In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the standard of living by trading income for sex, companionship, and residency with a woman. This amounts to the average free capital generated by all men (about 1/5). It requires about 20% free capital for humans to change ‘routines’. Men are a bit more expensive to feed, but otherwise cheaper to maintain than women. Men have a shorter working life (We accumulate the species’ cellular damage on behalf of women and children). We mature intellectually and emotionally fairly slowly in exchange for specialization. But that specialization, which can lead to superior incomes, but also leads to limited adaptability in the work force where regimentation is lacking and social fitness is required (the modern white collar work force). So for men, the problem with late maturity, specialization, and limited work life means that failures to capture higher earnings means old age poverty. Now, if the woman is working, and the couple save that 20% in equity for seven years on a 15 year mortgage they can somewhat offset the loss. Friends, good work, and an anti-depressant will offset the demand for sex, and increase a man’s ability to build a business or portfolio. Girlfriends are the most inexpensive sex you can obtain, and if rotated every 9-12 months the cost of marriage can be avoided. A woman trades her fertile years for increased income. A man trades his productive years for later term care. A working woman externalizes the cost of raising her children to the state, and by proxy to others. This is the trade that no longer exists. And it’s rather obvious what must be done about it: convert men’s short term productivity to long term savings, and permanently isolate it from attachment or taxation, as the most important investment. In other words, restore the order that has existed since the dawn of time. Common property requires common productivity, risk, and reward. Statistically speaking women are an extraordinarily privileged class.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the stand
In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the standard of living by trading income for sex, companionship, and residency with a woman. This amounts to the average free capital generated by all men (about 1/5). It requires about 20% free capital for humans to change ‘routines’. Men are a bit more expensive to feed, but otherwise cheaper to maintain than women. Men have a shorter working life (We accumulate the species’ cellular damage on behalf of women and children). We mature intellectually and emotionally fairly slowly in exchange for specialization. But that specialization, which can lead to superior incomes, but also leads to limited adaptability in the work force where regimentation is lacking and social fitness is required (the modern white collar work force). So for men, the problem with late maturity, specialization, and limited work life means that failures to capture higher earnings means old age poverty. Now, if the woman is working, and the couple save that 20% in equity for seven years on a 15 year mortgage they can somewhat offset the loss. Friends, good work, and an anti-depressant will offset the demand for sex, and increase a man’s ability to build a business or portfolio. Girlfriends are the most inexpensive sex you can obtain, and if rotated every 9-12 months the cost of marriage can be avoided. A woman trades her fertile years for increased income. A man trades his productive years for later term care. A working woman externalizes the cost of raising her children to the state, and by proxy to others. This is the trade that no longer exists. And it’s rather obvious what must be done about it: convert men’s short term productivity to long term savings, and permanently isolate it from attachment or taxation, as the most important investment. In other words, restore the order that has existed since the dawn of time. Common property requires common productivity, risk, and reward. Statistically speaking women are an extraordinarily privileged class.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 18:26:00 UTC
-
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover f
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover from Bankruptcy. But the underlying issue is fairly simple: all technical innovation in firearms has been coming (as expected) from belgian, german, and austrian engineers. The most popular weapon in the states is effectively open sourced (the AR15) – so much so that like gaming computers and harley davidson’s it’s a kit-gun open for constant customization. The AR15/M4 is actually a poor quality platform – it’s just cheap, light, and reasonably accurate. While the plastic gun craze of the 80s-00’s resulted in a ridiculous number of failed designs, we seem to be exiting that period. And aside from Smith and Wesson, it doesn’t appear that american companies can come close to the production quality of FN/Steyr/HK/Glock. And given that there are no patents on some of the most popular guns (CZ/1911), and that nearly anyone can buy CAD/CAM systems with barrels being the only particularly challenging bit of technology, it’s just …. well, not a good market for americans. I see it as a continuation of the american design ethic, business ethic. We are sort of like the brits now. We can only make labor intensive products with heavy adult supervision. -
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover f
