Tag: ZIRP

The Post Narcissist Hangover

Leave a comment

Every zeitgeist has its drug.

That’s the secret code, the tracer bullet through history. You don’t chart the eras by wars or presidents or hairstyles — you chart them by the highs. By the chemicals, rituals, and psychic contraband that lit the fuse and kept the engine howling.

You want to know what decade you’re in? Don’t check the headlines — ask what gets people out of bed in the morning and keeps them up at 3AM. That’s your drug. That’s your god.

And here’s the trick: the real freaks, the smellers of the zeitgeist, the antennaed mutants who twitch when the wind changes — they can tell when the high is dying. They sniff it in the air like dogs before a storm. They know when the supply’s running dry, when the thrill’s going limp, when the culture’s just going through the motions like a junkie reciting affirmations in a bathroom mirror.

The drug and the zeitgeist — they rise and fall together.

Acid in the ’60s, coke in the ’80s, Prozac in the ’90s, Adderall in the startup aughts.

Each one a perfect match for the collective nervous breakdown of its era.

Not chosen by taste — chosen by need.

And now?

Now we’re running on dopamine. Pure, digital dopamine — drip-fed by devices, delivered by screens, optimized for endless scrolls and performative personas. And the high?

It’s narcissism.

Self as product. Self as brand. Self as a constantly reissued press release.

Main character syndrome with a six-ring circus of side plots and skincare routines.

But something’s wrong.

The flavor’s off. The high’s gone cold.

The clowns are crying and the likes don’t hit like they used to.

You can feel the culture twitching, stuttering, staring into the mirror and wondering why it suddenly feels like work to be seen.

Narcissism is on its way out.

Bigly.

And with it, the dopamine machine is starting to sputter.

Not gone — not yet — but the cracks are showing.

The sell-by date’s been printed.

The freaks are already moving on.

What comes next?

God knows.

But we’re here to light the autopsy table, pour a stiff drink, and document the final spasms of the world’s last great ego trip.

THE PERFECT DRUG

I always said: buy the ticket, take the ride. But in that flaming wreck of a free market, the ticket booth had been manned by sociopaths in startup hoodies, and the ride turned out to be a haunted carousel fueled by Adderall and venture capital.

Here was the grinning secret every third-rate wizard of Silicon Valley knew but wouldn’t say out loud: you didn’t need a good idea — you just needed a target. Preferably one with a mild-to-moderate psychological disorder. Nothing too crippling — just a manageable cocktail of insecurity, addiction, and digital trauma. The kind of folks who used to buy X-ray specs from the back of comic books and were now forking over $39.99 a month to “optimize their dopamine.”

You found those people. You spoke their language. You promised transcendence in twelve easy payments.

Then you lied.

You lied like the Pope in a brothel. Lied like your Tesla depended on it. You told them you had the cure, the hack, the cheat code, the goddamn answer to their late-night doomscrolling despair. You said their anxiety wasn’t a problem, it was potential — a feature, not a bug — the golden key to creativity, enlightenment, or at the very least, better abs. You wrapped it all in soothing gradients and semi-scientific fonts. You called it “self-care.”

That had been the racket. That was the hustle. Not innovation — manipulation. Not progress — persuasion.

And they thanked you for it.

Hell, they subscribed.

A FEAST OF THE DAMNED

Appetizers are for dilettantes and TikTok therapists. You want the main course, friend? Pull up a chair. Light something unfiltered. Let’s carve the beast.

The true pros—the top-shelf operators in this meat grinder of a republic—don’t just identify neuroses, they cultivate them. They water them daily with fear, guilt, curated envy, and a steady drip of dopamine-branded despair. They don’t sell solutions; they sell symptoms with a dashboard.

Want to feel connected? Here’s a social network built to destroy your attention span and monetize your loneliness. Want clarity? Here’s an app that tracks your thoughts like an Orwellian Fitbit and sells them to hedge funds in Singapore. Want meaning? We’ve got twelve different gurus live-streaming from Bali on how to turn your trauma into passive income.

It’s not a market anymore. It’s a menagerie.

Every user a case study. Every swipe a confession.

And the high priests of this new digital tabernacle?

They know exactly what you want before you do.

This is the meal. This is what we’re all chewing on:

Processed dreams, sprayed with synthetic hope,

served on biodegradable platitudes with a side of algorithmic slop.

And we keep eating.

Because the thing about noble lies—real, juicy, professionally engineered noble lies—is that they’re more comforting than truth. Truth demands something. Lies tuck you in, kiss your forehead, and offer you 10% off with a promo code.

Success, in this twisted empire, isn’t about building something beautiful. It’s about scaling delusion. Manufacturing identity crises in bulk. Gaslighting as-a-service.

And if you do it really well?

You get a TED Talk.

You get a podcast.

You get a VC-backed brand of artisanal nootropics made from moonlight and ketamine.

Bon appétit, America.

OPIUM

Was alcohol better than opium? Christ, that’s like asking if being mauled by a bear is better than drowning in a warm bath. Both’ll kill you — the only difference is how poetic your obituary sounds.

Back in the glory days — when men were men, and bars were confessionals soaked in cigarette ash and whiskey stink — we drank to obliterate. To see God, or at least forget that He stopped returning our calls. Booze was democratic. Available. American. It didn’t require a login, a subscription, or an influencer with a collagen sponsorship. You belly up to the bar, throw down a bill, and gamble your liver on the warm hope of temporary amnesia.

But opium — ah, that silky serpent — that was a different beast. Opium was mythic. The choice of romantics and revolutionaries. You didn’t do opium to forget — you did it to float. To become a ghost in your own skin. A poet without a pulse. It whispered to you, wrapped you in gauze, and lulled you into a dream where the rent was paid and the wars were over.

