[iknowexactly]

What I dislike about _USA_:

The very high price of housing and attractive women. ( Not advocating prostitution, I mean in time and game demanded to compensate if you're not a Natural.)

After I thought about it for a minute, I realized:

These two things can't be manufactured and imported. Everything else that keeps you on the debt treadmill-- cars, plastic junk, males for cheap labor-- can and are imported

One could argue education is also overpriced. as tuition has gone up far more than other consumer goods.

Housing depends on land, and sex on local, fertile females .

In a wealthy country with a growing population, both get bid up higher and higher.

I prefer a market forces explanation rather than the blaming "left versus right" rhetoric. Pussy and apartments are real, tangible objects.

Philosophy is abstract. Curious as to reactions about how market forces elsewhere change the cultural cost of these concrete things.

"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus."

[thoughtgypsy]

Housing is absurdly expensive, and it's not just due to land scarcity. The Fed has put an artificial bid on housing by buying up $Trillions in mortgage backed securities, lowering interest rates to 0%, and real estate companies have helped by keeping inventory off the market. While there's been an increase in population, there's actually been a substantial decrease in median income over the past 10 years. We're also currently at a record low for the home ownership rate in the US.

There are also absurd amounts of land in between urban areas. If you were to give every family in the US a modest home with a front and back yard, you could fit everyone inside the state of New Hampshire alone, with room to spare.

Fast forward to 1:02

Part of the problem is increasing urbanization, and the elimination of the availability of well paying jobs in rural areas due to the forces of globalization. Your options are to cram into a $1500/mo studio in the city near your $50k/year job, or work at Walmart out in the boonies.

When it comes to women, there's simply too many forces at play and you can't boil it down simply to population growth and wealth. As far as I know, women weren't a major problem in the prosperous and cramped Victorian era London. Obesity rates, feminism, and the one sided legal system seem like much bigger issues in that regard.

[choichoi]

Try living in Hawaii. Either you have 3 jobs/working 8 days a week, be in the military (like me) or be fucking rich. Choice D is living under a bridge.

Local women are a joke; either ugly or very childish and not keen on dating outsiders. The rest of the women are either short/long-tern tourists (English students) or emotional basket cases who transplanted from the Mainland to run away from their problems.

[nomadbrah]

(08-02-2016 03:05 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus."

I used to be a libertarian, but have changed my views on many things, particularly after suffering some injuries and not being able to to work as hard as I used to (though temporary).

The quote above is one of the few good ones to come out of the left, in the same term as Karl Marx actually wrote a very good historical analysis of the shift from feudal society to industrial society and how workers got screwed over when the new 'Barons' (of industry) treated their workers as serfs, but did not have the responsibilities of the old land barons (such as protection from threat, law, military service).

We're seeing something similar here, we are going from industrial to information age, but the new barons (of tech) are putting their serfs on industrial age pay scales by the hour, while pocketing the massive exponential wealth in their own pockets. Information age pay must include some kind of compensation for immaterial exponential sales.

Anyway, concerning housing, I'd add in many countries, transportation is a major issue as well. I've always hated to have to use public transport, since it so limits my freedom of movement. I would add gun control to this too.

Cabbin, horse, revolver, that's the trifecta which allowed a man to get a wife, raise a family and keep them safe. Not that much different now, house, car, gun. Any way you impact the ability for men to aqquire them is going to make a man substantially less happy and free. That's why the US in parts is still much more free than in Europe.

In some of those Northern European countries, they work the first almost half year just to pay taxes and then spend like 50% of their remaining income on housing. That leaves about 3 months or so of the year to truly work for yourself and your goals, how is that not being a serf?

[Noir]

I find this is increasingly common in the Western world. Just to add my own experience, not USA related but some food for thought.

In South Africa, housing prices have been inflated, mainly to due to the currency depreciation and foreign buyers driving prices up. For this reason, parliament voted to pass a law (or it could outright be the ANC as they have majority) which limits foreign ownership. To rent a decent apartment with good logistics, you would end up spending 30% minimum of your monthly salary. As you can imagine salaries are generally low.

Customs are expensive leading to a lot of other expensive items (tech/cars) but could be worse compared to ownership tax in certain other countries I have visited such as Sri Lanka (300% on cars).

In Cyprus, the housing prices dropped after the 2013 'haircut' by the EU. Now, prices are being driven up, especially by the Chinese who can get Cyprus citizenship (direct access to the EU) with investments of 2.5million EUR, leading to a lot of houses being bought up. A bit of a slower drive and rent is more accessible due to income also being a bit slow but the EUR has lost value until Brexit where it stabilised.

