Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: very frustrated..
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
very frustrated..
Posted: 7/11/2014 12:36:54 AM
Dude, you are saying the same thing as thousands of thousands of other Fishies. Finding someone is one of the most difficult things most of us will ever do. Being on-line doesn't make it easier - it puts you among a multitude of people who look like better choices, and even the least attractive or tolerable people will start at the most attractive and desirable ones.

Finally, don't waste your time of money on pay dating sites. The only thing they offer you is a selection of people so desperate they will pay to meet people. Hardly the cream of the crop, eh?
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Creepy behavior or normal in world of social media?
Posted: 7/11/2014 12:26:07 AM
To PollyGraf, I want to say that looking at (or even collecting) publicly posted non-indecent photos of young women is not illegal in the UK, or anywhere else I know, unless there is evidence of stalking such as contact attempts or harassment. We are NOT talking porn or abuse photos here, as far as three pages of posts tell us.

Many people would be disgusted that someone they don't know or dislike would fantasize about them, but it's not illegal. Anyone is free do decide they don't want to go out with a person who looks at others, but it's not illegal. Anyone is free to decide they don't want to date a whanker, but all they're doing is cutting themselves off from most dateable humans.

Keep in mind that within my lifetime, the average age of first marriage or pregnancy has risen from 17 to 27 in Canada, and even higher elsewhere. Women in their late teens - high-school graduation age - were generally considered at their most marriageable age.

Our society has come around to the idea of more women being allowed to plan their own lives, and a far greater proportion of young people of all genders attend post-secondary education these days. The age of marriage was still 14 until not that long ago here in British Columbia. The cultural hangover is that women are ready to be "married off" as soon after puberty as possible, before they "go past their prime."

There are plenty of old folks and conservatives, not to mention religious believers in life-long marriage, for whom this is STILL both normal and ideal.

On the other extreme, let's note that Japan passed its first law making porn involving youngsters LAST MONTH. And they did it only because of pressure from international law-enforcement agencies. The Japanese have never socially considered pre-pubescents to be sexual beings or shameful, despite their country harbouring plenty of old pervs going to young-looking hookers in school sailor-suit uniforms.

And let's note that they also didn't touch the manga, anime or literature involving young children.
ED BEAR

Glad to see women having more choice than selling themselves off to the first bidder.
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Getting excuses not being able to meet for a first date?
Posted: 7/3/2014 1:30:19 PM
Some people have bad hair days, bad zit days or Women's Problems that make them want to Try Again Later. Others want to wait till they can take off the band-aid from the STD test.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
'cause we let it, in a society that thinks money is proof of success.
Posted: 6/14/2014 4:53:08 PM
I saw a report on TV this week - I think it was CBC - reporting a significant rise in mental health cases and suicides during the recent (and still current) economic downturn. The most notable point was that similarly-developed countries that chose to stimulate their economies and avoid sacking government workers did NOT see similar effects.

A little bit more evidence that it's not all about "incurable" cases not worth investing in.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 85 (view)
 
People addicted to electronics
Posted: 6/11/2014 1:31:24 PM
Thanks, bamagrl68. As everyone can see, I responded with clarification, not anger and personal attacks. Let's hope more of our fellows do, too!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 45 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/6/2014 6:09:37 AM
No, GreenThumbz18, I noted that the deregulation was during the period where Clinton faced a Republican congress, and in fact in his last year.

Barney Frank certainly did support the removal of the two key provisions in Glass-Steagall, but in "the early 2000's" Fannie and Freddy were healthy. It wasn't until the tech-vaporware profits went looking for a home in real estate that the bubble began to snowball (if you will allow the mixed metaphors).

As you say, "Not long after that" the commercial banks tossed themselves into the leveraged-bubble business with the real-estate fervor.

But the major financial de-regulation mania was largely Republican, and in the case of Clinton came from his own centrist position and the Republican congress.

In any case, the creme de la scum are still laughing. The lesson is that self-regulation and the insulation of risk-taking from risk-bearing have always led to disaster for those left holding the risk. Nobody, Rep or Dem, should ignore that.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/5/2014 4:07:56 AM
GreenThumbz18: Clinton was toward the conservative side of the Democratic party (extreme candidates exclude a lot of voters), but the major changes in that direction occurred during his compromises with a solidly republican congress. Remember, he agreed to things like the 5-year lifetime welfare limit?

I certainly disagree with these moves - particularly the deregulation that led to a round of federal bail-outs back in that time - but have a hard time hanging the total responsibility on Clinton. That said, at least congress was capable of compromise back then.

As far as ANYONE assuring ANYONE that things were all right just before the 2008 collapse - they were (a) trying to keep confidence in the market, always a fool's errand when real action is needed or it's too late; (b) idiots. Europe was already in free-fall, the mortgage situation was evident, the warning articles appeared every day, and oil prices were already close to tripled.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Timezone filtration / blocking
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:37:49 AM
What's wrong with dating someone ten miles away but over the time zone boundary?

What's right about dating someone in the same time zone but 4000 miles away across the equator?