Now? We don’t need either. We’ve synthesized both.

Liquor is an app.

Opium is a feed.

Despair is user-generated and monetized by the click.

We are self-medicating on serotonin loops and cybernetic shame spirals. Dopamine drip-fed through likes, swipes, retweets, and targeted outrage. Forget the needle. Forget the bottle. The new high is being seen. Or believing you’re being seen. Same difference.

And the comedown? Oh, it’s clinical. Sterile. You don’t wake up in a gutter anymore. You wake up with 137 unread notifications and a sinking suspicion that you sold a piece of your soul for a blue checkmark and some mid-tier engagement.

So was alcohol better than opium?

Was either better than this current hell-broth of digital anesthesia?

Debatable.

At least the old poisons had taste.

Now we overdose on blandness.

On soft, slippery lies piped in 4K resolution, narrated by friendly robots with dead eyes and helpful tips.

Progress? Maybe.

But I’d trade all the smart tech and lifehacks for one more night drunk on gasoline and thunder, yelling poetry at the moon and chasing demons through the desert on a stolen motorcycle.

At least that felt like living.

But I too felt it at the time. Jesus, how could you not? The air was thick with it — not love, not hope, not even the usual cocktail of fear and masturbation — but meaning, man. A cheap, nasty strain of counterfeit meaning passed around like bathtub gin at a dying wedding. That was probably as good as it was ever gonna metaphorically get — the highwater mark of the American hallucination, just before the lights flickered and the rats started wearing AirPods.

I felt it in my teeth.

I didn’t see it coming — I felt it, like a bad drug turning in your bloodstream. A sudden wrongness in the high. The buzz that used to carry you suddenly collapsing under its own weight, leaving only the tremors and dry mouth. That was the first sign: the drugs didn’t work anymore. Not the literal ones — though those, too, started feeling like sugar pills wrapped in marketing — but the psychic drugs. The idea of being in a band. The myth of independence. That whole beautiful, blood-soaked lie we told ourselves in the ‘90s: that if you stayed weird and played honest, the world would eventually catch on. That was the trip. And for a while, it worked. Long enough to believe it. But then the high wore off, and I started to feel the cracks in the culture. No explosions, no warnings — just a slow evaporation of meaning. I didn’t have a grand vision of the collapse; I wasn’t perched on the edge of the digital apocalypse with a bullhorn and a bag of mescaline. But I knew. I felt it in green rooms and gas stations, in the hollow eyes of promoters who used to give a damn. The strange dead air after shows. The numbing echo of a thousand songs floating into algorithmic purgatory. Everything started feeling performed, like we were all auditioning for something that had already been canceled. And somewhere in that haze, I realized: the independence we built our whole identity around had been monetized, dissected, branded, and sold back to us with a monthly subscription fee. And we took it. Willingly. Like pigs at the trough, grinning with slop on our faces.

It was peak-fantasy realism, and you knew — like a hungover prophet in a desert of discount self-actualization — that the whole thing was seconds from rot.

And now

I’ve been around long enough to smell a trend going rancid. I’m a trader in sell-by-date narratives, baby. I know when a drug’s about to get unfashionable.

That’s why I can tell when someone’s drugs starts to wear off. That is what is happening now.

That’s it. That’s the whole twisted truth, boiled down to a grim little shard of instinct: I can tell when someone’s drugs start to wear off. It’s not subtle — it’s a psychic shiver, a short-circuit in the rhythm. In the glowing eyes of every party ghoul and tech grifter In the shaky hands of washed-up Instagram therapists and mushroom microdosers trying to rebrand as prophets.

Their eyes don’t dance the same. Their speech stutters in the corners, like an old car with bad brakes coasting downhill into the future. That hollow conviction, the frantic energy of someone trying to outrun the comedown. And that’s what’s happening now. Culturally. Spiritually. Across the board. The dopamine drip is sputtering, and all the pretty plastic people are starting to twitch. Their hits don’t hit. Their affirmations don’t affirm. The mirror stopped loving them back. You can see it in the timelines and the TikToks — the grins are just a little too wide, the messages a little too desperate. They’re not on top of the wave anymore — they’re under it, holding their breath and hoping no one notices the panic in their filtered eyes. The supply is poisoned. The high is broken. And now we’re all just waiting to see who snaps first.

You could see the come-down coming like a freight train full of Buddhist MLM consultants.

Ketamine, mindfulness, ayahuasca in a tent with a man named Derek —

all of it part of the same desperate crawl toward meaning in a culture that had already pawned its soul for engagement metrics.

And the great monster of it all — the cracked-out vampire lurking behind the whole glittering facade — was narcissism. Not the old-school Elvis kind, with rhinestones and charisma. I mean the bloated, ghoulish, app-optimized narcissism that came standard with every smartphone and a front-facing camera.

But even that is fading now.

You can feel it — like a drop in barometric pressure before a cyclone of cultural malaise.

Narcissism is going out of style bigly.

The zoomers want sincerity. The millennials are burned out from performative selfhood. Even the crypto bros are weeping into their Ring lights, begging for forgiveness from God and the SEC. The tides are turning. The mirrors are cracking. And all the old freaks who made a killing in the age of the self are waking up to find the market flooded with remorse and AI-generated poetry.

No more dopamine-on-demand.

No more selfies as sacrament.

No more influencer-gurus hawking trauma as lifestyle.

We are entering the post-narcissist hangover —

a national come-to-Jesus moment where everyone looks in the mirror and sees a sponsored ghost.

And the worst part?

There’s no going back.

You can’t uninvent the ring light.

You can’t put the teeth back in the cocaine.

And you sure as hell can’t repackage sincerity once people stop buying it.

So what’s next?

Hell if I know. Maybe a return to muttering into typewriters in windowless rooms.

Maybe fire. Maybe silence.