A lot of expats in both of the above countries still driving up prices though.

With women, I believe the direct cause to be explained economics. Supply and demand but more so the inelasticity of demand of women (and housing).

As mentioned, a lot of the factors have simply augmented the price and the barriers of entry to the desirable women.

We need shelter and we need to get laid so I only foresee it getting worse.

I've written quite a bit about women and attraction via an economic and political science approach but I digress.

Interesting thread IKE.

[N°6]

I have long been of the opinion that there is a connection between inflated residential property values and the inflated SMV of women in the dating pool.

The UK is a case in point where residential property value has inflated from around 3 times the average salary in 1986 to around 9 times the average salary now.

Debt-based, liberal capitalism has - along with victim-based liberal, social equality - stripped the very things from young men that women would have found attractive in them. Further, if a woman has the very things that her foremothers found attractive in her forefathers, she develops a level of disdain for the modern man. In response the modern man will try to develop feminine qualities to compensate and the women will wonder, "where have all the good men gone?"

Show me a price inflated property market and I will show you a price inflated dating market and the supply of sex shifting upwards to the top 20% of men.

With men from the rich Gulf States buying up London property, British men will soon witness the ignominy of the women they would have married young during previous generations become the Tag the Sponsor of the exotic.

[Phoenix]

No reason to blame capitalism when the cause is government.

Who disproportionately immigrates to wealthy countries, men or women? Who is disproportionately expected to own a house and who makes more money? Who is then disproportionately taxed?

If you zeroed immigration and slashed taxes to reasonable levels (well less than 10% in peace time), I'm guessing you'd see a very different situation.

When men have to live at 50% because the other 50% goes to parasites, and then have to compete with immigrants and jock deadbeats for women, you can expect him to suffer. Then compound this with the fact that the 50% of letted blood is used to sustain a political class that destroys his chances of getting a good woman who will see him as valuable.

And when he's being leached of 50% of his physical efforts, like a slave, everything gets massively worse. Imagine if I told you "you now have to work an extra 100% hours each day for the same money". What would you have to do? Move to a bunk bed next to your office and eat rice. That's what slavery looks like.

Instead, imagine what would happen if the parasites were thrown to the ditches of society, and you are told "You now only have to work 50% of what you do now to get the same money". You could work less, the roads would be less busy, people would be happier to live further from work, you could own a bigger place and have more spare energy to raise children, your wife wouldn't need to work etc.

Now zero immigration. You are now no longer competiting with every man who shows up in your country, pushing down your wages and job quality, moving into the houses around you and pushing the rent up.

I call bullshit on OP's left-right quip. A known socialist wants us to pretend this is a open-minded weighing up of the facts (but then immediately makes an anti capitalism quip), in spite of the fact he's always first to blame "the market" (everyone except the government) and turn a blind eye to government actions that are disproportionately causing the effect he describes.

Is this just another case of a socialist grumbling because things have turned out how he wanted them? I hear it's not difficult to get pussy or apartments in Venezuela though, so perhaps one just has to wait a bit longer...

[GlobalMan]

Expensive compared to where? Are you comparing like for like? Or SoCal/NYC vs Favelas? There's endless factors. A blanket statement like that doesn't really work.

As far as girls- they are only expensive in the U.S. (or anywhere else) if you're choosing poorly, gaming poorly, or in a bad location.

[TooFineAPoint]

Capitalism doesn't have goals, since it is not a person.

Also

[Suits]

I really appreciate the thoughts shared in this thread. I've been considering similar ideas recently myself.

I think that high speed rail could be a secret ingredient that changes the game. If a train that goes 300km/hr can turn a 5 hr drive into a 1 hr trip, that would reduce the stranglehold on real estate that the elite have.

Of course, that's never going to happen.

[WalkingMan]

^That's what Elon Musk is working on. There's a good chance we'll see it in our lifetime.

[El Chinito loco]

The problem with high speed rail in the U.S. isn't the technology, infrastructure, or manpower required to build it.

It's shitheel bureaucracy and lobbyist groups all fucking around whenever plans are put forth to build something like that.

The U.S. would be the perfect environment for a nationwide high speed rail system to connect all those major cities. It would open up all sorts of land.

[thoughtgypsy]

We should also note that the US isn't anywhere close to a free market capitalist country. Over 40% of GDP is driven by government spending, and the state has it's grubby hands in nearly every activity imaginable.