Time zone is a poor substitute for proximity, which is itself a weak substitute for accessibility. Just think about a Palestinian boy in love with an Israeli girl just across that grim wall. Or Romeo and Juliet, for that matter!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Judging attraction based on a photo?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:27:03 AM
One of the most important things to see in people is how they treat others who they have no interest of getting something from.

I loved getting to know people in the old BBSes or on forums - you get to see how they react and express themselves with you AND OTHERS. They will be reacting in spheres and topics where they are not targeting their best profile at you because they are trying to please you. If these forums (or some of them) were better organized as meeting places, I would expect to find them a much better way to find out how people express themselves, understand and know their own ideas, carry themselves, handle anger or disagreement, and defuse situations.

That's where they'll reveal their cruelty, bigotry, ignorance, anger, entitlement, kindness, supportiveness, charm and tolerance.

Videos? Can't see how they'd help other than to make judgment by looks less subject to a single perfectly-staged photo.
ED BEAR

All that said, profile read... have you ever considered life in Canada, OpalescentCloud? :)
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
The Mental Health system in America:Why is it failing?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:18:05 AM
Paul K: I am a sexagenarian, and I've seen a lot of extreme behaviour, but I do not agree.

There are now HUGE numbers of people living reasonably normal lives because of psychoactive medication.

Most psychiatrists will tell you that a lot of their patients do not have mental health problems - they are actually normal people with relationship or job problems. Those are often caused by sick OTHER people, and disconnecting from those people is amazingly therapeutic.

Finally, almost everyone has levels of difficulty in their life than they can handle, and levels they cannot. A society that oppresses, tortures or abuses people will drive a lot of people over the edge into either criminal or mentally-driven violence.

The murder rate in the US, compared to so many other developed countries, is frequently cited as evidence of this. I won't pretend to be able to prove this is true, but it's pretty clear there is no absolute line to be drawn in mental health. Dealing with homelessness, persecution, corruption, exploitation, real-estate manipulation and health-care accessibility will help a great many people out of the situations our Original Poster mentioned.

Our societies are replete with people who had problems or "fell down" and have been perfectly functional and happy after getting a helping hand, getting a new job, getting a divorce, or arresting a predator that was literally driving them nuts. It's inexcusable to say helping them is a waste of time.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
When will people learn?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:09:32 AM
One of my Fishie friends tells me she has forgotten all about dating, because she enjoys playing with and busting scammers so much that she spends all her free time doing it. :)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Guaranteed Success
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:05:56 AM
Look, there is NO guaranteed success, and if you think any answer is bullybleep then don't bother asking.

This is just about the oldest unsolved problem in human relations since the days of clubbing and dragging off to a cave.

And the one the Hollywood Virgin Killer kept asking. He sure didn't find a solution, either. And innocent others - including men - paid the price for his refusal to deal with it.

(By way of constructive help, I think you look a LOT better in the photo without the moustache.)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Where do you seem to ask people out?
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:33:11 AM
Since university - where I had no trouble speaking with anyone and everyone, as we all saw each other a lot and one often seemed to people one had never spoken to - private parties and dinners have always yielded the best outcomes for me. One's known and trusted friends pre-select decent people, and will usually warn you of problem personalities.

One can also meet people several times a successive get-togethers, and get comfortable with each other, before proposing getting together without company. Think about how a general conversation with familiar faces may lead to two or more people saying, "Yes - I'd really like to do that!" That's when you can say, "Yes! Let's!"

And, unlike a bar or club, if you DON'T meet anyone you still have a fun time with friends!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Quick meet first time.Good or bad idea?
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:28:07 AM
Many people have told me I tend to make bad first impressions, but they really value me after only a little getting to know. As such, speed dating or drive-bys would seem a waste of time for me.

And, one way or another, I thing that a pleasant while spent with someone new is almost always worth it, which is the point of a "date" - as opposed to just interviewing potential partners.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:10:17 AM
You should care because your pension funds, your taxes, your government benefits, your home and your job - and those of millions of others - were sucked away.

These people are gambling with YOUR money, not theirs. That's how they face no risk. This is the result of laws that were changed to permit what is punishable in the other examples, such as life insurance or stock overselling.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 37 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 5/28/2014 3:46:25 AM
The Savings & Loan scandal was a textbook example of how separating risk from reward leads to failure. The US taxpayers bailed them out, and they did it again with the housing bubble.

The things that were done in the post-tech-boom period were inexcusably made illegal. If you insure a guy's life, with you as the beneficiary, and then shoot him, you go to jail, do not pass go, and DEFINITELY do not collect the $200.

In "The Producers," the producers sold more stock than they had to issue, and planned to go broke to avoid paying it back. When "Springtime for Hitler" became a hit, they could STILL go broke and not pay it back, but they were certainly liable.

But that's exactly what Credit Default Swaps are. Insure against a loss you have NO RISK OF INCURRING, and then act to cause the loss. Corporations were buying smaller corporations and then making them default, triggering default payments. Just two months ago, a company paid another a few million to pay a debt note THREE DAYS LATE. This was a lot more than the late payment penalty - so the smaller company agreed, took the money, and made a big heap of millions for the briber, who had credit default swaps out on the note.

