Interesting theory. But note how before you added the ten-year lag, it actually appeared to be an INVERSE correlation between M2 money supply and distress contemporaneously. That would dovetail more with Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's theory of Monetary Sovereignty, namely, that recessions are caused by shrinking or reduced growth in money supply (and prosperity by increased growth in money supply, as a growing economy requires a growing supply of money), while inflations are caused by shortages of goods and services, not by growth in the money supply. So I would argue, from the principle of parsimony, that you are correct in the "it's the economy, stupid!" explanation, albeit in the opposite direction, and that you are still correct nonetheless that smartphones and social media are NOT the central casual factor here.
I appreciate alternative viewpoints and would like to address the theories you mentioned.
I’ll start with Rick Nevin’s theory. I agree that pollution can contribute to crime; however, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that lead exposure is responsible for the rise in crime rates. This is similar to my view on SSMT. I agree that heavy phone use can be harmful, but there is no strong evidence that phone use itself is the cause of the youth mental health crisis.
More broadly, if a theory claims to explain homicide trends, it should also be able to explain suicide trends, given their close correlation among teens. Nevin’s theory does not address suicide rates. SSMT has the inverse limitation: it focuses on suicide trends while offering no explanation for homicide trends.
You're very welcome. Nevin's correlation between lead and crime rates is pretty uncanny and seems to pan out across many other countries too over a long period of time, so I still think it is one of the greater factors, albeit not the only significant factor. And certainly a much greater factor than phones!
As for the Easy Money Distress Theory, after giving it more thought I think there is something to it, but I don't think it is easy money *per se* that is the problem. Rather, it's the fact that the new money is going to the big banks and oligarchs at the top, as opposed to We the People, that is making the economy more *lopsided* and thus more unstable ten years later, if not sooner. When we got off of the gold standard in 1971, we could have gone either way with our newfound Monetary Sovereignty, but our "leaders" made the choice to favor the rich. And that helped usher in the current era of neoliberalism and the yawning chasm between the haves and have-nots.
II will admit that I am biased in favor of MMT and Monetary Sovereignty and Keynesian economics, and against Austrian economics. But I still think that was a decent synthesis nonetheless.
Any way you look at it, "it's the economy, stupid!" still explains far more than "it's the damn phones!"
I appreciate you engaging with this in good faith.
When it comes to the monetary system, my main goal is to show that fiat currency creation is the primary driver of today’s lethal violence rates. I will publish future posts that build this case. In the meantime, we will see whether my prediction holds that teen homicide and suicide rates track the M2 money supply.
Also, I forgot to add to this Ellen Brown's theory that the real problem is the INTEREST attached to the money when it is created by the private banks (including the privately-owned FERAL Reserve) and lent into existence (as opposed to spent into existence by the government), which ultimately cannibalizes the economy in a vicious cycle.
One more thing I would like to add: it is probably more a question not of how much the M2 money increases, but rather WHO does the money go to? Historically, this newly-created easy money went directly to the big banks, a sort of UBI for the rich. So of course the effects will be at least somewhat destabilizing, as it is so lopsided. We all know now that the "trickle-down" theory is BS, so why don't we simply give all newly-created money to We the People instead? That would have to be better IMHO.
Basically, giving more newly-created money overwhelmingly to the ultra-rich via the banks is what creates "sugar highs" in the form of asset bubbles, followed by protracted busts when these bubbles inevitably burst. In contrast, if that money was given to We the People via Overt Congressional Financing (as Dr. Joseph M. Firestone would call it), we would get broad-based prosperity.
Interesting theory. But note how before you added the ten-year lag, it actually appeared to be an INVERSE correlation between M2 money supply and distress contemporaneously. That would dovetail more with Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's theory of Monetary Sovereignty, namely, that recessions are caused by shrinking or reduced growth in money supply (and prosperity by increased growth in money supply, as a growing economy requires a growing supply of money), while inflations are caused by shortages of goods and services, not by growth in the money supply. So I would argue, from the principle of parsimony, that you are correct in the "it's the economy, stupid!" explanation, albeit in the opposite direction, and that you are still correct nonetheless that smartphones and social media are NOT the central casual factor here.
Also, Rick Nevin's theory of early childhood lead exposure also explains a big chunk of the suicide and homicide trend as well.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
I appreciate alternative viewpoints and would like to address the theories you mentioned.
I’ll start with Rick Nevin’s theory. I agree that pollution can contribute to crime; however, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that lead exposure is responsible for the rise in crime rates. This is similar to my view on SSMT. I agree that heavy phone use can be harmful, but there is no strong evidence that phone use itself is the cause of the youth mental health crisis.
More broadly, if a theory claims to explain homicide trends, it should also be able to explain suicide trends, given their close correlation among teens. Nevin’s theory does not address suicide rates. SSMT has the inverse limitation: it focuses on suicide trends while offering no explanation for homicide trends.
You're very welcome. Nevin's correlation between lead and crime rates is pretty uncanny and seems to pan out across many other countries too over a long period of time, so I still think it is one of the greater factors, albeit not the only significant factor. And certainly a much greater factor than phones!
As for the Easy Money Distress Theory, after giving it more thought I think there is something to it, but I don't think it is easy money *per se* that is the problem. Rather, it's the fact that the new money is going to the big banks and oligarchs at the top, as opposed to We the People, that is making the economy more *lopsided* and thus more unstable ten years later, if not sooner. When we got off of the gold standard in 1971, we could have gone either way with our newfound Monetary Sovereignty, but our "leaders" made the choice to favor the rich. And that helped usher in the current era of neoliberalism and the yawning chasm between the haves and have-nots.
II will admit that I am biased in favor of MMT and Monetary Sovereignty and Keynesian economics, and against Austrian economics. But I still think that was a decent synthesis nonetheless.
Any way you look at it, "it's the economy, stupid!" still explains far more than "it's the damn phones!"
I appreciate you engaging with this in good faith.
When it comes to the monetary system, my main goal is to show that fiat currency creation is the primary driver of today’s lethal violence rates. I will publish future posts that build this case. In the meantime, we will see whether my prediction holds that teen homicide and suicide rates track the M2 money supply.
You're very welcome, Owen.
Also, I forgot to add to this Ellen Brown's theory that the real problem is the INTEREST attached to the money when it is created by the private banks (including the privately-owned FERAL Reserve) and lent into existence (as opposed to spent into existence by the government), which ultimately cannibalizes the economy in a vicious cycle.
So why does the ten year lag seem to produce a better fit? Because the economy works in cycles. Either way, it's NOT the phones
One more thing I would like to add: it is probably more a question not of how much the M2 money increases, but rather WHO does the money go to? Historically, this newly-created easy money went directly to the big banks, a sort of UBI for the rich. So of course the effects will be at least somewhat destabilizing, as it is so lopsided. We all know now that the "trickle-down" theory is BS, so why don't we simply give all newly-created money to We the People instead? That would have to be better IMHO.
Basically, giving more newly-created money overwhelmingly to the ultra-rich via the banks is what creates "sugar highs" in the form of asset bubbles, followed by protracted busts when these bubbles inevitably burst. In contrast, if that money was given to We the People via Overt Congressional Financing (as Dr. Joseph M. Firestone would call it), we would get broad-based prosperity.