But if you want a tip from a man who’s chased the ghost of America through barrooms, bunkers, and bureaucracies…

Buy stock in regret.

It’s about to be the only growth sector left.

Discipline

Leave a comment

DISCIPLINE

In 1981, as the world grappled with the hangover of the freewheeling 1970s—stagflation, punk’s rubble, and the cold dawn of Reaganomics—King Crimson, rock’s most mercurial act, reemerged with an album titled Discipline. Its track, “Indiscipline,” was a jarring manifesto: a recursive guitar riff, arrhythmic drums, and lyrics about obsession, control, and the terror of losing both. Frontman Adrian Belew howled, “I repeat myself when under stress / I repeat myself when under stress / I repeat…” It was a song about the fragility of order, the seduction of chaos, and the thin line between genius and madness. In hindsight, it’s also a perfect metaphor for the paradox of “disciplined indiscipline.”   The track that felt like its mirror image: erratic, fragmented, unpredictable. If Discipline was structure, Indiscipline was impulse. Yet both belonged to the same system, feeding into each other, revealing that real mastery wasn’t about rigid control or wild abandon but about moving between the two—knowing when to follow the grid and when to break free.

This idea—that discipline and indiscipline aren’t opposites but interwoven forces—isn’t just about music. It’s about navigation. We often imagine success as mastery, as having everything mapped out. But in reality, much of movement—through markets, through culture, through life—isn’t about mastery at all. It’s about mitigation: an intelligence that isn’t about complete control but about sensing, adjusting, and improvising within a shifting environment. It’s not just about skill; it’s about métis, that ancient cunning, but mixed with bêtise—the foolishness and randomness that inevitably shape our paths

 The Album as Algorithm: Fripp’s Controlled Anarchy  

Robert Fripp, King Crimson’s guitarist and de facto philosopher-king, once described his approach to music as “cybernetic improv”—a blend of rigid structure and spontaneous play. Discipline was built on this ethos. The title track, for example, interlocked four musicians in a rhythmic lattice so precise it sounded algorithmic, yet its grooves pulsed with human imperfection. This wasn’t jazz improv or punk rebellion. It was chaos designed, like a murmuration of starlings—aestheticized randomness with invisible rules.  

Fripp’s infamous “guitar craft” method—a monastic regimen of practice and theory—enabled this. He trained his hands to obey so completely that he could later “disobey with intent.” In essence, Discipline was an album about the freedom that comes only after mastery. The song “Indiscipline” literalized this tension: its lyrics (inspired by Belew’s wife’s letter about a chaotic art sculpture) fixated on an object that was “too much to take” yet “too good to throw away.” The music mirrored this duality—Belew’s guitar squalled like a broken radio, while the rhythm section (Tony Levin and Bill Bruford) anchored it with militaristic precision.  

 The ZIRP of Art: When Noise Becomes Signal  

In the early 1980s, King Crimson’s Discipline landed in a cultural moment ripe for its message. New Wave and post-punk were turning rebellion into a formula, while corporate rock calcified. The album’s fusion of math-rock rigor and art-rock abandon felt radical precisely because it refused binary logic. It was indiscipline with a blueprint—a rejection of both punk’s nihilism and prog rock’s excess.  

This mirrors the “ZIRP world” described earlier. In eras of abundance (like the 2010s tech boom or the 1970s art-rock explosion), experimentation flourishes because the stakes feel low. Mistakes become “innovation”; noise becomes “edge.” Discipline thrived in this ambiguity—critics called it “unclassifiable,” a backhanded compliment that masked their unease. But unlike the startups that mistook luck for strategy, King Crimson’s chaos was earned. Fripp’s years of monastic practice (he once compared guitar playing to “washing the floor”—a daily, unglamorous ritual) let the band pivot when the rules changed. By the 1990s, when grunge and alt-rock dominated, Crimson had already moved on, their “indiscipline” intact but retuned.  

In a world of easy gains—where ZIRP, network effects, and technological tailwinds make happy accidents look like skill—this kind of intelligence is obscured. Everything feels like low-hanging fruit, and moving forward is as much about timing as it is about talent. But when the conditions shift, when gravity returns, the difference between real navigation and blind luck becomes clear. The game is no longer about picking fruit—it’s about staying upright, about mitigating collapse, about turning indiscipline into something sustainable.

We don’t master the sea. We mitigate its dangers and ride its waves.

The Paradox of Controlled Chaos: Why Luck Isn’t a Strategy (But Feels Like One)  

In the early 2000s, a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs stumbled into a peculiar pattern. Startups founded during the dot-com boom seemed to thrive not because of meticulous planning, but because of something closer to chaos. Founders pivoted wildly, burned cash on half-baked ideas, and yet—against all odds—many struck gold. Investors called it “vision.” Employees called it “genius.” But years later, when the 2008 financial crisis hit, those same founders floundered. Their freewheeling strategies dissolved like sugar in rain. What changed? The answer lies in a paradox: the difference between indiscipline and disciplined indiscipline.  

 The ZIRP Mirage: When Chaos Looks Like Genius  

In a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) world—where capital is cheap, networks sprawl, and risk feels weightless—indiscipline thrives. Consider the rise of “growth at all costs” startups. Companies like WeWork or Uber, buoyed by a decade of easy money, operated in a reality where every misstep could be reframed as innovation. Investors rewarded audacity over austerity, and founders internalized a dangerous lesson: randomness could be mistaken for skill.  

This phenomenon isn’t new. Psychologists call it the “narrative fallacy”—our tendency to craft coherent stories from chaos. In the 1990s, researchers studying stock traders found that many attributed their success to skill, even when their wins were statistically indistinguishable from luck. In a ZIRP environment, the same delusion takes hold. When money flows freely, even haphazard decisions yield fruit. The low-hanging rewards of “happy accidents” obscure a critical truth: abundance forgives incompetence.  

