This topic contains 24 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by 
Ancientwisdom 1 year, 10 months ago.
One aspect of MGTOW which I think makes it particularly appealing is that it is rational: it is based on the principle that relationships with women do not withstand a cost/benefit analysis.
I’ve been thinking recently that the overvaluation of women by men resembles an economic bubble, just like the dot com bubble and so on. I’m not an expert in finance and economics, but I’ve been giving the idea some thought and I think there’s a lot to it, so I thought you guys might be interested in my thinking so far.
If the following is obvious then apologies, but I thought I’d start from first principles for anyone who isn’t sure about these things.
What is an economic bubble?
The basic concept of an economic bubble is that the market value of an asset strongly exceeds its intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is often calculated in relation to the income you expect the asset to generate: for example, the dividends you expect a company to pay, or the rent you expect to get from a buy-to-let property. Market value, by contrast, is what people are willing to pay to acquire that asset on the open market.People are often willing to pay a premium on top of the intrinsic value of an asset, for example because they expect that the asset will generate more income in the future. However, in an economic bubble, the premium on top of the intrinsic value rockets up, so that it far outstrips intrinsic value. It is fuelled by rumour, as everyone jumps on the band waggon, and then bursts when reality kicks in and people realise that the premium was way too high.
Relationships with women: intrinsic value vs market value
To make the analogy, the intrinsic value of a relationship with a woman is the value it will generate for you. Of course, because we are talking about human relationships rather than an actual asset, the ‘value’ might not just be economic, such as the revenue she generates through work, or the costs she saves by her prudent managing of household finances (ha!—but please bear with me, as it’s worth thinking this through step by step), but it might be other ‘added value’ things which are harder to quantify such as affection, companionship or whatever. Nevertheless, these things have value (or would do if women provided them—again, I’ll come to that).There will also of course be a cost to a relationship with a woman. The intrinsic value of a relationship with a woman less the cost of that relationship is its net intrinsic value. Some of these costs can be quantified: for example, expenditure on dates, presents and so on. Some of it might be uncertain: if, for example, you consider there to be an 1% chance of having to incur £100,000 cost, you might factor in £100,000 x 1% = £1,000 cost. This is called expected value (the probability-weighted value of all possible values.)
Incidentally, you might be interested in this calculation for the expected cost of sex:
Chance of pregnancy arising from a year of regular sex using condoms: 2%
Estimated cost of bringing up a child in the UK: £231,843
(http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html)Probability-weighted cost of a year of sex using condoms: £231,843 x 2% = £4,637
Chaps, just pause for thought. Using what I understand to be a basic actuarial concept, the notional cost of having regular sex using condoms in the UK today is over £4,600 a year.
(Put it another way: if a hundred guys have sex for a year using condoms, on average two of them will get a bill for £231,843 at the end. If they got together to pool the risk, they’d each pay £4,637. Maybe guys should try this, lol.)
The market value of a relationship with a woman, conversely, is what men on the sexual marketplace are willing to pay in order to get a relationship. This would include fixed costs for attracting women in general (expenditure on stuff to make you appealing to women), the specific costs of dating specific women, and also the expected value of risks you take, as above.
How has the intrinsic value of relationships with women changed?
Let’s consider how this played out in the 1940s, when my grandparents got married. Women did sometimes work (my grandmother did), but their greater economic contribution was usually managing the household and raising kids. There were costs to having a relationship, but they generally were not significant. Importantly, there was little risk in that relationship, because marriage was respected, so there was little need to factor in the risk of, say, losing half your assets in divorce.Today, by contrast, the value women provide to a man is at an all-time low. Don’t need me to tell you this. Similarly, the costs are at an all-time high: not only has the actual s~~~ women expect men to buy for them skyrocketed, but the risks involved in relationships are so much higher, so notional costs are sky high too. For example, 42% (UK divorce rate) x £200,000 (half your assets and regular maintenance and child support payments, say) = £84,000 probability-weighted cost of marriage.
Conclusion 1: the costs, both actual and notional, outstrip the intrinsic value of relationships. Relationships with women therefore have negative intrinsic value. They are not a net asset: they are a net liability.
How has the market value of relationships with women changed?
The costs involved with dating and relationships have again skyrocketed. You don’t need me to tell you about this.Conclusion 2: the market value of relationships with women (i.e. what men are willing to pay for a relationship) far outstrips their intrinsic value.
Characteristics of a bubble
This is where it gets really interesting. Economic bubbles often have similar characteristics, and the following traits which economists have identified apply in the relationships marketplace too:– Elevated usage of debt (leverage) to purchase assets
We all know that personal debt in Western countries is rocketing. And what are men spending this money on? Relationships. Women.– Rationalizing asset prices by increasingly weaker arguments, such as “this time it’s different” or “housing prices only go up.”
This couldn’t be more familiar: “AWALT” rationalises every blue pill bad decision in this market.– A high presence of marketing or media coverage related to the asset.
What is social media if not the most concerted media coverage which women have ever had to market themselves in the history of humanity? Every woman with a phone is suddenly her own media machine.– A lower interest rate environment, which encourages lending and borrowing
We have had historic low interest rates for ten years now. I hadn’t thought about this, but I guess that must have encouraged men to spend on women like mad as well.This leads me to:
Conclusion 3: Relationships with women have all the characteristics of an economic bubble.What next?
I liked the following graphic representation of a typical bubble. You will see that, as the bubble spikes, we get “enthusiasm”, “greed” and “delusion”. Sound familiar?
We all know where bubbles end. The market will correct itself. Men around the world will realise they are overpaying absurdly not for something of very little value, as is the case in many bubbles, nor with no value, as in the case of some bubbles, but with negative value. They are overpaying not for a net asset, but a net liability.
Conclusion 4: The market for relationships with women will inevitably crash.
The website I took that diagram from makes a fascinating point about the “mania” phase: “fairly unnoticed from the general public caught in this new frenzy, the smart money as well as many institutional investors are quietly pulling out and selling their assets.”
Gentlemen: in the market of relationships, MGTOW are the smart money. While everyone else is piling their money into relationships, we have withdrawn ours.
The crash is coming.
Afterword
I realise that this may not tell you anything you didn’t already know, but I do think it’s interesting to follow the analogy through with a bit of rigour, as I’ve attempted here. In particular, I thought the idea that debt and low interest rates fuelling the relationships bubble was fascinating, and I’d never have come up with that without going through this process. Also, that the ten years we’ve had of historic low interest rates coincides roughly with the ten years in which social media has exploded. Both have fuelled this absurd overvaluation.I’d be grateful for any comments or corrections; as I say, I’m not an expert in these fields. Thanks for reading!
Further reading
(This is where the diagram comes from)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
There aren't holes in your pockets. It's called marriage.
Love the idea of investing in a net liability.
It puts it in perspective, right?
now I get to literally be a slave (I mean literally a slave for all intents and purposes). I will be paying for the mistake of investing in a net liability asset (aka c~~~) until the day I die.
That really sucks, man. I’m so sorry. But I hope you are still able to enjoy some freedom as a MGTOW.
When you break it all down to math, all the unmeasurable behavioral issues fade away and there’s just numbers left.
Right, and women hate it when you do that. When I’ve suggested to women that I have no desire for a relationship, the arguments they make are emotive, not based on reason. I think that’s because they know the argument can’t be won on reason, and therefore they need emotional blackmail or whatever.
I suspect that at some point soon, we might see some decoy of hope like private marriage contracts or an increase in prenup’ agreements. It may be enough to convince a few more blue pillers and create that transient bull trap spike, but it wont last..
Quite possible. Not sure where you are in the world, but in the UK there’s been a recent move to extend civil partnerships (introduced before gay marriage) to straight couples, as a kind of “marriage-lite”. Basically all the burdens of marriage, but a few catches, e.g. you can end a marriage over infidelity but not a civil marriage. Hilarious.
An attorney had an honest moment and basically admitted that there really isn’t a way for you to have a long term relationship with a woman in any way that is completely safe from the state inserting itself and imposing its rules, which are invariably gynocentric. The state, for these purposes, is run by family court lawyers who take turns playing the role of (theoretically) impartial judge. But the reality is that if it were fair, women would no longer demand it (marriage) and the lawyer’s income stream would dry up. The system has to have new fights so that it can continue to exist and lawyers can continue to profit. It has to be profitable for women in order for them to continue to demand it. And it has to be unfair in order for men to continue to fight it.
The fight is where lawyers make their money. And the unfairness of the fight is where women make their’s.
One massive gravy train. And where does the money paid to the lawyers go? To their f~~~ing wives. To buy more pointless s~~~. Flows of capital invariably flow back to women in our gynocentric economy. This is why I think the frugality side of MGTOW is really interesting: reducing your economic activity reduces the flow of cash to these c~~~s.
Lion on the loose, that is a great post. Thanks for your work.
My absolute pleasure, Branched off. Really glad you enjoyed it. I feel it’s worth taking the time to write something longer for these forums because I know there are guys such as you and the others who’ve commented (and others who didn’t) who really do take the time to read what you say and think about it. I find that so refreshing in a world where most are social media junkies, have no attention span and pay very little attention to anything.
Women are overvalued by the state, overvalued by themselves and overvalued by their blue pill simps. Smart money does not purchase an overvalued asset.
Damn right! Some predict that by 2050 we’ll have properly realistic and widespread sex robots. Technology really might make women redundant within our lifetimes, which will be really interesting to see. It’ll bring their market value crashing down because they’ve not diversified into anything other than sex. My grandmother’s generation knew their looks would fade and diversified with other skills like cooking, cleaning etc. I’m not saying women should go back to that, but they’ll need to find something other than sex to offer men.
There aren't holes in your pockets. It's called marriage.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
