Thoughts about the economy and women in top positions

[BenBerger]

I have noticed a recurrent reference to the idea of “waste” that is allegedly happening in the world today. Many guys here claim that the world and the ruling classes are wasting resources, energy, human brain power, time, etc… I agree with all of it and trying to understand how and why this is happening. I think that the inclusion of women into the position of power and the exclusion of men from them is key in promoting waste.

Let’s start with definitions and assumptions. Waste is simply over-consumption. The accounting identities (that are always true) in economics is that consumption is the opposite side of savings, while savings equals investment. In addition to that, I assume that by nature women made to spend and consume while men made to save and invest. I think that it is plausible to assume that given some data about the spending patterns of men and women, you’ll find some data here https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/.

Therefore, the purpose of appointing women in positions of power is to promote over-consumption, and more precisely WASTE. High ranking positions in politics are crucial to the process. Politics is essentially the place where society decides about its resource allocation both between inter sectoral allocation and intertemporal allocation. Namely, how much to save or invest and whether now or later. The more women are in the position of resource allocation the more consumption oriented the society will be. Consequently, when there are too many women with access to resources it will inevitably lead to WASTE due to over consumption and under savings. This is the reason we have credit bubbles when investment flows to worthless crap that inflates it`s price which subsequently falls and the bubble bursts. And that’s why the system needs reserve banking and fiat money - because there is an increasing need in means of payment that are not backed by anything besides the ability to spend increasingly more.

If you assume that women are short-term thinking while men have long-term thinking then the results of this “model” are even more acute with regards to WASTE.

The main winners of this situation are big corporations that sell the shit that women buy and procure the goods and services that are bought by female run governments. The main losers are the working that pay more taxes and that have to increasingly more pay hidden taxes to fit in.

It would be great to hear your thoughts.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Nice fantasy story. It's just, that monopol capitalism leads to the allocation of resources at the top, no matter if women or not.

Correlation =/= causation. We are just entering the late stage. It would have been the same with only men.
Men might spent different, but those in power are just as greedy and would use the same opportunities to cater to women.

I feel like you are mischaracterizing the role of the governments. The real allocation happens mostly in the free market. In fact we have in politics the opposite problem, privatization and austerity (besides bureaucratic bloat). I mean you could say refusing to allocate is a type of allocation too, I guess? But that's not what you said, you talked about money getting wasted.

What I noticed is it's more about corporatism, nepotism and cronyism when there are bs projects. Nothing to do with women. Just another form to redistribute the money into the "right" pockets.

I also don't think foids are inherently short term thinking, they just know there will always be a cuck to take care of them itshtf.

I don't think that men spent less btw, they just cope with different products. It's simply that women have more money today so the marketing had to readjust.

Historically it wasn't overall really better without women. The shift away from new deal like policies started already in times without women in leading roles. The real issue were (male lead) corporations and the rich influencing the (mae) politics and public opinion with money.

Feminism is just a boogeyman in this case. The real problems are all people being greedy and those that happen to be in power leveraging it against the poor (yes I include middle class here, keep coping wagecucks) increasingly, who have no clue and are kept docile.

 

[BenBerger]

Nice fantasy story. It's just monopol capitalism leads to the allocation of resources at the top, no matter if women or not.

Right. But the appointment of women to the position is the tool by which monopolyy capitalism is doing ts this. one of the tools to be more precise.

Nice fantasy story. It's just, that monopol capitalism leads to the allocation of resources at the top, no matter if women or not.

Correlation =/= causation. We are just entering the late stage. It would have been the same with only men.
Men might spent different, but those in power are just as greedy and would use the same opportunities to cater to women.

I disagree. It would not have been the same with only men.

Men are able to hold their impulses to spend for the sake of saving or investing in something useful later on. It is a fundamental masculing trait. Men cannot spend money on purely useless crap like cosmetics and jewellery. In politics, men would tend to spend on projects that can yield future benefits or not to spend at all. For istance, the spending during the Great Depression was necessary to get the world out of the recession. it was not a BS spending, the men type spending.

Therefore, big capitalists have two twofold goal. One, on the macro level, is to promote women to positions of power and thus feminize the society to make it more consumption oriented (both private consumption and public consumption). Two, on the micro level, to feminize the men and make them spend money on cosmetics, jewelry, etc… thus increasing household consumption.

I feel like you are mischaracterizing the role of the governments. The real allocation happens mostly in the free market. In fact we have in politics the opposite problem, privatization and austerity (besides bureaucratic bloat). I mean you could say refusing to allocate is a type of allocation too, I guess? But that's not what you said, you talked about money getting wasted.

What I noticed is it's more about corporatism, nepotism and cronyism when there are bs projects. Nothing to do with women. Just another form to redistribute the money into the "right" pockets.

I also don't think foids are inherently short term thinking, they just know there will always be a cuck to take care of them itshtf.

I don't think that men spent less btw, they just cope with different products. It's simply that women have more money today so the marketing had to readjust.

Historically it wasn't overall really better without women. The shift away from new deal like policies started already in times without women in leading roles. The real issue were (male lead) corporations and the rich influencing the (mae) politics and public opinion with money.

Feminism is just a boogeyman in this case. The real problems are all people being greedy and those that happen to be in power leveraging it against the poor (yes I include middle class here, keep coping wagecucks) increasingly, who have no clue and are kept docile.

Women are more prone to initiate and to agree to fund BS project like “help the poor” and “feed the planet”. The ultimate BS project would take the money from the bad working man and give it to the poor single mother that just had her husband divorce raped.

I would abstain from saying that the markets today are “free” they are rather, just as you said, monopolised by big corporations. Moreover, advertisement has a big role in shaping the spending patterns and women are more susceptive to advertisement. And most importantly government and corporation are going hand in hand. To put it simply, and bluntly, women in the positions of political power are making the taxes higher to spend on goods and services that are provided by big corporations. Thus, the taxpayers (men) are losing and the big business wins.

Privatization and austerity. Privatization is the tool by which the government gives more power to big corporations. Namely, state enterprises and institutions that were erected by taxpayers money to provide for the taxpayers necessary goods and service that would allow them to have functioning families are sold at a discount to big corporations. Then, these corporations are selling the same service at a higher price in the “free market”. But this market is not free, it is simply a market that is run by kleptocratic bureaucrats and big business that pays them by the revolving door principle among others. In other words that state and the corporation are one. The result is that the good or service that was supposed to be provided for free is now has a price tag that is allegedly market determined, but its not.

Austerity does come to one thing - money creation. Central Bank all over the world are creating money by quantitative easing which is essentially buying stock of big corporation to making them more valuable in order to keep them afloat. The working people pay the price of inflation that is seemingly low. Again here we can see the state-sorporations bond.