 The Gravity Test: When Structure Becomes Survival  

But what happens when gravity returns? Consider the contrast between two eras: the freewheeling 2010s and the austerity of the 1980s. In the latter, companies like IBM and Intel survived not by chasing every shiny trend, but by doubling down on disciplined R&D. Andy Grove, Intel’s legendary CEO, famously embraced “paranoia” as strategy—a relentless focus on margins, efficiency, and incremental innovation. This wasn’t glamorous. But when the tech bubble burst in 2000, Intel endured while flashier rivals collapsed.  

Discipline, in this context, isn’t rigidity. It’s the ability to toggle between chaos and order. The psychologist Angela Duckworth, studying grit, found that high achievers share a trait: they work with “directionless determination” early on (experimenting, pivoting), then lock into ruthless focus once they find a viable path. This mirrors what venture capitalists call the “explore-exploit” dilemma: knowing when to wander and when to commit.  

 The Art of Riding Waves (Without Drowning)  

The most successful navigators of chaos understand something subtle: indiscipline must be intentional. Jazz musicians, for example, thrive on improvisation—but only after mastering scales. The saxophonist John Coltrane could spend hours deconstructing a single chord, building the muscle memory to later “break” rules with purpose. Similarly, companies like Amazon operate with a Gladwellian “thin slicing” ethos: Jeff Bezos’ “two-pizza teams” (small, autonomous groups) encourage experimentation, but within a scaffold of unyielding metrics (customer obsession, long-term profit).  

Contrast this with the fate of Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes embraced indiscipline—lying, pivoting, and burning cash—but without the underlying rigor of real science or accountability. When gravity arrived (regulators, skeptics), the house of cards collapsed. Her chaos wasn’t controlled; it was desperation masquerading as vision.  

Luck vs. Leverage  

Malcolm Gladwell often asks: What do we miss when we attribute success to individual brilliance? In Outliers, he showed how Bill Gates’ genius was amplified by access to a computer lab in 1968—a rare privilege. Similarly, “disciplined indiscipline” relies on context. In a ZIRP world, leverage your chaos; in a high-gravity world, leverage your craft.  

The key is to recognize which environment you’re in. During the pandemic, companies like Zoom thrived on the chaos of remote work, but their survival now depends on disciplined innovation (AI features, enterprise security). Meanwhile, legacy industries like hospitality, forced into austerity during lockdowns, are rebounding by embracing controlled experimentation (hybrid events, dynamic pricing).  

 The Gravity of “Indiscipline”: When the Sculpture Cracks  

The song “Indiscipline” climaxes with Belew’s frantic confession: “I like it!”—a mantra that devolves into a scream. It’s the sound of someone clinging to chaos as a lifeline, even as it threatens to consume them. This resonates with the peril of clinging to indiscipline when gravity returns. Consider the 1980s music industry: as MTV rose and labels demanded polished hits, bands that relied on pure chaos (say, The Germs) collapsed, while those with underlying discipline (Talking Heads, Crimson) evolved.  

King Crimson’s secret was their ability to meta-process chaos. Fripp’s “soundscapes”—ambient loops crafted in real time—were improvised yet governed by rules. Similarly, Levin’s Chapman Stick (a bass-guitar hybrid) added texture without clutter. Their indiscipline wasn’t a lack of control; it was control redistributed, like a Jackson Pollock painting—a thousand calculated splatters.  

The 10,000-Hour Accident  

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers argues that mastery requires “10,000 hours” of practice. But King Crimson’s Discipline suggests a corollary: true innovation requires 10,000 hours plus a willingness to set fire to the blueprint. The album’s legacy lies in its refusal to be trapped by either pole—it’s neither punk nor prog, neither chaos nor order.  

When the band reunited in the 2000s, Fripp quipped that Crimson was “a way of doing things.” Not a sound, not a genre, but a method. That method—disciplined indiscipline—is what lets artists (and entrepreneurs) thrive in both ZIRP and high-gravity worlds. The trick is to build your scaffold so well that you can dance on it, like Philippe Petit on his tightrope, screaming “I like it!” into the void.  

So, circle back to Discipline. Its genius isn’t in the noise or the order, but in the tension between them. As Fripp might say: Structure is freedom. But only if you know when to break it.

 The Tightrope Walker’s Secret  

The tightrope walker Philippe Petit, who traversed the World Trade Center in 1974, understood disciplined indiscipline. His performance looked like reckless artistry, but it was built on years of obsessive preparation: studying wind patterns, rehearsing falls, and calculating every step. He knew when to lean into the chaos of the moment and when to anchor himself to structure.  

In the end, the paradox resolves itself: Indiscipline without discipline is luck. Discipline without indiscipline is stagnation. The trick is to dance between them—to surf the waves of randomness while knowing, deep down, how to swim when the tide turns. Because gravity always returns. And when it does, the ones who survive won’t

Inca Zirp

Leave a comment

The American gold and silver that flowed into Spain from the 16th century onward functioned, in effect, as a form of zero-interest money — a steady injection of liquidity into the imperial economy that enabled a dramatic expansion of state power without requiring the structural reforms or productive investments necessary to sustain it. Like the flood of cheap credit in later financial crises, this seemingly limitless resource allowed Spain to finance vast imperial ambitions while masking its underlying economic fragility.

This unearned influx of bullion freed the Spanish Crown from the fiscal discipline required of its rivals. Instead of developing domestic industries, taxing its population effectively, or fostering a productive economy, Spain relied on its colonial extractions to fund wars, maintain its armies, and support a bloated aristocracy. Gold and silver, however, are not inherently productive; they are inert, unable to generate real economic growth unless paired with investment in infrastructure, innovation, or trade. In modern terms, it was akin to a country printing money to pay for its expenses without building the productive capacity to back it.