Try buying a piece of land in a typical rural area, building your own home, developing your own water source and sewage disposal, and watch how fast the feds come in to evict you.
http://www.realfarmacy.com/florida-makes...city-grid/

There's laws and regulations in place to keep you paying property taxes, drive up the price of housing costs (minimum living area regulations), force you to buy municipal water and electric. That's not capitalism.

When monolithic banks aren't satisfied with 5% profit yields, they demand the destruction of financial regulations in the name of capitalism. When their reckless gambling fails, they're beg for open socialism (direct government support) shamelessly. That's not capitalism.

Most forms of government fail because they fail to recognize the presence and nature of psychopaths. Once a critical mass of people driven only by power and control rise to positions of power, they will work together to circumvent the legal structure of their society, and change the very nature of government.

[Different T]

Quote:

Capitalism doesn't have goals, since it is not a person.

Yes it does, it is a system with the prime value being capital accumulation. You may mean that Capital must act through people, but you might consider the advances being made in AI as an alternative means through which Capital can systematically accumulate greater amounts of capital.

Quote:

We should also note that the US isn't anywhere close to a free market capitalist country.

"We can complain about the parts we don’t like, but that doesn’t help to understand or master those parts). As analogy, when manosphere people talk with AFC’s about hypergamy, they are usually met with overt hostility and denial. Why? Because to believe differently challenges deeply held beliefs.

I understand you “want” Capitalism to mean “free-market capitalism” and don’t want to discuss how "non free-market capitalism" actually operates, but only your idealized version. This strikes me as very similar to the AFC who just wants “Love” to be that thing he sees in the movie. He doesn’t want to contemplate the inner-working, dirty, and disappointing aspects of what relationships and females entail. Those who only speak about “True Capitalism” want desperately for real world “Capitalism” to be that thing they read about from Ayn Rand or Mises. But is it?

What happens when we do hold the Disney-version of “Love” up as our ideal and expectation of reality? Doesn’t if fail precisely because women and men are not like these portrayals, because “love” is portrayed as desiring those qualities the good princess should desire; when, in reality, what your AFC calls “love” is often just a strange combination of impulse, hypergamy, and delusion. Thus the AFC cannot understand what happened or why.

Likewise, what would it mean if you are holding up an idealized version of Capitalism you read about, but fails to exist precisely because it portrays humans as something other than they are (free, rational, and non-aggressive), and because it portrays “Capital” as desirous of the things this ideal capitalist should desire (freedom, voluntary action, peaceful exchange); when, in reality, Capital only seeks to accumulate more capital. Thus the “True Capitalist” cannot understand what happened or why.

Again, I understand what you mean by Capitalism as only “free market capitalism.” But consider that this sounds like someone saying “Love and Relationships” as only that thing the romantics describe in their stories. The manosphere owes its existence to rejecting that definition of “Love and Relationships” and attempting to find what is really going on."

[thoughtgypsy]

I mostly agree with you, though I would say what we're seeing is late stage capitalism. Early stage capitalism (US 1790s-1860s) was much less intrusive and more entrepreneurial.

As with any system of government, over time, more and more interest groups will work together to live off the productivity of the rest of society. The group is always more powerful than the individual. This trend continues like a cancer until it reaches the laffer curve, society collapses, and is forced to rebuild again. Then the timer is reset.

This is the Anatomy of the State

[Suits]

(08-03-2016 05:44 AM)WalkingMan Wrote:  

^That's what Elon Musk is working on. There's a good chance we'll see it in our lifetime.

The technology isn't the problem. It already exists. I routinely use it in China and Japan has had it for a long fucking time.

I typically take the train up from Shenzhen to Beijing instead of flying. Flying is half the time (5 hours, instead of close to 11), but it's unreliable and I have to come to the airport early, which means heading to the outskirts of town. With the train, I save an hour on each end of the trip, because I can show up 20 minutes before my train departs with no issues and the train station is right in the middle of the city. So, the difference works out to only about 4 hours and it's cheaper, more comfortable and more reliable. It also hits many midpoint cities that you simply could not fly to because they don't have an airport.

The train goes about 320km per hour if I remember correctly.

The problem is that creating such a network requires a significant expenditure just to get started and lots more money along the way to keep it running.

It's not an ideal for-profit business opportunity and while it's one thing that I could justify higher government spending to make happen, the government in the US clearly has other priorities.

Outside of air-travel, public transport will remain something that only poor people and New Yorkers use in the US of A.

[Different T]

"Early stage capitalism (US 1790s-1860s) was much less intrusive and more entrepreneurial."

