patrick.net

Bill:

The republicans are as Keynesian as the democrats. Ron Paul was the only candidate from either party who subscribed to Austrian economics. This fact is why nothing has changed the fundamental danger to the markets. Screw the republicans screaming for smaller government and lower spending. They only want to spend the printed money in different places. Ron Paul was right. He's still right. According to the Keynesians of either party last Thursday was never supposed to happen.

On a separate issue, Bill. "Housing" is certainly not fixed in supply and it's arguable that "land" is. There is plenty of room for new anthills. The percentage of the yard covered in anthills is actually pretty small. It's the current hotspot that is so highly prized. And of course we build new homes incessantly.

As the US produces less and less tangible and shippable products and more and more ones-and-zeros, the less critical proximity will be. I for one have grown quite fond of my low cost HD teleconferencing with clients thousands of miles away. I've never needed to live in California to take their money.

Bellingham Bill says

Housing will always be bid up to the point of pain, because land is fixed in supply and the housing good itself is difficult to build and by definition is immobile once built.

Yet the dumb Georgists believe all land should be effectively owned by a monopoly run by bureaucrats (via their confiscation of all use value of the land). Let me have all the use value of your car(s) and your wife; you can keep the title to them.

Since you acknowledge that building "by definition is immobile once built," how in the world can you be so dumb as to be sucked into believing Georgism that would put the building owner on the torture rack by forcing him bid on the land underneath the building every year against all comers, including giant retailers who may eye the plot of land! Talk about eminent domain on steroids! Georgists are little more than shills for big corporations that buy governments.

Then again, it should be expected, as Georgists are just the typical socialists/closet-communists who are too dumb to realize that individual liberty can not be safe-guarded by a god-like monopoly called "government" but only by the freedom to choose among multiple competing service-providers (including government service) like the 18th century Western Europe, where modern conception of liberty arose to begin with. Thousands of small landlords competing to provide housing service is far more likely to result in cost-effective housing tuned to ever changing local demand than a government monopoly run by bureaucrats can possibly deliver.

We'll soon be winding down the pusher (Fed) phase of the housing "recovery" to get the debt addicts hooked again and will soon enter the lying, stealing and cheating phase to maintain that housing "high" for the economy.. all the while, the math continues working against as my real estate short positions reflect..

It is the law. Like the say,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Our current system was to protect women in the old system. But instead, today a woman who emotionally abuses you, cheats on you and has children with multiple fathers will still get half your money in a divorce. Then she can shack up with some kid in your house and expect you to maintain her and her lovers in the lifestyle she was used to-all the while crying how abusive you are.

Even today, witness the Jody Arias trial. She slit his throat and brutally slashed him and claimed abuse and many claim a woman could not do something like that if she were not abused-no proof needed. Thankfully it was AZ and she was convicted-she would walked in feminist states.

When you are in a marraige-both parties contribute and so even Steven. Now when you move on-both need to move on and forge their own paths-that is what equality is about. Today whoredom has become accepted by law by western women and has become part of the culture. Now this is not about sleeping with multiple sex partners-I have done that too. But this is about expecting money for doing so and unfortunately govt has become the armed pimp for these women. Might as well amke the men wear burqas.

mell says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Luckily, we men get better looking with age. I'm appreciating that fact to its fullest.

The only thing better looking about the average older man is a potentially fatter wallet.

I don't think that's the only thing. Up to a certain age you do get sexier if you keep in shape, e.g. salt and pepper hair ;)

Funny, I don't see 20-35 yeasr old males dying their hair silver.

I DO see 40-50 year old men dying their hair back to its color of youth, not just because they think it makes them more attractive to women but to try to postpone the inevitable age discrimination at work.

Anyone else here suspect Disney and their catalog of princesses has something to do with the topic at hand?

New Renter says

mell says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Luckily, we men get better looking with age. I'm appreciating that fact to its fullest.

The only thing better looking about the average older man is a potentially fatter wallet.

I don't think that's the only thing. Up to a certain age you do get sexier if you keep in shape, e.g. salt and pepper hair ;)

Funny, I don't see 20-35 yeasr old males dying their hair silver.

I DO see 40-50 year old men dying their hair back to its color of youth, not just because they think it makes them more attractive to women but to try to postpone the inevitable age discrimination at work.

Well, ultimately gray hair is a sign of aging, but for a couple of years the mix exudes "still young enough" and "experienced" where experienced is of course strongly correlated to "has more money". You are aware though of the "touch of gray" products which don't aim anymore of hiding gray hair entirely ;)

Bellingham Bill says

It's fucking obvious really, but nobody gets it.

After 150 years no one has implemented Georgism. Where are all the economic paradises based on it? Where are the success stories? Maybe everyone actually does get it. Perhaps everyone else understands that ivory tower theories based on the common good, like georgism and communism (yes I know they are different things, so don't get your panties in a wad) don't work in real life with real people.

bob2356 says

After 150 years no one has implemented Georgism. Where are all the economic paradises based on it? Where are the success stories? Maybe everyone actually does get it. Perhaps everyone else understands that ivory tower theories based on the common good, like georgism and communism (yes I know they are different things, so don't get your panties in a wad) don't work in real life with real people.

Not a very compelling argument. Just because it hasn't been tried, does not make it bad.

tatupu70 says

Not a very compelling argument. Just because it hasn't been tried, does not make it bad.

It doesn't make it good either.

besides, marrying foreign wives makes the most financial sense.

engineers in the states are considered millionaires in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia. if a guy can attract the 6's and 7's here he would be able to attract the 9's and 10's over there.

marrying non-US wives gets the most "bang" for your bucks. why would anyone want to buy for a used Buick with like 200K in the odometer in the states for $20K when he could buy a BMW or a Benz for $5K in another country?

foreign wives are appreciative of what their husbands provide. they treat you like a King. U.S wives cut their hair, get fat, refuse to do house chores, withhold sex, complain all day long and put all the blames on you. who needs that?

Mark D says

engineers in the states are considered millionaires in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia.

It's not as black & white as that. It's that American engineers (or tech workers) are seen as dependable husbands by women in those countries as I know of many fellas, who're married to Brazilians, Chinese, Koreans, etc, and the common denominator is not the house in the Hamptons, Bel Air or trips to Bora Bora but a stable home and a good family. Note, these were once ideals, valued by American/Canadian women back in the 60s.

Patrick,

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're allowing 50% of your potential participants to be driven away with people posting garbage like this:

"does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?"

when they're not bragging about who has the most money. What a waste of time.

denise says

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're really gonna love mershedperturders posts.

Moderate Infidel says

denise says

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're really gonna love mershedperturders posts.

Feisty ;) The first personalized attack on this thread was misandristic though.

denise says

You're allowing 50% of your potential participants to be driven away with people posting garbage like this:

"does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?"

when they're not bragging about who has the most money. What a waste of time.

names are thrown around here all the time by not only men but also women, in even in this thread. a fact you conveniently ignored. i didn't see you come in here earlier and give Patrick the "helpful" feedback you are trying to give him now? what's the difference this time? because this time the victim is a woman?

don't you find that is sexist of you? your action has shown what a men-hater you really are. and don't act like you are concerned about Patrick's readership. you are here to defend your fellow men haters. talk about pathetic, you should look the mirror as well.

Since we're all sharing anecdotes, let me give you my set of dossiers.

I know of roughly ~20 of these marriages, American male / Foreign female. I'm not including relationships of let's say an Iranian-American male marrying a Anglo-Persian woman in Britain because that's kinda a diasporic thing & doesn't really count in the discussion.

With the above stated, of the 20 marriages, 5 ended during the first 5 years. The other 15 are still going strong.

Of the 5 terminated marriages, one was a situation where the female was firm about the religion of the future children and the man didn't concur. They then split up and there was some long term animosity about the whole situation.

Another, was a case of domestic abuse but the wife was the one who went ballistic. I was a witness to that family meltdown. The man was an ex-classmate of mine.

And finally, the last 3 ended without much fanfare. No one blamed the other person and they went their separate ways.

If I were to make a rough estimate, at most 2 of the 5 divorces may have had a "Green Card Diver" angle. The rest were standard marriages which ended for reasons of incompatibility. Thus, overall, we're still looking at a 75% success rate for those who're still together.

true ... except for the fact that welfare/Sectiom8 type housing programs result in a market disconnect in the rents paid by everyone, in an upward movement. Rents are too high due to free money in the same way sale prices were/are too high when there is free money.

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of msyoginists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

Reading this stuff makes me wonder how much longer I can handle this site and this rampage. This is why a "Misogyny" category would be helpful.

As far as this Asian women stereotype is concerned, I can tell you first hand that this docile- Asian woman description is an illusion. You do not know Asian women or asian culture if you think these women are just passive man-pleasers. It may look like that from the outside, but these women are just as likely to be assertive within the relationship as any American women. Asian women just hide their assertiveness better than homegrown USA girls.

Indiana Jones says

You do not know Asian women or asian culture if you think these women are just passive man-pleasers. It may look like that from the outside, but these women are just as likely to be assertive within the relationship as any American women.

Ok Indy, since you've just built a strawman about Asians, as a way of playing the old "Sayonara" game of depicting the passive Asian/aggressive *Marlon Brando* American, how do you account for the successful Brazilian-USA marriages? If anything, Brazilians are even more emotionally expressive than Americans but yet, hold onto an idea of valuing a family which is cohesive. Once again, similar facts remain. Brazilian-American marriages also hold up better than the 50% ratio among US natives.

And yet, no one's asserted here that Asians are some passive Geisha girl in marriage. That's you, projecting your false counterargument.

Let's see, Lafayette men marrying Asian women as SECOND wives, and the general glowing terms that foreign women, including Asian, are described here (they will treat you like kings!) as opposed to the degrading name calling towards American women. Is this not enough for you? I can't speak about Brazillians first hand, only Asians.

Indiana Jones says

marrying Asian women as SECOND wives, and the general glowing terms that foreign women

I think this 2nd wife refers to the divorced crowd and the whole divorce court bias against the male defendants.

In terms of 'glowing', since I haven't really thought of ppl as glowing or not, the fact which remains is that US/Foreign marriages hold together at a rate of ~80%, although from my personal log, it's closer to ~75%, but still, that's rather high compared to what happens domestically where broken homes are the norm than exceptional.

And yes, I believe that the problem lies within our modern American society which sees marriage and family, as disposable items.

Indiana Jones says

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of msyoginists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

You are overusing the term misogyny and its related forms. If you look at literature or the web (simple google search will do) you will find out that its counterpart (misandry) is hardly ever asserted in forum discussions, blog posts or good plain old books. Accusations and tales of misogyny though are everywhere to be found. This can leave you only with 2 logical conclusions:

1) Men by nature show far more hatred towards women than vice versa (i.e. men are mostly "bad" and women mostly "good")

2) There is a tendency to frequently label men as misogynists (when women are criticized), but not vice versa (women are not labeled man-haters when they criticize men)

In any case, given that the findings outside patrick.net resemble your findings on the patrick.net forum, patrcik.net cannot be an aberration.

So which option would you go with, 1) or 2)?

i didn't see anyone claim Asian women were submissive in this entire thread. what many men here claim is that women from South America, Asia, Eastern Europe are automatically better than U.S women.

who in their right mind would want to marry U.S women when they idolize hoes and talent-less hacks like Paris Hilton, Kim - fat ass - Kardashian, Tila Nguyen, Anna Nicole Smith, Jenny McCathy, Britney Spears and other trash "celebrities" out there?

thanks to U.S women these women became famous in the Western world. U.S women love them so much they spend all their disposable income buying everything these their trash celebrities sell.

which other parts of the world do you see hoes and talentless hacks like those get a TV show?

apparently the trashier female celebrities get the more popular they are with U.S women so everyone competes to be the trashiest, coming out with a new "leaked" sex tape every month to stay on the cover.

and feminists say we live in a rape culture? rapists go to prison. but cheesy porn actresses gets a TV show and tons of endorsements. seems like whore culture more than anything.

also why is it for American girls wanting to be treated like princesses but it's not OK for men wanting to be treated like Kings? double standard.

Out of those two choices I will have to go with # 1, within this site, without the i.e.- men are not all bad, women are not all good. Just because more men get online and whine and bitch like babies about how horrible women are to them, than women doing vice versus, does not make any gender all good nor bad.

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening; otherwise I do not return to the site. I'd hate to have to stop perusing this site as normally, I quite like it, and I have learned a lot about the real estate market.