As with economies dependent on near-zero interest rates, the illusion of wealth fueled a dangerous cycle. Easy money drove inflation — the infamous price revolution of early modern Europe — eroding the purchasing power of Spain’s domestic economy while enriching foreign creditors and merchants. The empire became a net consumer of goods produced elsewhere, particularly in the more industrialized economies of northern Europe. In effect, the bullion Spain extracted at great cost was funneled out of the country almost as quickly as it arrived, enriching its creditors in Genoa, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, while leaving the domestic economy stagnant.

When the bullion flows slowed in the 17th century — much like the end of a low-interest credit boom — the reckoning came swiftly. Without a productive base or diversified economy to fall back on, the Spanish state was left overleveraged and overextended. The empire defaulted repeatedly on its debts, unable to maintain its military commitments or its dominance in Europe. What had seemed like an infinite reservoir of wealth was revealed as a temporary windfall, squandered in pursuit of short-term power rather than long-term stability.

In this sense, the collapse of Spain’s imperial economy offers a clear historical parallel to modern economic crises driven by overreliance on cheap credit. Both highlight the dangers of mistaking access to liquidity for the creation of real wealth and the long-term consequences of failing to use such opportunities to build sustainable economic foundations.

In much the same way that American gold lulled the Spanish Empire into complacency, zero interest rates in the United States over the past few decades have acted as a steady injection of liquidity into the imperial economy. This policy, initiated to stabilize the financial system and stimulate growth, has enabled a dramatic expansion of the American oligarchy, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a narrow elite. Yet, as with Spain, this influx of easy money has come at the expense of the structural reforms and productive investments necessary to sustain long-term prosperity.

The parallels are striking. Just as Spain financed its wars, debt, and aristocratic extravagance with bullion extracted from the Americas, the United States has sustained its global dominance through the continuous printing of dollars, backed by faith in the financial system rather than tangible economic productivity. Cheap credit has fueled speculative bubbles, enabled vast corporate stock buybacks, and entrenched wealth among the financial elite, while the broader economy remains precariously dependent on consumption, debt, and asset inflation. In both cases, the influx of unearned wealth has fostered a systemic dependence on extraction — of resources, labor, or rents — rather than innovation or production.

Like the Spanish Empire, the United States has neglected the critical work of long-term investment. Infrastructure crumbles, public education stagnates, and industrial capacity has been outsourced in favor of globalized supply chains designed to maximize short-term profits. The trillions of dollars in liquidity injected into the economy through zero-interest rate policies have largely bypassed the real economy, flowing instead into the financial sector. This has enriched a class of oligarchs who now sit atop historically unprecedented concentrations of wealth, but it has failed to build the resilient foundations necessary to sustain a global hegemon.

Meanwhile, just as Spanish gold fueled inflation and destabilized the European economy, America’s low interest rates have created a speculative frenzy in assets, from real estate to tech stocks, driving inequality to extremes and further destabilizing the social contract. The system remains propped up by faith in the dollar, much as Spain’s economy was propped up by the flow of American bullion, but this is a house of cards. When the flow of easy money inevitably slows — as it already has with recent rate hikes — the structural weaknesses will become painfully apparent. Debt burdens will rise, speculative markets will collapse, and the social inequalities papered over by the illusion of liquidity will become impossible to ignore.

The collapse of Spain’s empire, fueled by its overreliance on Inca gold and silver, was a slow-motion disaster that took centuries to unfold. For 200 years after the bullion flows began to dwindle, Spain clung to its position as a leading nation, still wielding considerable influence in Europe. Yet beneath the surface, the foundations were eroding. By the end of the 19th century, Spain had faded into near-total irrelevance, a marginal power on the global stage.

What’s striking is how long the effects of the bullion-driven economy lingered. The gold and silver that once seemed a limitless source of strength left Spain trapped in a cycle of dependency and stagnation. For nearly 300 years, Spain struggled to transition to a real economy, one based on industry, innovation, and productivity. The legacy of easy wealth shaped its institutions, its social structure, and its politics, long after the flow of precious metals dried up. In some ways, it wasn’t until the late 20th century that Spain fully emerged from the shadow of its imperial past and began to build a modern, diversified economy.

Fast forward to the United States, and the parallels are striking — and unsettling. Like Spain, the United States has relied on an artificial source of wealth: not bullion, but zero interest rate policies and the global dominance of the dollar. This has created an extraordinary concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an entrenched oligarchy. The policies that propped up financial markets have also hollowed out the real economy, fostering inequality and leaving large portions of the population excluded from the supposed benefits of growth.

Yet, as with Spain, the decline of the United States may take much longer than pessimists expect. Empires do not collapse overnight; they erode, their dominance fading gradually even as their elites maintain a façade of control. The sheer scale of America’s economic, military, and cultural power means that the end of its primacy is likely a distant prospect, even if the underlying rot continues to spread.

And there is one crucial difference: while Spain’s aristocracy faded along with its empire, the American oligarchy may prove far more durable. If the lesson of the post-ZIRP era is anything, it’s that the concentration of wealth and power has become self-reinforcing. The systems that sustain the elite are deeply entrenched, and absent significant structural change — which seems unlikely — they are poised to endure.

The long shadow of ZIRP, like the curse of Inca gold, may define this phase of American history. The collapse, if it comes, may still be centuries away, but the conditions for a slow, grinding decline are already in place. And just as Spain took centuries to recover from the legacy of unearned wealth, the United States may one day face its own reckoning. Whether that reckoning takes decades or centuries, one thing seems certain: the oligarchy is here to stay, for the foreseeable future.