But we surely that this trend has a massive tech component (the government literally didn't possess the means to "intrude" as it does today) and was simply due to immature markets (we can still see the same phenomenon when a brand new product is introduced like the internet or most drones. Then, over time, legislation regarding the market is introduced at the behest of both the bureaucrats and the market participants). This seems to be exactly what happened with edible marijuana testing in CO. They originally said it was illegal to put in more than labeled (the govt just didn't want an "unsafe" product), but then changed to an "accurate labeling" standard.

Also possibly of note: another bitcoin site got hacked and prices tanked. How long before the "anti-government" crowd that has put a lot of wealth into this thing start wanting a little protection?

[WalkingMan]

(08-03-2016 08:00 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 05:44 AM)WalkingMan Wrote:  

^That's what Elon Musk is working on. There's a good chance we'll see it in our lifetime.

The technology isn't the problem. It already exists. I routinely use it in China and Japan has had it for a long fucking time.

I typically take the train up from Shenzhen to Beijing instead of flying. Flying is half the time (5 hours, instead of close to 11), but it's unreliable and I have to come to the airport early, which means heading to the outskirts of town. With the train, I save an hour on each end of the trip, because I can show up 20 minutes before my train departs with no issues and the train station is right in the middle of the city. So, the difference works out to only about 4 hours and it's cheaper, more comfortable and more reliable. It also hits many midpoint cities that you simply could not fly to because they don't have an airport.

The train goes about 320km per hour if I remember correctly.

The problem is that creating such a network requires a significant expenditure just to get started and lots more money along the way to keep it running.

It's not an ideal for-profit business opportunity and while it's one thing that I could justify higher government spending to make happen, the government in the US clearly has other priorities.

Outside of air-travel, public transport will remain something that only poor people and New Yorkers use in the US of A.

Good point about Japan and China. So you're saying that the capitalist spirit of the USA is also what is keeping this from happening because no one wants to pay for it. For some reason this sounds similar to the issues with US healthcare.

[Dr. Howard]

(08-03-2016 01:49 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Expensive compared to where? Are you comparing like for like? Or SoCal/NYC vs Favelas? There's endless factors. A blanket statement like that doesn't really work.

As far as girls- they are only expensive in the U.S. (or anywhere else) if you're choosing poorly, gaming poorly, or in a bad location.

I agree with Global. There are certain areas of the US where housing is expensive and other areas where its affordable (or at least seems that way to me).

The same thing goes for posters talking about land scarcity, or thoughtgypsy saying you can't live off the grid. Again, not specific to everywhere in america.

I'll share specifically what my area (southern appalachia) is like.

1. Housing affordability - cheapest area to live aside from the mexican border. a new construction 1300 square foot home can be bought for $120,000 with property taxes of $600-$800 per year. You can buy a manufactured home for $80,000 and a trailer/mobile home for $60,000. How is that not affordable?

2. Land scarcity? - You can buy 1/2 acre lots for $10,000 here, you can also buy hundreds of acres of timberland anywhere in the US. Agricultural land is scarce because it is so valuable...due to gov't subsidies and tax advantages. Even if you dont farm, having farmland is good for your bottom line.

3. Gov't making it impossible to live off the grid - My county has very few deed restrictions and the ones further rural to mine have NO building restrictions. People live with no power, outhouses, etc and do not get shut down or they just drop 3-4 mobile homes wherever or the property and let them rot out. No restrictions.

Last, non real estate related, women. If you are white, not fat, and not on drugs here you can sweep up sluts from the local grocery store or a wife from the local church. There are not really any bars around here so its a barrier to hypergamy, and also makes online dating easy.

Conclusion: This part of america is still heaven, in all regards.

[TooFineAPoint]

(08-03-2016 07:43 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:

Capitalism doesn't have goals, since it is not a person.

Yes it does, it is a system with the prime value being capital accumulation. You may mean that Capital must act through people, but you might consider the advances being made in AI as an alternative means through which Capital can systematically accumulate greater amounts of capital.

Systems also don't have goals.

People, having goals, may choose to use a certain system.

But "capitalism" is not a sentient being that thinks for itself. That's why I think that quote, along with being infantile and immoral, is nonsensical.

As I understand the word, capitalism = the means of production are privately owned.

That is value neutral, and does not imply in any way that all human interaction will be reduced to anything.

Perhaps some posters here are using the word capitalism in a different way.

[Phoenix]

(08-03-2016 08:00 AM)Suits Wrote:  

The train goes about 320km per hour if I remember correctly.

The problem is that creating such a network requires a significant expenditure just to get started and lots more money along the way to keep it running.

