Post: #1

The corrupting aspect of luxury making a lot of modern men soft has a lot to do with it.

Take a look at this documentary. The key point is where he talks about this from roughly min 21 to min 24

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/2014012...-of-luxury

Does luxury corrupt masculinity?

Post: #2

Not sure I understand. You make a false assumption that men should pursue what you pursue. Historically men have sought power. Power today in a capitalist society means trinkets.I guess when the Indian chief sold Manhattan island for the alleged 24 dollars in trinkets it was testament to this. A mirror was a sign of luxury believe it or not. In fact it is the one thing man can control...a ugly guy cant control/influence hot women but he can influence her earning power!

Post: #3

(02-15-2014 03:45 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Not sure I understand. You make a false assumption that men should pursue what you pursue.

Not at all. I am specifically talking about men who are miserable with their life and complain and say things like "I wish I could do what you do and travel the world".

Then do nothing.

Are they just trapped in a guilded cage of their own making?

Post: #4

(02-15-2014 03:27 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  Does luxury corrupt masculinity?

That is what Spartans believed in some 2500 years ago. And the Romans some 2000 years ago. And the Prussians. And the British elite in Victorian England (which is why upper class kids went to rigid boarding schools, took cold showers, and played rugby even under the heaviest rain). And the Japanese elite, Mussolini, and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s. The realization that luxury makes people soft is recurring. Which is why admiration for Sparta is as old as Sparta itself and even has its own name: Laconophilia.

If our goal in life is to perfect ourselves to the point where we resemble the gods themselves, then luxury prevents us from attaining our goal.

Post: #5

..posted in wrong thread

Post: #6

(02-15-2014 05:26 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 03:27 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  Does luxury corrupt masculinity?

That is what Spartans believed in some 2500 years ago. And the Romans some 2000 years ago. And the Prussians. And the British elite in Victorian England (which is why upper class kids went to rigid boarding schools, took cold showers, and played rugby even under the heaviest rain). And the Japanese elite, Mussolini, and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s. The realization that luxury makes people soft is recurring. Which is why admiration for Sparta is as old as Sparta itself and even has its own name: Laconophilia.

If our goal in life is to perfect ourselves to the point where we resemble the gods themselves, then luxury prevents us from attaining our goal.

Interesting stuff. What about guys who've already turned into little bitches? How much of an upward battle do you think it is to toughen them back up? Especially if they never have been anything you could consider tough.

I'm thinking it's definitely possible. Humans are pretty adaptable. I find when I start enduring more discomfort, the resilience spills over into other areas of my life.

Thoughts?

Quote:which is why upper class kids went to rigid boarding schools

I never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense. Sort of like the stoic life in basic training whipping recruits into shape.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #7

I have so many friends from college who're so similar to me but whose lifestyle terrifies me.

They're smart, educated guys who enjoy both girls and partying. They're not boring or stupid (either of which would make their choices understandable). And when they're drunk they've all admitted to me they wish they had my life. But instead of making any effort to emulate my life they just keep toiling away at their 9-5 jobs they hate. One of them just bought an apartment, at 27. He had £75k saved but instead of quitting his job and traveling the world for 6 months or a year he bought a place. And now hes trapped in the one suburb, of one city, for the next 30 years.

He could easily have quit his job, traveled the world for a year, and then come back and gotten straight back to work for the next 40 years (he's both qualified and experienced so would have gotten another job no problem). But instead he felt the need to put a voluntary 30 year mortgage chain around his neck and will now probably never do any extended traveling. He hasn't even left Europe once in the past 10 years (!).

I have no idea why someone wouldn't spend their disposable income while they have it in their 20s. Does finishing paying your mortgage off at 60 instead of 65 really make much of a difference? I'd far rather have that 5 years of traveling, nice cars, nice restaurants, disposable income lifestyle in my 20s. The idea of settling for a job that 'pays the bills' for 40 years and settling down is...horrifying.

Post: #8

^^^
This is how the corporate/government school power structure "educates" us to stay on the plantation.

I don't know why anyone would get a 30 year mortgage on non-income producing property.

Most people don't realize that $100,000 borrowed for 30 years at 8% interest is really 160% interest when compounded.

Post: #9

(02-16-2014 01:19 PM)zatara Wrote:  I have so many friends from college who're so similar to me but whose lifestyle terrifies me.

They're smart, educated guys who enjoy both girls and partying. They're not boring or stupid (either of which would make their choices understandable). And when they're drunk they've all admitted to me they wish they had my life. But instead of making any effort to emulate my life they just keep toiling away at their 9-5 jobs they hate. One of them just bought an apartment, at 27. He had £75k saved but instead of quitting his job and traveling the world for 6 months or a year he bought a place. And now hes trapped in the one suburb, of one city, for the next 30 years.

He could easily have quit his job, traveled the world for a year, and then come back and gotten straight back to work for the next 40 years (he's both qualified and experienced so would have gotten another job no problem). But instead he felt the need to put a voluntary 30 year mortgage chain around his neck and will now probably never do any extended traveling. He hasn't even left Europe once in the past 10 years (!).

