Jan 162013
 

How should you invest your money in the future?  TFH provides us with an answer that works:

And….. owning a mortgaged house is among the *worst* positions to be in…

It is not an exaggeration to say that betting against anything that a group of women think is a good idea, is a very solid strategy. Remember, women rely on groupthink, and invest (or force their husband to invest) in a manner that prioritizes groupthink rather than actual returns.

Mortgaged houses, gold, and Facebook shares are all things women thought were superb investments. Hence, all three are terrible.

While I have never expressed it in these terms, this has been my investment strategy over the last several years.  I can tell you that IT WORKS.  I didn’t buy a mortgaged house during the housing bubble.  I avoided gold when it obviously became a bubble, and I knew that Facebook had nowhere to go but down by the time it went IPO.  I made money or saved money when other people were losing their shirts because I didn’t take investment advice from a woman.  Some of you may remember the infamous “Suzanne Researched This” commercial from 2006:

The guy in that commercial knew that buying a house was a bad idea, but he did it because his wife and Suzanne the realtor, two women, berated him into it.  That commercial happened seven years ago.  If another commercial was made to see where he is now, he probably would have been foreclosed on.  His wife is probably in the process of divorcing him, and Suzanne has become a stripper.  Had that guy not been married (and thus not bought a house) he would be doing all right financially proving that investing against women works.

This will only become a better investment strategy in the future.  TFH provides insight on that too:

For biological reasons, a female’s creature’s life is far more valuable than a man’s, and this applied to humans until the modern era. The number of babies that can be born is the same even if a large portion of the men die, while this not the case if even a single woman dies. Hence, all of human history treats men as expendable. No society has been an exception to this.

However, this assumes that women spend their entire lives from age 15 onwards bearing and taking care of children. It was normal for women to bear their full capacity of children (10+), of which 40% would die early. Human society was geared to transfer all resources to women as this correlated to the survival of children. There was no reason to assume the correlation was anything but exact.

But in the modern era, women now only use 10-20% of their lifetime childbearing capacity, on average, with a substantial percentage of women bearing no children at all. Yet, society is still programmed to transfer resources to women. Go to any department store, and see that 90% of the items there are things no man would ever buy for himself. Look at all the houses built…. our entire economy is evidence that society still funnels all resources to women, even though this no longer is spent on children, and certainly does not correlate to the survival of children.

In the meantime, all the work that keeps modern society running, is done by men. Whether the gritty men who keep the lights running and the water flowing, to the introverted men who create all technological innovation, civilization = men. And these are the men usually termed as ‘Beta’.

Society is funneling (nearly) all resources to women, but that is unsustainable.  We are already reaching the breaking point where we can no longer subsidize women.  Currently, most women are employed in make work jobs that generate no productivity or negative productivity.  (These jobs are mainly government jobs, quasi-government jobs, government mandated jobs in private industry, or private industry jobs that exist due to fear of feminism.)  Both government and private industry are going to hit the wall because they can’t support paying an army of effectively do nothing employees.  Soon, a point of no return will be reached, and lots of women will lose their jobs since both government and private industry can’t afford to subsidize them anymore.  Without jobs how are women going to buy all the crap they buy now?

One thing that will be pushed by both the left and the right by the time this happens will be to dump these women on to men.  In other words, it will be an attempt to get men to “man up and marry those sluts” into “traditional” marriages where the women don’t work.  Since neither the government nor private business will want to subsidize these women, they will try to get individual men to do it.  While we hear “man up and marry those sluts” from the tradcons, at this point the left will go “nazbol” misandrist and do it as well out of desperation.  This just represents another attempt to subsidize women with make work jobs.  In this case the “make work” is having lots of kids.  Since most kids now survive to adulthood, large families are just make work jobs for women subsidizes by their husbands.  Men will look at this and refuse to marry these women because they get no benefit to subsidizing a woman (in addition to other problems like anti-family courts).

All of this means over time that the economy will be reoriented to serve men’s needs and interests.  Therefore any good investment will be in a business that provides something men need and/or want.  Anything else will be a losing investment so this is why your investment strategy for the future should be to invest against women.  You may not always make money with this strategy (although you will a lot of the time), but when you do lose money, you will lose a lot less than anyone who invests in women.

  17 Responses to “How To Invest From Now On”

  1. I agree with this to the extent that the “Makework” jobs will be diminished and this will affect retail, but I wonder about the percentages of makework jobs that females do to useful work that women do ratio. I think that it will be in perspective of the ratio. There are lot of useful work that women do in the workforce and that may increase. I think the misandry bubble is burst, but I suspect the leak will be slower, and a lot more men will be displaces from the useful work to make way for women.

    • I agree with this. The women make work jobs will go away, but until they’re ushered out I expect that men will be forced out of jobs to make things fair for women. We’ll see more and more quotas for women until the re-balance and more and more men disqualified for work they are actually qualified for. Then women will start fleeing the jobs they don’t want anymore, causing even more of a mess because the quota will tell the company they need to keep hiring more and more women.

      Basically I can see it all dragging things down farther and farther.