There must be many male-power or female-bashing sites all over the web where you can be validated for every post you write. How about trying some of them out?

This is a sad, if not sort of entertaining to read post. I'm Married to a (gasp) American woman and we get along just fine and have for over 10 years. That she is American is purely incidental because in my single days I dated people from all over the place. Its not about where someone is from but whether you and the person you're with are compatible.

In some parts of California prices have risen a great deal, but these houses have yet to close, thus 20% down does not cut it.

The appraised value is not yet there to support the higher price.

This is the top of the market for 2013. It came early as the inventory came in late.

Yeah, unfortunately it is the feminists-the modern version is nothing but a hate group- who have created this men are monsters myth. All rules benefit women and we have created this paradigm where men are to be treated like brute animals to be used and thrown. Women on the other hands are like Princesses who can do anything they wnat, never have to grow up and always have someone suppoort them no matter what.

Equality indeed. What it has created is a new generation of women who are xtremely entitled and do not know th econcepts of dignity, self-respect and such. Just look at TV. back then June Cleaver was the ideal woman-now it is Kim Kardashian.

EQuality means you get the opportunity to become business tycoons like Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina an drun for President like Hillary. CA has two women senators. It also means that if you fail, then you face the consequences an dbecome like the drunk, homeless bums we see often. You made that choice-but feminists only took th efirst option and in the case of the second-made sure men paid for them and kept them comfortable.

I really wish there was a way to turn this paradigm around, but not sure how to go about it. Have your equality-all of it.

Indiana Jones says

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of misogynists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

Certainly some men have issues that they are articulating here, and there are also some undercurrents of misogyny here, but these are very different times for men relative to women, and there's nothing wrong with talking about that.

Unless you are living in a cave, you must have seen some of what has been written about this. The so called mancession. or about for example how men supposedly don't see the point of growing up these days.

A lot has changed. Even for those of us who think that women having the ability to do whatever they want (with careers etc) or to be able to "have it all" is great,.. we at the same time can not deny toll this has taken on the family.

Unfortunately the economy has adapted quickly to the two income household such that now it's practically required to support a family well.

That in and of itself is sad, if you think about it.

June Cleaver was a slave to daddy cleaver, Beaver and his buddies.
You don't want equality. You want the whole thing turned around 180....
What do you think brought about the feminist movements? Centuries of male dominance.

lostand confused says

Just look at TV. back then June Cleaver was the ideal woman-now it is Kim Kardashian.

Where do I sign up??

lostand confused says

where men are to be treated like brute animals to be used and thrown.

marcus says

Unless you are living in a cave, you must have seen some of what has been written about this. The so called mancession. or about for example how men supposedly don't see the point of growing up these days.

Well said. That is the crux of the issue. The real issue is not men vs. women, but free-loading on the most productive segment of the society (not counting domestic labor and child bearing, which are not taxable). The middle class to upper middle class male population has been the most productive segment of the society; they were the ones who built the society (outside the family). Now they are taxed and burdened so heavily, including this marriage tax and sex tax, that the middle class and upper middle class male are reproducing less, and young males are discouraged from joining the class and become productive members of the society (outside the family). We are getting to the point where studying how to use drugs all day and play Don Juan hopping from bed to bed (which is not taxable, and has little liability if one has little income) is far more rewarding than pursuing a professional career and become a productive member of the society. The loser class has become the reproductive aristocracy (whose sole job is to reproduce and enjoy their lives) riding on the middle class (the latter essentially becoming serfs) thanks to tax and transfers that benefit losers at the expense of the middle class and upper middle class.

SoftShell says

What do you think brought about the feminist movements? Centuries of male dominance.

No. Male dominance had been in place for much more than mere centuries. Feminist movement did not come along previously. The Feminist movement was actively encouraged by: a desire to tax both adults of the family, making domestic labor taxable. The home cooked meal was not taxable. The take-out is, and usually at rates higher than average sales tax on raw ingredients, and that's in addition to income tax that both the wives and the restaurants have to pay. The tax bite is a significant contributor to the fact that most families now can not afford proper gourmet meals (from restaurant or home cooked) but can only substitute with junk food with dire nutritional consequences for the young (e.g. youth obesity)

Just looking at sex:

Young men might deny it (with their tattoos and earings or whatever), but women have always been the more attractive ones sexually, and for a lack of better terms, the "economics of love" has always favored women.

