tough economic downturns.
do you have opinions of your own or do you just hivemind outputs like the rest of the monumental tower of retardation? jesus christ.
sorry I wasted YOUR time.
do you have opinions of your own or do you just hivemind outputs like the rest of the monumental tower of retardation? jesus christ.
sorry I wasted YOUR time.
squeegee double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,829
oh, you're going to lie about it. I already had it gen a response cause I figured as much:
which I haven't bothered reading because motherfucker is a sycophant and just agrees. and if you're all going to keep putting border tags around chatgpt responses to denote them as chatgpt responses you're doing that because I started that trend. think for yourselves.
You make some interesting points, and I think your perspective on focusing on the problems you can actually solve is quite practical. The world is indeed full of complexities and interconnected systems, and it can be overwhelming to try to tackle all of them at once. Your approach of asking "what can I do right now that is a solution to a problem that I know I can have an effect on" is a great way to maintain a sense of control and agency in your life.
It's also important to recognize that while we may not have the power to change everything, we can still have a significant impact on our own lives, businesses, and communities by focusing on the areas we do have control over.
Your analogy of the monetary system being more like a resource, such as electricity, is thought-provoking. Money, like electricity, flows through the system and is used to facilitate various processes. It's not the money itself that holds value but rather the work and resources it helps to enable.
As you mention, people are the foundation of any economy. It's their labor, creativity, and ingenuity that drive economic growth and innovation. In the end, it's the people who make a difference in the world, not just the money they have or the resources they control.
So, it's crucial to maintain a balance between staying informed about larger issues and focusing on the areas where we can make a difference. By doing so, we can contribute positively to our own lives and the world around us without getting lost in the complexities of systems beyond our control.
It's also important to recognize that while we may not have the power to change everything, we can still have a significant impact on our own lives, businesses, and communities by focusing on the areas we do have control over.
Your analogy of the monetary system being more like a resource, such as electricity, is thought-provoking. Money, like electricity, flows through the system and is used to facilitate various processes. It's not the money itself that holds value but rather the work and resources it helps to enable.
As you mention, people are the foundation of any economy. It's their labor, creativity, and ingenuity that drive economic growth and innovation. In the end, it's the people who make a difference in the world, not just the money they have or the resources they control.
So, it's crucial to maintain a balance between staying informed about larger issues and focusing on the areas where we can make a difference. By doing so, we can contribute positively to our own lives and the world around us without getting lost in the complexities of systems beyond our control.
which I haven't bothered reading because motherfucker is a sycophant and just agrees. and if you're all going to keep putting border tags around chatgpt responses to denote them as chatgpt responses you're doing that because I started that trend. think for yourselves.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,831
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,834
@1,226,828 (squeegee)
What type of business?
@1,226,829 (squeegee)
That sounds like Bard. I was using GPT4.
What type of business?
@1,226,829 (squeegee)
That sounds like Bard. I was using GPT4.
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,838
The original text offers an interesting perspective on personal decision-making and the economy. However, there are some points that could be critiqued:
The text is somewhat difficult to follow due to its stream-of-consciousness style and lack of clear structure. The ideas might be more effectively conveyed if they were presented in a more organized and coherent manner.
The text makes several assumptions, as discussed in the previous response, that may not fully capture the complexities of the economy and monetary systems. For instance, the electricity analogy is thought-provoking, but it has limitations in fully representing how money functions in an economy.
There are some inaccuracies and oversimplifications in the text. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that no one sounded any major alarms about the 2008 collapse, as there were some experts who warned about the impending crisis.
The text seems to dismiss the importance of understanding larger economic issues by focusing solely on problems one can directly control. While it's important to concentrate on areas where we can have an impact, it's also necessary to stay informed about larger issues and their potential consequences, as they can affect our lives and the decisions we make.
The text could benefit from a more balanced perspective on the roles of individuals, businesses, and banks within the economy. While it acknowledges the importance of people, it doesn't fully address the interconnectedness of these entities and how their actions can have broader implications on the economy as a whole.
By addressing these critiques, the original text could provide a more comprehensive and clearer perspective on personal decision-making and economic matters.
The text is somewhat difficult to follow due to its stream-of-consciousness style and lack of clear structure. The ideas might be more effectively conveyed if they were presented in a more organized and coherent manner.
The text makes several assumptions, as discussed in the previous response, that may not fully capture the complexities of the economy and monetary systems. For instance, the electricity analogy is thought-provoking, but it has limitations in fully representing how money functions in an economy.