The lesson from Spain’s collapse is clear: unearned wealth, whether in the form of gold or artificially cheap capital, cannot sustain an empire. Without structural reforms — investments in productivity, infrastructure, and the real economy — the temporary gains of liquidity-driven growth will eventually lead to decline. The United States, like Spain before it, faces the danger of mistaking the mechanisms of its power for its substance, and the cost of such a mistake will be nothing less than the erosion of its global dominance.

IP Bloat and ZIRP

IP bloat and zero interest rates, my friends, are the twin nightmares of our modern entertainment and economic systems. The former, a grotesque carnival of stale franchises and soulless sequels, floods the market with an avalanche of derivative dreck, hoping to drown out the creaky echoes of its own mediocrity. The latter, zero interest rates, is a mind-numbing drug administered by our overlords to keep the capital tepid, stagnant, and utterly devoid of life.

It’s a classic case of the emperor’s new clothes—except the emperor here is a blundering idiot, and the clothes are made of garbage. The system churns out endless rows of overpriced, overblown spectacles and rotting franchises, while the so-called “investment opportunities” provide nothing but a monotonous drip of zero returns. It’s a cosmic joke, where the punchline is a world choked by its own excesses and failures.

The only remedy to this grand farce is to stop pretending that pouring millions into soulless, formulaic monstrosities is a viable strategy. Give the damn car keys to the creators, the directors, the writers—the real dreamers and schemers who might actually have a spark of originality left. Not one $180 million bloated blockbuster, but nine $20 million productions brimming with fresh ideas and raw energy. Give them the chance to experiment, to fail, and to surprise. It’s the only way to pull ourselves out of this dismal quagmire of creative bankruptcy and financial futility.

Gamblers are Fragilistas

Dig this, man. These fragilistas, these jitterbugging fiends of the roulette wheel, ain’t some high rollers out for a score.Naw, they’re optionality junkies, strung out on the fumes of some imaginary jackpot. Blind as bats to the house edge, that meat grinder slowly chomping away at their stacks.

Volatility, baby, that’s their drug. Each spin a potential freak wave of fortune, a Black Swan of bling that blinds them to the flock of everyday pigeons crapping all over their winnings. Fragile egos built on a foundation of chips, one bad beat shattering them faster than a junkie snorting a line of broken dreams.

Time bombs ticking on the risk spectrum, one impulsive bet away from blowing themselves to financial smithereens. The antifragile, those cats dig the chaos, thrive on it. But these fragilistas? They crumble like yesterday’s pastries under the slightest heat. Jensen’s Inequality on its head, man. Volatility’s a cruel teacher they never learn from, just keep chasing that dragon of a quick buck.

Lost souls of the casino underworld, eyes glazed over with a desperate hope for a lucky streak. They’re moths to the flickering neon flame, hypnotized by the promise of riches that dissolves faster than a gambler’s luck. The house, that cold-blooded entity, watches them with reptilian patience. It’s the ultimate antifragile predator, fattening on the folly of these fragile players.

So next time you see them hunched over the green felt battlefield, remember this: they ain’t gamblers, they’re volatility junkies on a one-way trip to oblivion. The house always wins, man, always. And these fragilistas? They’re just meat for the grinder.

The ZIRPification Of Lore

Ah, the ZIRPification of lore. A term as potent as it is unsettling, conjuring a realm where backstory becomes a suffocating miasma, a narrative equivalent of quantitative easing run amok. Just as central banks distort markets with artificially low interest rates, excessive lore warps the very fabric of a story.

Imagine, dear reader, a text bogged down by expositionary bloat. Pages upon pages dedicated to the minutiae of dynastic squabbles in a forgotten corner of the fictional universe, or the precise lineage of a minor magical artifact. This is the ZIRPification at work, where every detail, no matter how trivial, is deemed worthy of inclusion.

The consequences are dire. The reader, bombarded with an unending stream of irrelevant information, drowns in the narrative swamp. What should be a thrilling adventure becomes a Sisyphean struggle to reach the next plot point, buried beneath layers of world-building detritus.

The ZIRPification breeds a peculiar kind of cynicism. The reader, forever wary of the info-dump lurking around the corner, becomes suspicious of any expository passage. Trust in the narrative erodes, replaced by a constant questioning of the author’s motives. Is this detail truly relevant, or merely another desperate attempt to inflate the world’s perceived complexity?

But the true horror lies in the erosion of mystery. ZIRPification robs the world of its tantalizing ambiguity. Every question, no matter how minor, receives a definitive answer. The thrill of piecing together the narrative puzzle oneself is replaced by the dispiriting feeling of having everything spoon-fed.

However, there’s a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the ZIRPification isn’t a dead end, but a grotesque caricature, a cautionary tale. By pushing the boundaries of overstuffed lore to their breaking point, it exposes the delicate balance between world-building and narrative flow.

The truly skilled author navigates this treacherous terrain. They understand that lore, like spice, should be used judiciously. Hints and whispers, revealed organically through the narrative, are far more potent than pages of dry exposition. The reader becomes an active participant, piecing together the world one tantalizing clue at a time.

Hollywood Debt Obligations

Leave a comment

“Hollywood has become a conduit for studios and artists to meet their debt obligations because studios are in great great debt and the job is not so much to make great movies, their job is to make their debt obligation”

In the labyrinthine fever dream of Hollywood, where ambition curdles into celluloid and dreams are monetized by the foot, a sinister inversion has taken root. The flickering silver screen, once a canvas for audacious visions, has become a relentless debt-peon, cranking out forgettable franchises like gears in a nightmarish machine. It’s a hall of mirrors where studios, bloated and teetering on the precipice of financial oblivion, churn out product fueled not by artistic passion but by the ravenous maw of their own bad bets.

