[runsonmagic]

This was too good not to post

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/10/wh...tures.html

Quote:

Older women often find themselves too old to have kids, and regretting it. Such women would have gained by freezing some eggs when they were younger. But when younger, they didn’t think they’d ever want kids, or thought the issue could wait.

Such women might be helped by an egg futures business, paid to take on this risk for them. Such a business could buy eggs from women when young, freeze them, and sell them back to these same women when old.

Of course, to compensate for the wait and risk that the women wouldn’t want eggs later, this business would have to sell eggs back a high price. But still, if the women bought the egg later, that would show they expected to gain from the deal.

Also, not all women would make equally good prospects. So such a business would focus on women likely to wait too long, be well off, and want kids later. So this business would “discriminate” by class in its purchases, paying more to upper class women. A lot like we now discriminate when we pay more for used clothes, cars, or houses from richer people.

Several people have told me that, while they were not personally offended, they expect others to be offended by such a business. Especially if men were involved in the business – a female only business would offend less. I’m somewhat mystified, which is partly why I’m writing this post. Maybe others can help me understand the objection.

Interestingly, we could add some personal prediction markets, which would probably be legal. For each possible young woman, there could be a market where one buys and sells conditional shares in an egg from that customer. If you owned a conditional share, you’d own a share of the profit from later selling that customer her egg. And you’d owe a share of the cost to buy her egg from her, freeze it, and store it. Imagine the fun buying and selling conditional shares regarding the young women that you know. And the fact that this is a share of a real physical object should make it legal.

Ok, I can see how people might be offended at this last suggestion. After all, there’s a risk that people might have fun on something that is supposed to be serious!

Overcoming Bias is a blog aimed rational men with little social graces (read: understanding of the feminine imperative), which means it's always fascinating.

The line about "selling conditional shares regarding the young women that you know" cracked me up. I imagine men with red pill knowledge could make a large sum playing the egg futures market.

[Kabal]

Quote:

For each possible young woman, there could be a market where one buys and sells conditional shares in an egg from that customer. If you owned a conditional share, you’d own a share of the profit from later selling that customer her egg. And you’d owe a share of the cost to buy her egg from her, freeze it, and store it. Imagine the fun buying and selling conditional shares regarding the young women that you know.

Short conditional shares on as many chicks as you know and/or buy deeply out-of-the-money puts on them, and then knock-up as many of them as you can.

Girls already having had kids will decrease their future demand for their eggs, thus decreasing their eggs' conditional share prices. Once the market learns that a chick is knocked-up, her eggs' conditional share prices will immediately plummet.

1. Take short positions on conditional shares
2. Knock-up chicks
3. ???
4. Profit
5. Move out of the country

[The Beast1]

What a clever way to get women to solicit their eggs for stem cells.

Have a "service" that offers free egg harvesting and storage for a certain amount of money. The women get older and bam they jack the "fees" up to some stupid expensive like 16000$ up front cash. What woman will actually save up that 16 grand? They'll keep putting it off and womp womp missed the chance.

Oh bummer you missed your chance to actually use the eggs but we have a clause in the contract to use your unfertilized eggs for stem cell research!

[Basil Ransom]

Couple issues I see:

1. Lots of upfront capital required for uncertain payoff.
2. Hamster Lawsuits. Careerist chicks will get angry at the necessarily exorbitant rates charged by the service, and claim they were wronged somehow.

For the model to work best, you'd have to price-discriminate even at the point of selling back the eggs. There will be wild disparities in income, better to price it based on ability to pay and not a flat, say, $200k. Especially because all your costs are sunk costs.

[Virtus]

It's probably easier to make more money by writing articles to women's magazines telling them they have all the time in the world and need to do their career and spend their free time trying to ride the cock carousel. Also that they are ugly and would benefit from this or that cosmetics. Then invest the money in L'Oreal

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I thought this was going to be about investing in chicken farming.

[Maciano]

"I’m somewhat mystified, which is partly why I’m writing this post. Maybe others can help me understand the objection."

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone is perfectly rational in a rational market place. To expect Socratic deliberation on an issue like how to make money from women's urge to become mothers, a force of nature, is the height of folly. People are crucifying video game programmers for sexism or nerds for dongle-"forking" jokes!

Reading that blog sure makes you understand Asperger's better. "Gee, why can't we just talk about this, it's like a totally viable idea, and it's win/win for everybody in a games-theory scenario!"

[runsonmagic]

(10-13-2014 10:26 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

"I’m somewhat mystified, which is partly why I’m writing this post. Maybe others can help me understand the objection."