It's not an ideal for-profit business opportunity and while it's one thing that I could justify higher government spending to make happen, the government in the US clearly has other priorities.

All the main island Japanese rail networks are privately owned (and full of bullet trains which do the 320km/h you're talking about, and a 500km/h test track is already in operation and usable by the public). Gotta have that combination of enough capital, enough people, and short enough distances for it to be naturally profitable though. Not coming to Australia any time soon.

I actually recon we're heading towards not needing to commute as much. We're seeing increasing numbers of online freelancers etc. I think that as communication technologies and management skills and systems improve we're going to see increasingly decentralized workplaces. I think the days of everybody driving in from their large houses in their large petrol cars to jam together in a cluster of cubicles to be their most productive is going to decline.

I think the biggest indicator that something is fundamentally amiss technologically or managerially is the amount of paper we are still using. There should be almost no reason to print any thing -- and yet it is still predominant. Where are the A3 or A2 sized iPads with high-precision styluses? Architects still carry paper drawings in cardboard tubes FFS.

I think cities can be stretched out a lot more if the following happens:
- Management practices improve to eliminate unnecessary in-person contact. I think we're on the way there -- many people are starting to get it into their heads that meetings are more often a sign of managerial incompetence rather than something that has an actual valuable purpose. However countries like Japan still waste stupid amounts of time with men sat bored in a room looking at each other, burning time and wages and accomplishing nothing
- Technology improves to accommodate the above, and to reduce the amount of movement of physical information products (i.e. paper). There should be zero paper. An engineer should be able to mark up a drawing with a stylus on a large table-screen and return it back to the draftsman for revision without any ink involved. Paper mail should be dead. CDs and DVDs should be dead. USB drives should be dead.
- Technology improves page-sifting. People still prefer a paper contract because it's just better: you can divvy up the pages and tag them and sift through them and make notes on them any way you can imagine. An iPad screen still feels irritatingly clumsy. Until it approaches the usage ease of paper, people will use paper, which can only be transmitted by hand, helping entrench the cubicle-office arrangement.
- Education improves to better specialize people. We would all be a lot richer if we threw out the existing school system almost in entirety, beyond basic reading+writing+arithmetic, and returned to the guild system. Everyone leaves university around 21 and then has to be hammered into something actually useful to a company once they get employed. That's a joke. People should be getting their first job around 15, under a skilled master in the specialty they've already discovered they like, becoming a master themselves by around 22 to 25. If people were better specialized, they would simply be more useful and productive, earlier, and wouldn't need as inflexible rule-based companies to get productivity out of them.

[nomadbrah]

Real estate is extremely expensive in all western major hubs due to:

- Singles not couples in apartments

- Government or public sector and ngo jobs in cities

- Foreigners, both rich and poor

- Extended adolescence, moving to suburbs later

[Different T]

@ toofine

Why do you say immoral?

[thoughtgypsy]

(08-03-2016 10:20 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

But "capitalism" is not a sentient being that thinks for itself. That's why I think that quote, along with being infantile and immoral, is nonsensical.

As I understand the word, capitalism = the means of production are privately owned.

My takeaway from what DifferentT was saying is that you can't separate "idealistic capitalism" from "capitalism in reality" due to the element of human nature.

It's like when you bring up the rise of dictators and corruption to people arguing for communism, and they reply "Ah, but they weren't true communists, you see."

It's the no true Scotsman argument.

There will always be people trying to work together to scoot around the rules. Groups of people are always more powerful than the individual, and certain people will try to rig the game in their favor.

It's why we have a nominal set of laws that apply to individuals, but not politicians (Hillary). It's why people go to jail for fraud but not major companies (who are legally persons) or their members of the board.

The closest we've come to capitalism is perhaps Singapore, and it is certainly in the minority as far as "capitalist" countries go.

[Menace]

Housing is expensive in cities particularly on the coasts. Housing is dirt cheap in the middle of the country. Real estate is all about location, so it's difficult to make blanket statements about it. In cities house prices get inflated because of schools and parents wanting "good schools," which means >70% white/asian usually. For example, compare prices in Bethesda, MD vs. Silver Spring, MD.

Women I sort of agree with, relatively speaking, but even then it's not as terrible everywhere as people make out (especially in cities), provided you are not broke AND have actual social intelligence/charm (this is much rarer than people let on).

The thing is, one's perspective is very dependent on one's financial circumstances and personality. The solution to most of these problems is make more money. The US is possibly the best place in the world to do that, even today.

I don't think it makes sense to pine for the days of yesteryear. Get better today.