Gone are the days of auteurs with Brylcreem and a messianic gleam in their eye, replaced by focus-grouped, derivative dreck, each film a cynical calculation, a desperate attempt to appease the faceless gods of the bottom line. The air is thick with the stench of burnt celluloid and broken promises, the muses sacrificed at the altar of quarterly reports. Scripts, once vibrant and subversive, are rewritten by committees of accountants, their souls leeched out, replaced with empty fan service and derivative sequels.

Even the actors, those beautiful, talented moths drawn to the flame, become cogs in the machine. Their faces, once canvases for a kaleidoscope of human emotions, are reduced to mere branding opportunities, their careers trajectories dictated not by artistic merit but by box office tallies. The independent spirit, the lifeblood of cinema, gasps its last breaths in the back alleys of Hollywood, choked out by the smog of corporate greed.

This is the new Hollywood, a dystopian funhouse where art surrenders to commerce, and the only true currency is the clinking of coins. A place where stories are birthed not from the human heart, but from the cold calculus of spreadsheets. A cautionary tale writ large in flickering images, a testament to the corrosive power of debt when it infects the very soul of a dream.

Lords of Scarcity

The zero-interest rate era was the golden age of bullshit—a financial acid trip where the laws of physics, economics, and basic human decency went out the window. It was like some mad billionaire handed out Monopoly money at a rave and told everyone they could fly. And boy, did they try. Instead of building rockets to Mars or rewiring the rusted-out skeleton of America’s power grid, we sank it all into a goddamn superhero LARP.

Hollywood became the altar of this grotesque religion, where CGI-fueled demigods did battle in the name of escapism. The capes, the spandex, the endless swirling vortex of special effects—this was the cinematic equivalent of printing money and throwing it into the void. It mirrored the economic landscape perfectly: infinite liquidity, zero substance. Why waste time on real progress when you can simulate it with enough green screen and post-production wizardry to make the moon landing look like a student film?

Lacan would have a field day with this. The superhero isn’t just a character; it’s a projection of the méconnaissance, the great misrecognition. The Average Joe gazes into the mirror of modern culture, and what does he see? Not himself, but a grotesque distortion, a mythologized version of his own desires: the hero, the savior, the all-powerful individual who can reshape reality through sheer will.

This transmogrification isn’t accidental; it’s the bait in the con job. The promise is seductive: You’re not just an Average Joe. You’re special, you’re powerful, you’re a superhero in waiting. The narrative flatters, inflates, and redirects the subject’s sense of lack—the symbolic wound that drives human ambition—into a fantastical identification with an impossible ideal. But in doing so, it obscures the real game being played.

Because while the Average Joe is busy imagining himself as Iron Man, the 1% is slipping out the back door with all the pie. This isn’t just exploitation; it’s a masterstroke of ideological manipulation. Convince the middle and lower classes that they’re not oppressed but empowered, that they’re on the verge of greatness, and you can rob them blind without them even noticing.

And let’s not forget the real trick here: the superhero fantasy isn’t just aspirational—it’s anesthetizing. It replaces genuine agency with a simulation of power, the illusion of action. The Average Joe isn’t organizing, unionizing, or storming the gates; he’s sitting on his couch, identifying with the invincible demigods on screen, believing that somehow, he’s already won.

In Lacanian terms, the superhero is the objet petit a, the unattainable object of desire, endlessly deferred. The subject chases it, invests in it, but never attains it. And that chase keeps him distracted, pacified, even as the real levers of power—the wealth, the supply chains, the pie itself—are pulled farther and farther out of reach.

It’s the perfect con: convince someone they’re more powerful than they are, and you can take everything from them without a fight. The Average Joe gets the fantasy; the 1% gets the reality. And when the credits roll, only one of them is left standing.

The entire spectacle was an orgy of hyperreality, a flickering neon distraction from the fact that we had all the resources in the world to do something meaningful and pissed it away on branded lunchboxes and Funko Pops. We could’ve built new worlds—hell, we could’ve saved this one—but no. We chose to watch Iron Man punch Thanos in the face for the seventh time, mistaking this digital pantomime for heroism.

This was the bastard child of cheap money and a culture addicted to spectacle. The superheroes weren’t just metaphors—they were the gods of a zero-interest rate economy, avatars of unearned power, where the only skill that mattered was convincing people to buy into the illusion. And buy in we did, like lemmings marching off a cliff, with popcorn in one hand and a credit card in the other.

Of course, there were people who saw it coming. There always are. They’re the ones who didn’t waste their time on the cape-and-cowl circus or buy into the collective hallucination that this time it’s different. They sat in their quiet fortresses of cynicism, sharpening their knives and biding their time. While the rest of us were drooling over superhero fantasies and digital explosions, they were building real empires—not with spandex, but with cold, ruthless efficiency.

These were the architects of the new world order. Not the builders of Mars colonies or the revolutionaries of clean energy—no, those people got crowded out by the noise. These were the ones who took the bonanza, the wild flow of free money, and used it to carve out fortresses of data, influence, and control.

They don’t need a doomsday device or an army of henchmen. They’re weaponized boredom: algorithms, patents, infrastructure nobody understands but everybody depends on. They learned how to extract power from entropy, how to siphon wealth from chaos without drawing attention. And now they sit in the shadows, watching the rest of us scavenge through the ruins of what could’ve been a golden age.

Exactly. They’re the ones who didn’t just build moats—they built labyrinths. And not around castles, but around supply chains. The veins and arteries of the modern world. They understood that power wasn’t in the spectacle or even the product—it was in controlling the flow. Oil, semiconductors, lithium, grain—hell, even the shipping containers themselves. They wrapped their hands around the global choke points while the rest of us were hypnotized by cinematic nonsense about fictional heroes saving fictional worlds.