I have no idea why someone wouldn't spend their disposable income while they have it in their 20s. Does finishing paying your mortgage off at 60 instead of 65 really make much of a difference? I'd far rather have that 5 years of traveling, nice cars, nice restaurants, disposable income lifestyle in my 20s. The idea of settling for a job that 'pays the bills' for 40 years and settling down is...horrifying.

Think about it like this:

- mental stimulation lengthens our lifespan. That is, older people greatly benefit from learning languages, reading books, and volunteering work. Even a bit of traditional work can help.
- given that, it's actually healthier for us to have some sort of work in our later and more vulnerable years, something to keep the gears grinding. Instead of retiring at 65, then, why not stop working full-time at 65, and work part-time for the next ten years or beyond. It should help to keep us going.
- so why not enjoy our 20s and 30s (or beyond) a bit more, save a bit less and do a bit more of what excites us, rather than just getting a job to pay the bills. Coincidentally, this is completely in line with Robert Greene's Mastery - we should use our younger years to fail, to fuck up, to go a bit crazy. We can work it off when we're old.
- all this means that it's better to take your time when you're young, go through the inevitable failure stage where you try to find what you're meant to do, and find it. Even if you don't make bank until well beyond the age of 30, you can make up for it later.

Post: #10

(02-15-2014 03:27 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  The corrupting aspect of luxury making a lot of modern men soft has a lot to do with it.

Take a look at this documentary. The key point is where he talks about this from roughly min 21 to min 24

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/2014012...-of-luxury

Does luxury corrupt masculinity?

It is luxury and it is fear as well.

Assuming you have a good amount saved up and/or a decent passive income stream, you could live a petty luxurious lifestyle for cheaper in a developing country.

Fear in my mind in the main culprit. Fear of the the unknown. Fear of change.

Post: #11

Yes, I'm NEVER going to buy property, at least not to live in.

I'm going to spend my life maximizing the value I receive by continually living in cities with housing bubbles, where renting is far cheaper than owning.

Post: #12

Totally relate to that. My main goal for this year above anything else is to free myself from the burden of my condo which has been a huge money pit for me and is the main reason I've been stuck in the shit hole I am.

Never going to buy property in Canada again. If I were to do it, I will do it on the beach or in a dope city in Asia/LA or Southern Europe. At least life is fun there.

(02-16-2014 02:00 PM)buja Wrote:  ^^^
This is how the corporate/government school power structure "educates" us to stay on the plantation.

I don't know why anyone would get a 30 year mortgage on non-income producing property.

Most people don't realize that $100,000 borrowed for 30 years at 8% interest is really 160% interest when compounded.

Post: #13

In retail banking, speaking from experience, you're meant to treat clients like marks. The idea is to load them up with as much debt as possible as to make them insecure and mentally unable to move.

To make your customers 'captive', the cheapest marketing of all.

Post: #14

(02-16-2014 01:19 PM)zatara Wrote:  One of them just bought an apartment, at 27. He had £75k saved but instead of quitting his job and traveling the world for 6 months or a year he bought a place. And now hes trapped in the one suburb, of one city, for the next 30 years.

I also bought an apartment in the UK at the age of 27. I now rent it out.

The rent both pays for my mortgage and me travelling the world + expenses (food, drink).

OK, I can't any lifestyle off the back of it that even approaches extravagant but I don't want to anyway. I don't need luxury.

Because I don't need luxury, that's why I have freedom.

Buying that flat at 27 is the best decision I even made but as a result I was able to quit the rat race at the age of 35 and I am never going back to it.

Post: #15

"so why not enjoy our 20s and 30s (or beyond) a bit more, save a bit less and do a bit more of what excites us, rather than just getting a job to pay the bills. Coincidentally, this is completely in line with Robert Greene's Mastery - we should use our younger years to fail, to fuck up, to go a bit crazy. We can work it off when we're old."

Because of the RULE of 72.

Post: #16

(02-16-2014 02:00 PM)buja Wrote:  ^^^
This is how the corporate/government school power structure "educates" us to stay on the plantation.

I don't know why anyone would get a 30 year mortgage on non-income producing property.

Most people don't realize that $100,000 borrowed for 30 years at 8% interest is really 160% interest when compounded.

I read in Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money that, had someone invested $10,000 (or something like that) in long-term stocks in the late 1980s, and invested the same amount in property that produced the average ROI for U.S. property in that period, and cashed out twenty years later, the stocks would have far outperformed the property.

That is, in the long term, property can be a good investment, but there are better investments, investments that don't take a lot of effort (just use a service like Vanguard).

So the question is why anyone would invest in property.

In the Anglosphere, we are obsessed with property - most other wealthy countries/cultures are happy to rent, or whatever. But certainly where I'm from, getting a house is seen as obligatory at some point - even in poor families.

I think the argument is that owning a place means that you literally take ownership of your home and your community. You're locked in. You fight to prevent things like crime and drugs from taking over. You talk with your neighbors. And going 'home' to a place that you own just feels good and is good for your mental and physical health.