  2. Since most kids now survive to adulthood, large families are just make work jobs for women subsidized by their husbands.
    —————–
    excellent point and one seldom used against socons

    although i’m sure you have

  3. “Therefore any good investment will be in a business that provides something men need and/or want. ”
    With a caveat. Look at the computer game industry – it’s being invaded by women who, using legal levers and newspeak, are trying to make this industry that has been very profitable catering to men more fem-friendly. Will they destroy it? Maybe.
    The old joke “Why do women close their eyes during sex? Because they cannot stand seeing a man having a good time.” is funny because it rings so true. Anything that “provides something men need/want” will be targeted. You need to factor that in to your investment decisions.

    • That is a good point. Just because a business or industry caters to men now doesn’t mean it will do so forever. If you’re invested in something that changes from being a product for men to a product for women, dump your investment.

  4. How can you say women will lose their jobs when they get PREFERENCE for them? You can fire a man, especially a white one, and suffer no consequences; fire a woman, the boom gets lowered on you! Also, look at how the stimulus funds were diverted from construction (benefits men) to women. Women won’t be losing their jobs any time soon…

    • Look at this a few steps down the line. The current system is unsustainable. Right now economic reality is continually punching both government and private business in the face. Eventually, this will lead to death or a breaking point where changes have to be made.

  5. Governmental woman-pedestaling is probably never going to go away, simply because more women than men vote and government, armed with a monopoly on force, doesn’t have to actually do anything useful to obtain resources for itself.

    I sincerely hope that private industry is willing to dump nonproductive workers, but my guess is that, rather than do what is necessary, they will simply browbeat their productive employees (mostly men) into working harder to subsidize the mediocres (mostly women). I worked for a company that was extremely hesitant to correct problematic individuals (mostly women) even when they royally screwed up, and would instead spread the blame out to the “team.” And I know my experience isn’t unique.

    Also, I agree that we are going to see more collaboration of Left and Right female supremacists in the future. A recent article in the Atlantic from a feminist called on feminists to collaborate with social conservatives to strongarm men back into being chivalrous.

    • Governmental woman-pedestaling is probably never going to go away, simply because more women than men vote and government, armed with a monopoly on force, doesn’t have to actually do anything useful to obtain resources for itself.

      You’re assuming that current voting patterns don’t change, and that democracy in its current form will continue indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed, especially the latter.

      I sincerely hope that private industry is willing to dump nonproductive workers

      They’re getting close to the point where they either have to do that or die. I’m sure many private businesses will commit suicide in a bizarre suicide pact with feminism. There will be no other options.

  6. “We are already reaching the breaking point where we can no longer subsidize women.”

    Given the fact that the gov can just keep raising the debt ceiling and printing more money, when will we actually hit the breaking point and the system reaches a point where we truly cannot afford to continue these subsidies? What will that day look like and how will we even know we’ve reached it? More o to the point, what evidence do you have that suggests we’re reaching the breaking point?

    • Given the fact that the gov can just keep raising the debt ceiling and printing more money, when will we actually hit the breaking point and the system reaches a point where we truly cannot afford to continue these subsidies? What will that day look like and how will we even know we’ve reached it? More o to the point, what evidence do you have that suggests we’re reaching the breaking point?

      No country that has tried this has been able to continue indefinitely without an economic collapse. That’s why I’m saying we’re getting close to the breaking point. I don’t know where the exact point will be, but I suspect what will happen is an event similar to 9/11 that no one predicted will happen. Feminists will do something that gets men riled up just like 9/11 caused a major response from America against terrorism.

  7. At some point (it could be months away), I will be expanding the Misandry Bubble to include a section about resource misallocation, and how what was a natural allocation to women is now malinvestment, since it no longer correlates to the survival of children.

    • I’m looking forward to reading that.

      • Thanks. I haven’t blogged in a while, but will resume at some point. Meanwhile, my poll shows misandry awareness beating ‘feminists’ 12 to 1. Even if half the red-pill votes are via some selection bias, it would still be 6:1, nowhere close.

        This resource misallocation point is the crux of why things are wrong in the world. Until recently, it was logical and natural to allocate resources to women – that correlated to the survival of children. Men retaining resources (even ones they produce) did not correlate nearly as much.

        But now, so much of the modern economy is evidence that this meme is obsolete. If human civilization is truly different from animals, it is high time the life of a woman is not treated as vastly more valuable than a man’s. The reasons for that, while once natural, are obsolete.

        On any farm, about 95% of male animals (cattle, pigs, goats) are turned into meat as soon as they are full size. Almost no males are allowed to live to anywhere near their full lifespan. But most females are allowed to live their natural lifespan – because they reproduce, and only a tiny number of males are needed to impregnate all females. When there is a feed shortage, female animals with most of their reproductive life ahead of them are saved, while males and old females are all culled.

        Watching how some low-tech traditional farmer manages his animals will tell us everything about why human society is so lopsided – too much of how humanity thinks is the same way.

        This is also a huge failure of ‘transhumanists’. If anything, they should be the first to recognize that the allocation of resources to those who used to produce babies (but no longer do) has to end, and that resources towards those who produce knowledge, technology, and value-add services has to begin. Only after this transition can we say that humanity has moved to a level of civilization that is markedly different from animals (for the reasons I described above).

        For ‘transhumanists’ to say that men are obsolete reveal them not as enlightened, but as retrograde a group as anyone around. Who do they think creates the technology they think they are savvy about? Also, shouldn’t a ‘transhumanist’ be savvy about identifying resource misallocation, where present?

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: