The best read of your MONTH right here

[ShimshParticipant 237]

So im studying economics in university, finishing my second year now. Today i went and reviewed some of my old notes from Macro economics class. The basic premise of the current economic system in the world is that growth can be stimulated by consumption, and that in order to get increased economic growth, you should drive people to spend more ( total horses~~~ of course, savings is the key for real sustained growth but lets not open that up).
One way to increase demand for products and services, is to DECREASE the disposable income of high income individuals( who naturally spend smaller % of their income and invest a higher % ), and giving this money to low income people who spend a larger percentage of their income on consumption. This is called taxes.

NOW FOR THE BIG ENCHILADA: The second way is very similar to the first way, but is much more devious: Identify other low income groups in the economic landscape, and create a system where high income productive people( who again tend to save/invest a larger % of income), share their income willingly with groups who like to spend a lot.
That is where the government started giving tax incentives for marriage, you can guess why and which gender fits which role here.
But, what studies found out, is that its not enough. Because if the woman does not bring the same financial benefits to the household as the man, she will not have” bargaining power” and thus, spending will not increase.

How does the government solve this? It creates a system where women have bargaining power, such that the man loses all control of spending or savings decisions. But, there arises another problem, what happens when the man realizes he is being robbed, leaves the house, and spending goes back down again?
Well, there is a solution! after the couple divorces, make the man ( AND ONLY THE MAN) pay alimony to the wife for the rest of her life. So the extra spending which was created is preserved, and also the woman’s “bargaining power” is preserved.

some quotes from “scientific research” on the matter:
” Research suggests that the decision-making process that determines resource allocation is influenced by the relative bargaining power of adults members of the household.9 A household member’s bargaining power in turn depends on the strength of that person’s outside options or “fallback position,” should a negotiated agreement fail ”

” bargaining power is determined by two sets of factors, which include:1) material (economic) factors internal to the household, and 2) factors external to the household, which we refer to here as Gender Environmental Parameters (GEPs), include belief systems, political and legal structures such as property rights and divorce laws, and gendered employment practices”

Fuck E'm

[bstoffParticipant 4885]

And that’s how you separate money from people.

[Anonymous 5]

I don’t think any credible person or organization disputes the fact that women make 80% of purchasing decisions.
I know from my own experience that once I lost any desire to impress or be with a woman, then my own purchasing decreased by an estimated 50%, at least.

Shimsh wrote:

A household member’s bargaining power in turn depends on the strength of that person’s outside options or “fallback position,” should a negotiated agreement fail ”

I don’t think there’s a married man in the Western world who isn’t acutely aware of the economical life horrors he’ll face if his wife decides to divorce him for any reason, or no reason what so ever. Both partners know of her immense legal power even though it’s rarely mentioned by either, ever.
It’s why husbands are always treading lightly on eggshells,,, and hence, according to your theory, the woman’s conscious 80% of purchasing decisions, and with another estimated 10% (half of male decisions) directed at pleasing/impressing women.

Minimalism is an inevitable course of behavior with the loss of the NAWALT fallacy. I somehow think it doesn’t bode well for our consumer economy.
China’s economy is a bad correlation of “Success and Savings” because it’s really relying on the consumer madness of the western world.
Without that external consumerism, they’re instantly f~~~ed.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I always hear economists and politicians talk about growth as though it is somehow sacred, and must be achieved by any means necessary. All this theft disguised and taxes and welfare, all these lies disguised as marital commitment, all this prostitution disguised as marriage, all this theft disguised as alimony, equitable distribution of marital assets…etc etc etc

What is it about economic growth that is so important, that some of the worst of human behavior must be normalized in order to continue to achieve it?

I know the answer of course. It’s because governments have borrowed enormous amounts of money on the premise that it will be paid back, or at least the interest on it will be paid, in the future by a larger population than the one in place when it was borrowed. Governments have been doing this for generations, but it is not a sustainable plan.

Here’s my economic observation: we live on a round earth, with limited water, food, land and resources. When they hit their limit, growth will necessarily produce wars, famines and epidemics. Why are we so ambitious to maximize growth and advance toward that limit as fast as we possibly can?

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[MrMeParticipant 651]

Good post , good read … not the best read of my month (calm your t~~~!) but a good read nonetheless.

Try adding sources for your quotes next time please. So we know its not fake news. Thanks.

[Y_Participant 4591]

I believe what you say is true for the simple reason that is exactly the crap that is being pushed in the real economy – obviously by half-literate Neanderthals.

These are the same people who are destroying your country. None of them deserve to be in the same room with a piece of turd.

[Oz-BlokeParticipant 3233]

Stands to reason. I see plenty of blue-pill chumps who are lucky to be left a $50 ‘allowance’ a week for a few beers after their wives swoop in on their wages.

The government and family court backed Vagina Monetization Scam (VMS) ensures a continued flow of money from women to men via divorce, alimony and single mother welfare.

The dark side of all this is that it takes male lives. RIP Robin Williams;

#ManOut

[Left siteParticipant 451]

This only made me hungry when i saw enchilada. Rest was boring.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Women’s consumption after divorce is greatly facilitated by have children so she can sponge off child support.

It’s just the children that get damaged. Luckily nothing important is at stake.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[ShimshParticipant 237]

MrMe wrote:

Good post , good read … not the best read of my month (calm your t~~~!) but a good read nonetheless.

Try adding sources for your quotes next time please. So we know its not fake news. Thanks.

Right i must have forgot:
world bank study:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/wp23.pdf

another one:

https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2016_10_21_fotopoulou.pdf

i will only note that these papers look at different sides of the same coin ( one looks at propensity to consume and the other propensity to save- also the first one relies heavily on older papers from the 70’s for reference just so you know, the second one is more up to date for todays standards.

Fuck E'm

[Oz-BlokeParticipant 3233]

Oz-Bloke wrote:

continued flow of money from women to men

Oops, should have read ‘men to women’, but caught it too late to edit.

It’s amazing that so many men give their wives control of the finances considering many of these wives stay at home all day in their nighties watching Ellen and eating cheese-doodles.
.

#ManOut

[Author]

Posts