Post: #17

(02-16-2014 05:48 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  "so why not enjoy our 20s and 30s (or beyond) a bit more, save a bit less and do a bit more of what excites us, rather than just getting a job to pay the bills. Coincidentally, this is completely in line with Robert Greene's Mastery - we should use our younger years to fail, to fuck up, to go a bit crazy. We can work it off when we're old."

Because of the RULE of 72.

People spend beyond their means too much and are obsessed with having the best possible lifestyle they can "IMMEDIATELY." I agree with you. A simple calculator tells me that if I invest 3,000 a month and get 10% average return per year. In 20 years I'd have a cool $2,154,784. In 50 years nearly 44 million dollars.

As a professional with a good income it wouldn't exactly be farfetched to invest 5,000 a month. at 5,000 a month in 20 years with 10% annual returns you'd have 3,591,302.87. In 30 years you'd crack 10 million.

I'm not sure why people don't take more advantage of this and save heavy in their foundational years.

It really isn't that far of a stretch for most people with decent careers in North America / Western Europe to be millionaires by their 40s.

People here want everything right away. The second they can afford that 3 or 5 or 7 series they finance it or heck even buy it in cash (still stupid). They want to buy a louis vuitton wallet when they are 25 years old. It's non stop consumerism when if they saved a portion of their income they could have a great life forever.

I think for most people a million dollar retirement should be achievable in their 40s. Not that i'd want to retire on that in the West but if you wanted to retire on that in a 2nd / 3rd world country it's probably enough for a very good standard of living.

Post: #18

(02-16-2014 05:44 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  Buying that flat at 27 is the best decision I even made but as a result I was able to quit the rat race at the age of 35 and I am never going back to it.

That's a strategy that works, if you're able to capture 8 years of the biggest global property bubble in living memory.

Now the thing with bubbles is, it doesn't have to be proeprty, it can be any bubble.

Getting in prior to a tech bubble, the mining boom in Australia, etc.with land you the same sort of results.

In you have the foresight to pick the next bubble, you should double up your efforts.

Post: #19

(02-16-2014 05:49 PM)Yeti Wrote:  So the question is why anyone would invest in property.

Security of tenancy.
Typical higher leverage ratios.
More government policy underwrites the risk or property investment, other form of investment.

Don't get me wrong and assuem I'm a property booster, I think property bubbles are the worst kind of bubbles, and "property entrepreneurs" are generally scum, but it is rational on many levels to buy your own property.

Post: #20

I'm thinking about after getting out of my house and shrinking down, purchase a used class A RV and spend a few weeks/months in a spot.

It would be lovely if the market for selling wasn't so shitty right now.

Post: #21

Could the estimated rental value cover the mortgage?

Post: #22

(02-16-2014 08:16 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  Could the estimated rental value cover the mortgage?

After my re-fi last year, yeah I think it could. My payment now is $800 and it could easily rent for $1000 after I fix it up. So I guess there could be a "home base" to come back to and check on my home once in a while.

Post: #23

To OP, Nothing about losing "masculinity". People just have different visions i.e. long or short. Some just prefer to build up for the long term and social status and power that money brings is more fulfilling than access to fresh pussy while others just prefer to live for the moment. Also don't think masculinity was about being a hippie who spends all life, traveling and barely getting by in life.

Post: #24

(02-16-2014 09:41 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:16 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  Could the estimated rental value cover the mortgage?

After my re-fi last year, yeah I think it could. My payment now is $800 and it could easily rent for $1000 after I fix it up. So I guess there could be a "home base" to come back to and check on my home once in a while.

Man, thats rent 25% in excess of the cost of capital. A good buffer for other marginal costs and income disruption due to vacancy.

I don't know the tax of the U.S and the implications of rentals, but it sounds like you have a goal. You are close to, if not already there, to your house no longer being a financial burden.

Don't have dreams, have goals.

Be a guy who DOES give up a miserable lifestyle.

Post: #25

(02-16-2014 05:49 PM)Yeti Wrote:  I read in Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money that, had someone invested $10,000 (or something like that) in long-term stocks in the late 1980s, and invested the same amount in property that produced the average ROI for U.S. property in that period, and cashed out twenty years later, the stocks would have far outperformed the property.

That is, in the long term, property can be a good investment, but there are better investments, investments that don't take a lot of effort (just use a service like Vanguard).

So the question is why anyone would invest in property.

As T and A Man already mentioned, part of it has to do with leverage.

Use the $10,000 in 1980's dollars as a deposit for a $50,000 house and then compare the returns against $10,000 in stocks. The property investment will be superior.

Safe leverage is what improves returns for property. It's harder to apply the same leverage to stocks (even an index fund) and still sleep well at night.

A lot depends on the metrics used to evaluate an investment. When looking at companies, Buffett used a metric called look-through earnings which is different to other standard measurements of earnings.

In property, you will see some people use cash-on-cash return, which allows the leverage effect on overall profit to become more visible.