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.