There are some inaccuracies and oversimplifications in the text. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that no one sounded any major alarms about the 2008 collapse, as there were some experts who warned about the impending crisis.
The text seems to dismiss the importance of understanding larger economic issues by focusing solely on problems one can directly control. While it's important to concentrate on areas where we can have an impact, it's also necessary to stay informed about larger issues and their potential consequences, as they can affect our lives and the decisions we make.
The text could benefit from a more balanced perspective on the roles of individuals, businesses, and banks within the economy. While it acknowledges the importance of people, it doesn't fully address the interconnectedness of these entities and how their actions can have broader implications on the economy as a whole.
By addressing these critiques, the original text could provide a more comprehensive and clearer perspective on personal decision-making and economic matters.
when y'all post shit you're not looking for answers, different viewpoints, or conversation. you're looking to use the question and apparent information that you seem to think supports your belief in the worldview that you agree with along the lines of identity politics. and you think NOT being engaged in meaningful discussion about this one narrow out of context talking point on a forum of people that dont even have the same context where this chart came from -and lets be real, you just read an article where someone was telling you what to make of information in which this chat was sourced- validates your perspective and increases confidence in your spoon fed opinions.
when a chatbot can provide better and more meaningful conversation than you, you may not pass an Ai's Turing test if it was tasked with differentiating intellect from glorified Chinese Chinese room.
just remember, this whole actual ai with understanding thing is still brand new. don't go stale.
stay fresh
squeegee double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,840
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,841
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,842
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 10 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,843
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,844
@previous (squeegee)
মেথামফেটিন একটি কেন্দ্রীয় স্নায়ুতন্ত্র উত্তেজক ওষুধ, যেটা অনেক সময় আনন্দ দায়ক হিসেবে ব্যবহৃত হয়। এটি মূলত স্থুলতার চিকিতসায় ডাক্তারগণ দিয়ে থাকেন।[১০] মিথামফেটিন ১৮৯৩ সালে আবিষ্কৃত হয় এবং এর দুইটি রুপ বিদ্যমান- লেভো মিথামফেটিন এবং ডেক্স্ট্রো মিথামফেটিন । সাধারণভাবে মিথামফেটিন দ্বারা এই দুইটি রুপের সমমিশ্রণকে বোঝনো হয়। এটি খুব বেশি মাত্রায় নেশা উদ্রেককারী দ্রব্য বলে চিকিতসায় খুব কম ব্যবহৃত হয়।
নেশার দ্রব্য হিসেবে এটাকে অনেকে কিনে এবং খায়। নেশা হিসেবে সবচেয়ে বেশি ব্যবহৃত হয় এশিয়ার কিছু অংশে, ওশেনিয়া এবং আমেরিকায়। স্বল্প থেকে মাঝারি মাত্রায় মিথামফেটিন মনের ভাব পরিবরতন করতে পারে, সক্রিয়তা বাড়াতে পারে, ক্ষুধা কমাতে পারে এবং ওজন হ্রাস করতে পারে। বেশি মাত্রায় এটি কংকাল পেশি ভাংগে, কাপুনি সৃষ্টি করে এবং মস্তিষ্কে রক্তক্ষরণ করে। অনেক সময় ধরে উচ্চ মাত্রার ব্যবহারে মিথামফেটিন মানসিক সমস্যা, বিষণণতা, অলীক কল্প্না, আক্রমণাত্মক ব্যবহার সৃষ্টি করতে পারে। নেশার সামগ্রী হিসেবে মিথামফেটিন শক্তি বৃদ্ধি করে এবং যৌন ক্ষমতা বৃদ্ধি করতে পারে।
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,845
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,846
@previous (squeegee)
I have no part in making furniture, just in calculating the risk premiums that would make insuring one profitable.
I have no part in making furniture, just in calculating the risk premiums that would make insuring one profitable.
squeegee replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,847
squeegee double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,848
especially since, evidently, you don't consider yourself good with money. but I guess that's why they only let you handle the financial uncertainty associated with the risk of sittin on sofas?
!MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,860
It means the hard savings functionality in an economy is collapsing; however, since the supply existed in the first place and there's no scale, we can assume the actual supply is being pseudo-originized for dramatism on an -y-axis level.
There is no hard money in America is that non-consumer saving is a static and taveoplex (-^-*-^-/-^-*-^-) putting in spaces of negative and atom real variables if I had them.
There is no hard money in America is that non-consumer saving is a static and taveoplex (-^-*-^-/-^-*-^-) putting in spaces of negative and atom real variables if I had them.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)