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover from Bankruptcy. But the underlying issue is fairly simple: all technical innovation in firearms has been coming (as expected) from belgian, german, and austrian engineers. The most popular weapon in the states is effectively open sourced (the AR15) – so much so that like gaming computers and harley davidson’s it’s a kit-gun open for constant customization. The AR15/M4 is actually a poor quality platform – it’s just cheap, light, and reasonably accurate. While the plastic gun craze of the 80s-00’s resulted in a ridiculous number of failed designs, we seem to be exiting that period. And aside from Smith and Wesson, it doesn’t appear that american companies can come close to the production quality of FN/Steyr/HK/Glock. And given that there are no patents on some of the most popular guns (CZ/1911), and that nearly anyone can buy CAD/CAM systems with barrels being the only particularly challenging bit of technology, it’s just …. well, not a good market for americans. I see it as a continuation of the american design ethic, business ethic. We are sort of like the brits now. We can only make labor intensive products with heavy adult supervision. -
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover f
Remington will go upside down relatively soon. Colt is still trying to recover from Bankruptcy. But the underlying issue is fairly simple: all technical innovation in firearms has been coming (as expected) from belgian, german, and austrian engineers. The most popular weapon in the states is effectively open sourced (the AR15) – so much so that like gaming computers and harley davidson’s it’s a kit-gun open for constant customization. The AR15/M4 is actually a poor quality platform – it’s just cheap, light, and reasonably accurate. While the plastic gun craze of the 80s-00’s resulted in a ridiculous number of failed designs, we seem to be exiting that period. And aside from Smith and Wesson, it doesn’t appear that american companies can come close to the production quality of FN/Steyr/HK/Glock. And given that there are no patents on some of the most popular guns (CZ/1911), and that nearly anyone can buy CAD/CAM systems with barrels being the only particularly challenging bit of technology, it’s just …. well, not a good market for americans. I see it as a continuation of the american design ethic, business ethic. We are sort of like the brits now. We can only make labor intensive products with heavy adult supervision.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 12:55:00 UTC
-
Tesla
(via Vincent Wolters at Seeking Alpha) TSLA gross margin excluding R&D is comparable to that of competitors. (~25%) TSLA SG&A per revenue is higher than that of competitors and just about wipes out gross profits. There is no indication of economies of scale in spite of increased production. Expansion will not lead to profits if Tesla doesn’t change its cost structure. CURT: (This is being critical of overhead costs – which are, admittedly, nonsense-high, but neither acknowledging that revenues purpose is to offset R&D costs, and the analyst is not putting value on the upside. They’re using the amazon model and betting that they will own the battery market, and therefore the whole car market. IMO this is exactly how leaps in technology should be achieved: public investment (with non-voting public ownership), and funnelling all profits into R&D and market expansion. Markets do not produce capital intensive leaps as fast as mixed market investments. -
Tesla
(via Vincent Wolters at Seeking Alpha) TSLA gross margin excluding R&D is comparable to that of competitors. (~25%) TSLA SG&A per revenue is higher than that of competitors and just about wipes out gross profits. There is no indication of economies of scale in spite of increased production. Expansion will not lead to profits if Tesla doesn’t change its cost structure. CURT: (This is being critical of overhead costs – which are, admittedly, nonsense-high, but neither acknowledging that revenues purpose is to offset R&D costs, and the analyst is not putting value on the upside. They’re using the amazon model and betting that they will own the battery market, and therefore the whole car market. IMO this is exactly how leaps in technology should be achieved: public investment (with non-voting public ownership), and funnelling all profits into R&D and market expansion. Markets do not produce capital intensive leaps as fast as mixed market investments. -
TESLA (via Vincent Wolters at Seeking Alpha) TSLA gross margin excluding R&D is
TESLA
(via Vincent Wolters at Seeking Alpha)
TSLA gross margin excluding R&D is comparable to that of competitors. (~25%)
TSLA SG&A per revenue is higher than that of competitors and just about wipes out gross profits.
There is no indication of economies of scale in spite of increased production.
Expansion will not lead to profits if Tesla doesn’t change its cost structure.
CURT:
(This is being critical of overhead costs – which are, admittedly, nonsense-high, but neither acknowledging that revenues purpose is to offset R&D costs, and the analyst is not putting value on the upside.
They’re using the amazon model and betting that they will own the battery market, and therefore the whole car market.
IMO this is exactly how leaps in technology should be achieved: public investment (with non-voting public ownership), and funnelling all profits into R&D and market expansion.
Markets do not produce capital intensive leaps as fast as mixed market investments.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 12:34:00 UTC
-
Startup Costs
A Car (50K) A Home. (350K) A Business (500K) A Portfolio. (50-500K) An Education (70K) A Woman (750k-1.2M) A Child (300-700K) You don’t have the opportunity to choose whether you operate your life as a business or not. You only have the opportunity to choose how you distribute your portfolio. The most expensive investment you can possibly make is a wife. Invest wisely. -
Startup Costs
A Car (50K) A Home. (350K) A Business (500K) A Portfolio. (50-500K) An Education (70K) A Woman (750k-1.2M) A Child (300-700K) You don’t have the opportunity to choose whether you operate your life as a business or not. You only have the opportunity to choose how you distribute your portfolio. The most expensive investment you can possibly make is a wife. Invest wisely.