Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Kshartle wrote: My response - "I like renting and don't like borrowing money anyway so I don't care, screw them".

Landlords and rental managers check your credit history, so it can seriously affect your ability to not be forced to rent in relatively skankier locations.  There's also official rebuttals that employers are not legally allowed to do so for job applicants, but I wouldn't trust that.  I completely trashed my credit due to the dot.com bubble implosion and had to go underground into hiding...  that was at least a seven LONG years.  Never again.

But yeah, I agree with you.  A lot of what passes for cultural brainwashing nowadays is largely of women's doing, whether conscious or unconscious.  It's just getting worse with the ongoing, relentless effemination of men by the media.  It's fine to be progressive and forward-thinking, but not a pussywhipped beta male!

Yeah it's a small bill, I have zero debt, plenty of assets, excellent credit otherwise, good income. It's just annoying.

Men have backed down and let women take the lead role in a lot of areas. I think this has been to everyone's detriment and I think it has to do with women no longer needing men for support because of the state. Now they no longer need men who are put together and responsible and manly to care for them, so guys no longer aspire to that because it doesn't really help you get laid.

Most women still want men who are decisive leaders. That's the entire premise of "Game", and it works, regardless of feminist rhetoric.

Libertarian666 wrote: Most women still want men who are decisive leaders. That's the entire premise of "Game", and it works, regardless of feminist rhetoric.

I agree that women are attracted to leaders and "game". I don't put that stuff in the same category as reponsible and put together, ambitous etc.

It's fluff vs. substance. They don't need to be as concerned with whether or not they are sleeping with a guy of substance as they used to be. Now it's just whoever looks good or has some "game". The point being......guys have less incentive to spend energy on those important qualitites because they are not as critical for landing a hot babe.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Most women still want men who are decisive leaders. That's the entire premise of "Game", and it works, regardless of feminist rhetoric.

I agree that women are attracted to leaders and "game". I don't put that stuff in the same category as reponsible and put together, ambitous etc.

It's fluff vs. substance. They don't need to be as concerned with whether or not they are sleeping with a guy of substance as they used to be. Now it's just whoever looks good or has some "game". The point being......guys have less incentive to spend energy on those important qualitites because they are not as critical for landing a hot babe.

Agreed. The way things are going, someday pretty soon men aren't going to want to get married at all.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Most women still want men who are decisive leaders. That's the entire premise of "Game", and it works, regardless of feminist rhetoric.

I agree that women are attracted to leaders and "game". I don't put that stuff in the same category as reponsible and put together, ambitous etc.

It's fluff vs. substance. They don't need to be as concerned with whether or not they are sleeping with a guy of substance as they used to be. Now it's just whoever looks good or has some "game". The point being......guys have less incentive to spend energy on those important qualitites because they are not as critical for landing a hot babe.

Agreed. The way things are going, someday pretty soon men aren't going to want to get married at all.

Already there unless she's rich.

For Mark Leavy:

The End of the Permissionless Web WSJ article
Regulators want to become the gatekeepers for Internet innovation.

Some officials want to go back. In a recent New York Times    opinion article, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman acknowledged that technology moves at a faster pace than laws can keep up. But instead of waiting to see if new rules are needed, he argues: "The only question is how long it will take for these cyber cowboys to realize that working with the sheriffs is both good business and the right thing to do."

Mr. Schneiderman has targeted Airbnb, an online service that lets users easily rent homes or apartments for short-term stays, giving travelers a new option.

If only it were that simple...

Renting apartments out on Airbnb was a lifesaver for New Yorkers trying to scrape together enough money to compensate for rising property taxes (doubled since 2007) among other fees and taxes, increased subway fares (also nearly doubled since that time), lost jobs, reduced pay etc.  Apparently the big hotels were unhappy about this new development born of the internet and bought themselves a new law.  If Eric Schneiderman is truly interested in protecting New York's quality of life, perhaps he would consider why people are wanting to let strangers stay in their homes in the first place.

What Airbnb is fighting is the good Mr. Schneiderman's request for a list of thousands of people who advertised their apartments on the site at any time in the past 3 years.  It would be an invasion of privacy on par with what Edward Snowden exposed at the NSA.