Why Pete want's a 'Rari

It's all sex and lies.

Everything. The debt bubble. The real estate bubble. The trade deficit bubble.

Why is there a $600 billion trade deficit? Because Americans want to buy things they
can't afford. Why do they buy things they can't afford? To pretend to be richer than they
are. Why do they want to be appear richer than they are? Because it gives them higher
social status. Why do they want higher about social status? So they will have better
access to the opposite sex.

We are back in the United States after an absence of several months. Suddenly, the roads
are crowded with Hummers. Why would anyone want to drive around in a big, awkward, ugly,
expensive car when a small, cheap one would get him where he was going just as well?
Because they want to "maximize their inclusive fitness" say scientists. They want as many
of their genes floating around the gene pool as possible. The Hummer is like long, bright
tail feathers on a bird. Or a big rack of antlers on a deer. From a utilitarian point of
view, they are worthless. Worse than worthless, as a matter of fact. They increase the
risk that rivals and predators will notice the animal. They take energy to carry around.
And they slow the animal down, making it hard for him to maneuver in a fight or to get
away.

The huge cars are only useful, near as anyone who thinks about such matters can figure,
as conspicuous consumption; they wink to the opposite sex that the animal is game for a
little hanky-panky. If he can carry around all that extra baggage and still survive, he
must be tough. So, too, if a person can live in a McMansion and drive a Hummer without
going bankrupt, he must be a good prospect for a date.

But it's all relative. If everybody on the block buys a Hummer and puts in a swimming
pool, the man who has those things already loses his edge. He has to spend even more -
bringing himself even closer to bankruptcy - in order to show off. What can he do? Write
poetry and put a feminist bumper sticker on his old Hummer?

"Forget sensitivity," said a woman over dinner last night. "The man must show that he's
capable... that he's strong... that he knows what he's doing."

"Yeah," said a divorced friend who has been studying dating strategies, "you have to be
'the man with the plan.' You signal to the woman that you've got it figured out... that
your time is valuable... and that, if she wants to hook up with you, she can to so, but
only on your terms. What you don't want to do is to take her out on a date and spend a
lot of money on her. You have to show that you have a lot of money, but you don't want to
give her the impression that she'll be in charge of how it is spent. That would start the
relationship off on the wrong foot."

Women aren't stupid, of course. They know you can move into a McMansion with no money
down and no money anywhere else. They know you can lease a Hummer and buy an Armani suit
with credit cards. They try to find out if the man really has money or not. It is the
beginning of the battle between the sexes. The man tries to deceive the woman about his
fitness for procreation. The woman tries to detect the deception, while deceiving him -
with make-up and various artifices - about her own attractiveness. The poor man has to
show more and more evidence that he's really the one with the large rack and the bright
feathers. He has to take on more and more expensive burdens. Second and third houses...
European vacations... a home theatre... cosmetic surgery. The schmuck needs to spend,
spend, spend - or he's going to be spending his nights alone.

You might say that a "smart" woman would see her way through the foolishness of it all
and prefer a man with no desire to show off - maybe a good, solid schoolteacher who cares
about the environment and drives an old Pinto. But if she mates with such a man, she
dooms her offspring, say the scientists, for the man is likely to father sons much like
himself - men who are only attractive to smart women. How many of them are there? Her own
genes will find fewer opportunities for reproductive success, in other words... and
what's so smart about that?

In order to spread her genes as widely as possible, a woman needs offspring, particularly
males, who are "high ranking," - that is, those who can carry around gaudy expenses
without going broke. Her best strategy is to make with a high ranking male. Her good
fortune would be to have many sons with him - high ranking boys who would find many mates
of their own. And for that she must make herself as desirable to him as possible. This,
too, begins with deception and often ends in disappointment. She must spend much of her
time and money as though she were a candidate for public office - that is, deceiving
people about what she is. The scientists call it "impression management." She must appear
high ranking - by wearing expensive clothes instead of cheap ones... by driving an
expensive car, rather than a cheap one... by living at an expensive address... eating in
expensive restaurants... going on expensive vacations and sporting expensive jewelry. She
must also appear as physically attractive as possible. Remember, it's all about sex.

Meanwhile, driven by these ancient impulses to sexual reproduction... and chauffeured by
the Fed... Americans arrive at the cusp of bankruptcy. (More on this below... )

You didn't think Thommo was going to comment did you?
 
Part 11

Bill Bonner, with more ideas of various sorts...

*** You only have to get in a cab to realize that the real estate boom has become a
bubble. Cab drivers will point out how much houses have gone up. While once they gave
tips on tech stocks, now they tell you which neighborhoods are likely to experience the
greatest price inflation. Listen carefully, and you are likely to overhear them on their
cell phones - talking to real estate agents about their new condos.

House prices have risen 40% in the last four years. This increased household net worth by
about $6 trillion. In many areas, the price increases are accelerating. Nationwide, house
prices rose 12.5% in 2004 - adding approximately another $2 trillion to homeowners' next
worth.

But there are signs that the trend is nearing an end. The buyers have added so many
feathers... and so much new "wood" to their antlers... they can barely move. Rental
vacancies have reached 10% - a record high. This has cut rental income to the point where
the P/E of houses - average selling price/12 mo. rental income - has risen to 34, which
is higher than the P/E of stocks at the bubble peak in 2000. Another way to look at it is
that rental income averaged about 5% of house prices in the 1990s. Now, they have dropped
to 3.5%.

Pity the poor renter. He might just as well drive an old economy car and buy his clothes
at the Goodwill. He is the sort of man you wouldn't want your daughter to date, let alone
to marry. He is the poor loser who forgot to buy tech stocks in the late '90s... and now
he is missing the real estate bubble too. He is the quiet, lonely dork who never gets
invited to parties... and has nothing to say... except an, "I told you so" he is has been
holding onto for years... waiting for the right moment.

But, his time will come.
 
Thommo said:
But, his time will come.

Thanks Tommo,

There's only one way a bubble can go, and when it does its the maligned little guy who acts at the appropriate time that will be the next 'rari driver of the future. Maybe then he'll be able to pull a date?

I'm married with one on the way so the date's out of the question, but a 'rari wouldn't hurt! :rolleyes:

Gotta love cycles,
Michael.
 
Thommo,

Is that first post your words?

If so you should submit it for publication, it's very good.

If they aren't your words - please credit it please, we don't want Somersoft sued for plagarism.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
MichaelWhyte said:
Gotta love cycles,
Michael.
The trouble with cycles is that you need to see them.

That has never been my problem. Mine is that I see them too early, prepare too early and then loose my conviction because everyone else is having a ball. Staying staunch with strength of your convictions ain't easy.

Thommo
 
Aceyducey said:
Thommo,

Is that first post your words?

If so you should submit it for publication, it's very good.

If they aren't your words - please credit it please, we don't want Somersoft sued for plagarism.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
Sorry.

It was written by Bill Bonner (I assume) whose name was on the top of pt 11.

I am trying to wean myself off Bill's "strong" convictions but he is a wonderful wordsmith who posts freely and widely and I have never seen a copyright disclaimer.

I am a little surprised you haven't been to dailyreckoning.com but I have been bagged in the past for quoting them as if I was quoting "The Daily Truth". Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Trust me, I'm a lawyer LOL

Thommo
 
Back
Top