Most experienced men know this and love it. This is how it's always been. I would go so far as to say that in most healthy relationships the man is more desirous of his woman's affection than vica versa (or at least that's the understanding they play out). I don't know how this could be denied (although it can drive a man a little carzy at times).

My belief is that it's this fact that confuses matters when you add "equality" to the mix. The way things were, men were the provider for the family, and women ran the home, abut also were the mans lover.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not longing for those times. I'm just saying that if you think about it, you can understand why things are somewhat messed up now.

Indiana Jones says

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening; otherwise I do not return to the site. I'd hate to have to stop perusing this site as normally, I quite like it, and I have learned a lot about the real estate market.

Why is this such a problem for you? There are 1000s of other threads on patrick.net, yet you come to the one that offends you and participate in what you call name calling. Or participate in the logical and factual part of this discussion instead of focusing on the minority of posts in this thread that are emotional and slightly inflammatory.

Indiana Jones says

Just because more men get online and whine and bitch like babies about how horrible women are to them, than women doing vice versus, does not make any gender all good nor bad.

Wow, that's one of the most misandrist comments on this site. And completely untrue. I have to call B.S. on that. Women scorn men at least as much as men scorn women, probably more so given how little men talk. What's that saying? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

But let me get this straight, if a woman goes online and levies complaints against men or the privileges given to men, she is being empowered, but if a man does the exact same thing, he's whining and bitching like a baby. That is a perfect demonstration of the original post.

And by the way, with the exception of MershedPerturders (with whom no one agrees), who exactly made the statement that either gender was all good or bad? This thread was about the treatment of men as second-class citizens by our society, in particular by the media, the family court system, and the police. How exactly is pointing out these injustices misogynistic?

Just remember, regardless of your gender, half your descendants are going to be male and half are going to be female. It is in your family's best interest that neither side get screwed over legally, financially, or socially.

Mark D says

who in their right mind would want to marry U.S women when they idolize hoes and talent-less hacks like Paris Hilton, Kim - fat ass - Kardashian, Tila Nguyen, Anna Nicole Smith, Jenny McCathy, Britney Spears and other trash "celebrities" out there?

thanks to U.S women these women became famous in the Western world. U.S women love them so much they spend all their disposable income buying everything these their trash celebrities sell.

which other parts of the world do you see hoes and talentless hacks like those get a TV show?

To present a counterpoint, there is the marriage of American country singers, Tim McGraw and Faith Hill, both famous & successful but a happy & balanced couple. They're now celebrating their 18th year together.

Now you're correct, outside of Nashville, the dynamic couple doesn't get much attention simply because they're too normal unlike some drama queens. But like the drama queens listed [ Paris, KK, ANS, etc ], Faith's also got a merchandising brand name and such but without all the paparazzi stories since she's not a rotten person.

I'd argue that Tim and Faith are very elite, among famous American marriages, which last w/o fanfare. The chances of something like that, happening for the average Joe is probably at best ~15%.

sbh says

Modern sexism remains based on primitive archetype.

I agree with everything you said there. Of course, these instinctive biases are silly and counter-productive in modern society. Sure, in the Stone Age accepting the alpha male who beat you and cheated on you might have been in your best genetic interest. It clearly is not today.

Nor is expecting men to suffer injustices silently. I would hardly consider a call for family law reform to be "men behaving helplessly". If anything, they are being pro-active, and thus would make better mates than the brute who simply hits a woman to get his way or the fool who lets a woman walk all over him. There is something to be said for a strong and fair fatherly figure.

On the contrary, I believe that our society is STILL primitive in the way it disposes of families and responsibility for children. In a modern society there would be a complete social network to support the raising of children where the parents wouldn't necessarily be the primary caregivers past infancy. It makes far more sense to group children under dedicated caregivers who have made this their profession than to waste resources on making sure each woman must assume sole responsibility for the care of her own children. Treating them as the children of the community is a more modern way of looking at this, and would instantly render moot this entire thread. Some "primitive" societies such as Polynesians had this culture fully developed before we "modern" westerners came to destroy it with our civilizing ways.

It's no accident that in America the demographic of women most likely to be murdered are pregnant.