These people played a long game. While everyone else was on a sugar-high from cheap money and endless content, they were buying up ports, factories, and patents. They turned raw materials into a weapon, logistics into a religion, and bottlenecks into leverage. They didn’t care about public adoration or even moral high ground—they were too busy consolidating.

Now, if you want to build a car, you go through them. Want to make a battery? Good luck finding the cobalt. They turned the global supply chain into their personal fortress, an invisible empire guarded not by dragons, but by bureaucracies, fine print, and the sheer impossibility of getting anything done without them.

They’re the new lords of scarcity, thriving in a world where nothing can move without their blessing. They don’t need to larp as superheroes or even show their faces. Their power is so embedded in the machinery of modern life, so fundamental, that we don’t even think to question it. It’s not evil in the comic book sense—it’s worse than that. It’s banal, procedural, and utterly inescapable.

And when the next crisis comes—because it always does—they’ll tighten the noose a little more, muttering about “supply chain disruptions” while the rest of us scramble to figure out why the shelves are empty. These aren’t the bad guys you can punch in the face or overthrow with a dramatic speech. They’re the system itself, and we’re all just stuck in their web.

They’re not superheroes, and they’re not traditional villains either. They’re something worse—a product of our collective failure to use the years of abundance for anything meaningful. While we were busy worshipping fake gods in capes, they built the real myths of tomorrow. And the worst part? By the time we notice, it’ll be too late.

The Flickering Hustle: Confessions of a Theater Impresario

I didn’t always live like this—counting crumpled twenties, watching phantom faces flash across empty velvet rows, and praying to the flickering gods of Hollywood. There was a time when movies meant something, when the smell of stale popcorn mixed with nicotine and sweat, and the rattling reel of film was as sacred as mass. But that time’s gone. Swallowed whole by algorithms, marketing monsters, and some bastard child of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Now I’m just a front man for the long con, a midway barker for a broken funhouse.

Zero Interest Rate Policy, that’s the racket now. Cheap cash flows like watered-down bourbon, and everyone’s got their hands in it—studios, hedge funds, even the damn ticket scalpers. They all figured out how to turn art into spreadsheets, and I’m the last sucker on the chain, selling fake dreams to fake people.

Welcome to the new economy.

The game’s rigged from the start. The film industry used to be a gamble—Russian roulette with a hundred thousand-dollar bullet. If the picture flopped, you’d feel it in your bones. Hell, I’d feel it in my theater, in the dead silence that echoed after the last frame cut out. But now, with ZIRP money flooding the market, there’s no risk. Just a game of musical chairs, and every seat is bought by some studio exec with an expense account thicker than his sense of reality. They don’t even need you to sit down. They’ve already bought the ticket, sold the dream, and padded the weekend numbers before the film even hits the screen.

See, it starts small—whispers of a new blockbuster. The studio shoves a suitcase of money down the throat of every theater in town, promising they’ll fill every seat, whether real or imaginary. I play my part, I pocket the cash, and smile as I project the latest visual narcotic to a room full of ghosts.

Bulk purchases, that’s the trick. You’d think people would smell the rot, but they don’t. Some poor bastard logging into Fandango sees that half the seats are gone and thinks, “I better get my ticket now, or I’ll miss out!” Little does he know, those seats were bought by an intern in a dark room full of blinking servers, feeding the illusion. Click, click, click, it’s all ones and zeros now. I’ve seen blockbusters “sell out” faster than you can light a cigarette, and when I step into the theater, I can count the real people on one hand. It’s like a reverse séance—no spirits, just empty chairs haunted by the cash that bought them.

Then there’s the seat-filler con—buying up entire rows, entire showtimes. Not to fill theaters, mind you, but to fill the studio’s numbers. You’d think it was some kind of arms race. Who can pad their box office the fastest? And I play the willing accomplice, because the ZIRP gravy train keeps the lights on and the rent paid.

I used to hate the silence. The low hum of a movie dying on its second act, the sound of an empty audience not reacting to anything, no clapping, no laughter—just the crackling buzz of the projector burning through film that nobody came to see. But now? I love it. The emptiness of the theater is the sound of money flowing upstream. I could fill the place with mannequins, and it wouldn’t matter, as long as those little green numbers keep rising in someone’s data feed.

Theater owners like me—we’re just props in the grand spectacle now. We put up the neon lights, sweep the floors, and make sure the popcorn machine’s running, but we’re part of the bigger scam. It’s all about perception. Make it look like a hit, and it’ll become one. The public? They don’t know the difference between real demand and the shadows we cast on the wall. They want to believe in blockbusters the same way they want to believe their vote matters or that their crypto’s going to the moon.

But let me tell you, this whole thing’s a Ponzi scheme on steroids. The studios pump money into the illusion, and the illusion keeps spinning. They say, “Just wait for the big weekend box office numbers!” It’s all a front. The films don’t matter; the numbers do. It’s like shooting up heroin, chasing that first high. The studios buy the illusion of success, hoping it becomes real before the money dries up.

And it will dry up, oh yes, one day the cheap money will run out, the ZIRP tap will close, and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. When that happens, I’ll be standing here with an empty theater and an even emptier bank account. But until then, I keep playing my part. I keep selling tickets to invisible audiences, because that’s the game now. We’re all just players in the Great American Scam, chasing ghosts with stacks of counterfeit cash.

But here’s the kicker: I don’t hate it. Hell, I thrive on it. Because when you’re in on the con, when you know the hustle, you can ride that wave as far as it’ll go. The public eats this stuff up. They think they’re part of something, part of some cultural moment, some Hollywood “event”—but they’re just another line item in a balance sheet.

So yeah, I’ll keep dimming the lights, cueing up the projector, and letting the phantom crowds shuffle in. Because as long as the ZIRP money flows, the lie lives on. And in this game, the lie is more real than the truth ever could be.

Welcome to the flickering hustle.