Only in America?
At some point I came across one of these typical things that float around the 'net and wanted to find it again as I thought it was quite funny and an interesting way to look at investments.
Basically a 25 year old woman was looking for a man to marry, but the main criteria was a yearly salary above $500K and not as much his character, person, looks or anything else. I know some Americans are very superficial, but in my book this sort of tops it off. Maybe the woman in question would call me dim-witted farm-boy or something similar, but I simply can't get my head around why anyone would enter into a relationship with such a person? If you're nothing but a wallet for her (and she doesn't carry her own weight) what would stop her from moving on to a bigger wallet at a whim? and what would you get except a piece of "show-kit" that could just as easily be rented?
Either way, this guy responds saying that he fits the criteria but would never enter a marriage with her, at he considered her a depreciating asset since she only contributed her beauty, and that would fade with time. In contrast he argued that he was an earning asset, as he would most likely continue to earn money and more likely than not actually increase his income with time. So far so good - this was the funny part in case you missed it :)
Now, looking for the original post on Craigs List, I found that she had replied to him! How cool is that. Even more name calling and putting each other down...another thing a lot of Americans seem to like, given the popularity of Jerry Springer et. al. :) Anyway, here is her full reply.
Basically what she's saying is that he can't possibly be an earning asset as he apparently doesn't grasp markets and economics. She assumes he's an investment banker and not a trader and therefore doesn't know that "human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel" (when did stock trading become a banking cartel???). She also claims that with all the dodgy debt out there, which he most likely have invested in, he could easily stand to loose his job and thus no longer be an earning asset. On the other hand, her biggest asset (her beauty) would be able to be maintained a lot longer than he argued due to "advancement in plastic surgery".
Maybe my understanding of markets and economics also date back to the 1950's (as she claimed he's did) but I still can't see the deal in this transaction.
Yes, her (outer) beauty can be maintained longer than into her 30's, but that's the same thing as saying a 50 year old house that hasn't been updated, except for a few good outside paint jobs, is still worth the same as a brand new one - again making the case for renting/dating instead of buying/marrying. Her (lack of) inner "beauty" (aka. personality, humanity, warmth etc.) will at best stay the same. My guess is that it will actually decrease with time as she grows impatient/bored with her (also increasingly older) husband and begins to eye the bigger wallets available in the "market".
Her point on his income being in danger is valid, though one would hope only short lived. If he's skilled enough he should quickly be back on his feet, whereas she would never be able to turn back time. Eloquent as her response is, it still looks like a very bad deal to me as she doesn't seem to bring anything but expenses/debt to the table...sort of like buying into Northern Rock after having been told it will be nationalised. In both situations you'll end up with less money, a bad experience and less trust in other human beings :)
Basically a 25 year old woman was looking for a man to marry, but the main criteria was a yearly salary above $500K and not as much his character, person, looks or anything else. I know some Americans are very superficial, but in my book this sort of tops it off. Maybe the woman in question would call me dim-witted farm-boy or something similar, but I simply can't get my head around why anyone would enter into a relationship with such a person? If you're nothing but a wallet for her (and she doesn't carry her own weight) what would stop her from moving on to a bigger wallet at a whim? and what would you get except a piece of "show-kit" that could just as easily be rented?
Either way, this guy responds saying that he fits the criteria but would never enter a marriage with her, at he considered her a depreciating asset since she only contributed her beauty, and that would fade with time. In contrast he argued that he was an earning asset, as he would most likely continue to earn money and more likely than not actually increase his income with time. So far so good - this was the funny part in case you missed it :)
Now, looking for the original post on Craigs List, I found that she had replied to him! How cool is that. Even more name calling and putting each other down...another thing a lot of Americans seem to like, given the popularity of Jerry Springer et. al. :) Anyway, here is her full reply.
Basically what she's saying is that he can't possibly be an earning asset as he apparently doesn't grasp markets and economics. She assumes he's an investment banker and not a trader and therefore doesn't know that "human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel" (when did stock trading become a banking cartel???). She also claims that with all the dodgy debt out there, which he most likely have invested in, he could easily stand to loose his job and thus no longer be an earning asset. On the other hand, her biggest asset (her beauty) would be able to be maintained a lot longer than he argued due to "advancement in plastic surgery".
Maybe my understanding of markets and economics also date back to the 1950's (as she claimed he's did) but I still can't see the deal in this transaction.
Yes, her (outer) beauty can be maintained longer than into her 30's, but that's the same thing as saying a 50 year old house that hasn't been updated, except for a few good outside paint jobs, is still worth the same as a brand new one - again making the case for renting/dating instead of buying/marrying. Her (lack of) inner "beauty" (aka. personality, humanity, warmth etc.) will at best stay the same. My guess is that it will actually decrease with time as she grows impatient/bored with her (also increasingly older) husband and begins to eye the bigger wallets available in the "market".
Her point on his income being in danger is valid, though one would hope only short lived. If he's skilled enough he should quickly be back on his feet, whereas she would never be able to turn back time. Eloquent as her response is, it still looks like a very bad deal to me as she doesn't seem to bring anything but expenses/debt to the table...sort of like buying into Northern Rock after having been told it will be nationalised. In both situations you'll end up with less money, a bad experience and less trust in other human beings :)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home