House Flippers May Get Their Own D.S.M. Category

Over the past two years, our economy expanded rapidly as consumer spending grew. Millions of buyers drove the prices of homes ever higher, while others borrowed against home equity or used consumer credit to go on a spending spree. The current recession is like a next-morning hangover, as cash-strapped consumers reduce consumption, pay down debt or replenish their savings.

This roller coaster journey might reflect a mental disorder – a collective bout of shopaholism, according to a New York Times article.  Although the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not include compulsive shopping as a psychological malady, the German psychiatric community considers it to be a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bruce says:

    Do you suppose there is also a ponzi scheme disorder?

  2. Larry C. says:

    I don’t know about the peole who run ponzi schemes, but ther has to be a problem with all the people who want the govenment to keep on running Social Security and Medicare with chain letter finance.

  3. Dan says:

    The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual, the Shrink’s bible, has been around for over 50 years, and now possibly contains nearly 300 mental disorders. Many are created and added to the DSM as each new edition is created. On occasion, a mental disorder is deleted from the DSM, such as homosexuality in the early 1970s.

    Published by the APA, it is also used, I understand, for seeking mental diagnostic criteria to assure reimbursement. The DSM is also often used as a reference to validate suspected assessments by the psychiatrist and the DSM is organized by the following:

    I- Mental disorders
    II- mental conditions
    III- Physical disorders/syndromes, medical conditions (co-morbidity)
    IV- Mental disorder suspected etiology
    V- Pediatric assessments

    The APA is creating the next DSM, DSM-V, and has had its task force members assigned to this next DSM edition sign non-disclosure agreements, which is rather absurd and pointless. Lack of transparency equals lack of credibility because of these agreements of the content of the next DSM. It opposes any recovery model necessary regarding such disorders, I believe.

    The DSM should be evaluated by another unrelated task force or a peer review of sorts to assure objectivity. This is particularly of concern presently, as many more are diagnosed with mental dysfunctions presently at an alarming rate- children in particular,

    Dan Abshear