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone is perfectly rational in a rational market place. To expect Socratic deliberation on an issue like how to make money from women's urge to become mothers, a force of nature, is the height of folly. People are crucifying video game programmers for sexism or nerds for dongle-"forking" jokes!

Reading that blog sure makes you understand Asperger's better. "Gee, why can't we just talk about this, it's like a totally viable idea, and it's win/win for everybody in a games-theory scenario!"

Dude, that blog is the definition of autistic. "Here is this perfectly rational idea that would work in in theory in a world of purely rational beings." That's what makes it so great. Just repeat crimethink followed by mystified blinking when the comments section goes apeshit. Plus, his loyal readers all nod and go "well, you're just not being rational" when the hamsters start to spin. I love it.

When hyper-rational people learn to hold their frame and just act like everyone else is wrong, the machines will win. For another example of this, see the guy making soylent. His blog is just worst idea after worst idea followed by "but it would work in theory, I'm being rational, stop hitting me guys."

It's also the reason very intelligent men have to study game and break down social interactions systematically. Other people's emotions are basically a foreign language to men like that, because their perception is so radically different.

We can point and laugh and act like we're better because we know how to manage the insanity of human egos, but they'll look back at us with the same disgust when we don't know how to build a particle accelerator or code artificial intelligence. Ask yourself, who has the better skill? Who has greater mastery?

[Big Country]

If the contract the women signed when using a service like this included clauses allowing for the lab to sell their eggs after a certain period of time to other women who are infertile entirely, that would be a good thing for the business. Relying on career women to eventually want to have a kid seems like the wrong track to go down. You could also supplement your offerings by bringing over foreign women to be surrogate mothers, so you could be a one stop shop in a sense.

I mean, sperm banks are essentially the same thing minus the surrogate. The men sign over their rights to their sperm and the lab can do with it as they want. The movie "Starbuck" is a good representation of this. It's also a good movie.

The surrogate idea would be great I think, as it gives a career woman a child without the burden of getting pregnant so they can work uninterrupted. They could still get maternity leave as well. Kind of rough on the foreign women, but you can offset that by having the surrogate morph into a nanny role. I'm sure there are a tonne of Filipino and Thai women who would jump at the chance. Hell, the nannies I see around my area might as well be the kids mother anyway, why not make that a reality?

This is bound to become a big business one day.

[Maciano]

(10-13-2014 10:53 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 10:26 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

"I’m somewhat mystified, which is partly why I’m writing this post. Maybe others can help me understand the objection."

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone is perfectly rational in a rational market place. To expect Socratic deliberation on an issue like how to make money from women's urge to become mothers, a force of nature, is the height of folly. People are crucifying video game programmers for sexism or nerds for dongle-"forking" jokes!

Reading that blog sure makes you understand Asperger's better. "Gee, why can't we just talk about this, it's like a totally viable idea, and it's win/win for everybody in a games-theory scenario!"

Dude, that blog is the definition of autistic. "Here is this perfectly rational idea that would work in in theory in a world of purely rational beings." That's what makes it so great. Just repeat crimethink followed by mystified blinking when the comments section goes apeshit. Plus, his loyal readers all nod and go "well, you're just not being rational" when the hamsters start to spin. I love it.

When hyper-rational people learn to hold their frame and just act like everyone else is wrong, the machines will win. For another example of this, see the guy making soylent. His blog is just worst idea after worst idea followed by "but it would work in theory, I'm being rational, stop hitting me guys."

It's also the reason very intelligent men have to study game and break down social interactions systematically. Other people's emotions are basically a foreign language to men like that, because their perception is so radically different.

We can point and laugh and act like we're better because we know how to manage the insanity of human egos, but they'll look back at us with the same disgust when we don't know how to build a particle accelerator or code artificial intelligence. Ask yourself, who has the better skill? Who has greater mastery?

Sure, I think guys like that are essential, but I do fault nerds for being oblivious to what make non-nerds tick.

During my MBA I learned a good strategy with a bad implementation is a bad strategy. That's how I feel about dropping stuff like this over the ignorant masses. You've got to package the goods to sell them.

He's basically saying: "hey women actually want to be mothers, when they're in their late 30s/40s they'll see through the mirage of columnist babble and regret their decisions -- here's a great way to make money of their wrong assumptions!"

[Maciano]

I just read the comments, here's Robin Hanson again:

"But lots of products and services related to female reproduction are sold for cash. Condoms, diaphragms, tampons, midwives, hospital deliveries, etc."

LOL. He really thinks like this:

Women =! Men
Women.child {midwife, condoms, tampons}
add.new{egg freeze}

[runsonmagic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I fucking called it!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/perk...gs-n225011

Quote:

Perk Up: Facebook and Apple Now Pay for Women to Freeze Eggs