And of course people were being paid for making loans that would never be paid back, and kept their commissions. If you work in a telephone sales boiler-room, you are often docked a standard percentage of your sales for those who will cancel or return the product or service, or don't get paid until the deal or a specific term has passed.

And dealers were re-packaging and re-packaging assets and funds with stack of commissions that were bigger than any profit the investments could have made!

The US congress has failed to produce the new regulations on leverage and risk management that were promised years ago.

If you let them do it, they will. As with the Trust movement and one-sided contracts, people without piles of lawyers, guns and money can only fight for themselves by electing legislators who will. You can't take your business elsewhere when it's a monopoly, or when all the businesses adopt identical business models. (Like using arbitration to enforce things that the courts would beat them up for.)

Democracy was a revolutionary idea that made the wealthy and powerful quake at the idea that the Huddled Masses would kill them all and take their stuff. But now we know that money can buy opinion, and it can buy politicians. The Citizens United decision, and its subsequent expansion of unaccountable cash for mass-produced lobbying and lying, make a mockery of democracy. And the Reagan-Bush gutting of the anti-trust laws and fairness doctrine made it a lot easier.

Here in Canada, where I live, our current Conservative government has spent the last few years trying to do the same - removing taxpayer-funded electoral funding, attacking limits on contributions, and making other electoral law changes that mirror the US trend to voter suppression.

The US Supreme Court has accepted the idea that the voter rights laws are no longer needed, even as attempts to restrict voters' rights were ready to be voted in several of the states even before the decision came.

It has also accepted the idea that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer needed because of the large variety of cable TV outlets, though the result is willful blindness and outright lying in network news.

Abortion-law nibblers are rising out of the woodwork and there's nobody at the top willing to defend what the consensus of social scientists say - that access to birth control and abortion are the largest single cause of the drop in crime over the last three decades.

Unregulated utilities can always make more by failing to serve their customers than by serving them. So they create the closest thing to new Enrons they can get away with.

As long as the guys in those laughing galas control government, democracy can't work. Uninformed or misinformed voters can't use their democratic power.

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 82 (view)
 
People addicted to electronics
Posted: 5/23/2014 6:59:04 PM
I was not at all defending those who try to "multitask" in dangerous ways or excuse their selfish, inconsiderate behaviour that threatens the life of others. I was just being a bit technical about how computers and brains work, and I hoped to make that clear by mentioning competing resources.

Language skills both require huge resources and the same functions whether talking, listening or reading or writing. It is extremely difficult to do more than one. Real-time closed captioners on TV manage to do it, but if you have tried to use them you'll know the results are rather comic - particularly compared to pot-captioned material.

Simultaneous translators do it, but that's a very, very difficult skill, and few can do it at all well. I've tried to translate to French while watching TV and it's bits and pieces. Courtrooms and the UN, in using the service, make a habit of having everyone speak slowly and with lots of pauses.

Mind you, if someone wants to take selfies on the beach all day and get sunburn/moles/skin cancer, I don't think they're really endangering or offending anyone else.

Texting at the table: I accept that today, people in noisy clubs and bars have taken to conversing in text because vocalizing is pointless. It's why I have never patronized such establishments; I don't dance, I don't grope in public, and without conversation there's nothing to do but throw away money of watered-down or non-existent liquor.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 692 (view)
 
Single (never married at all) men over 45
Posted: 5/23/2014 6:48:48 PM
Well, don't put me on the list of over-fifties who suddenly want to procreate. The notion never took me, and childlessness is the "greenest" thing most of us will ever be able to do.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Awkward First Meet
Posted: 5/14/2014 9:06:56 AM
Bar? Meet people in bars? Why do you think we came to PoF?

There's only one person I've EVER met in a bar and gotten to know in my 40+ years of leagal drinking age... and that one was talking to someone I already knew!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 686 (view)
 
Single (never married at all) men over 45
Posted: 5/14/2014 8:33:30 AM
Wow, we're WAYYY off topic and into the man/woman-bashing!

Pretty much anyone who's left a marriage isn't happy with their experience. That's a bad place to go exclusively looking for opinions on marriage.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Income inequality
Posted: 5/5/2014 12:54:44 AM
I like a lot of Fly's list, too.

But - once again, a rising tide does not lift all boats. Half the world is facing a falling tide at any time, just as half faces rising.

The reason out tax systems favour rich, unearned income is that the rich have learned how to subvert democracy with money. The US is now cursed by yet another round of campaign finance restriction eliminations, and Canada's Harper government is hell-bent on doing the same, following the success of its always-on, election-to-election character assassination ad strategy.

Our economy and business function to pump money from the bottom to the top. If you move money to the bottom, it gets spent, things get bought and everybody works. If you move money to the top, it just sits there. The highest wealth holders really can't spend all their money on consumption, so they have to pretty much keep buying up competitors and concentrating wealth further.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Awkward First Meet
Posted: 5/5/2014 12:33:44 AM
After five months, I would be pretty hurt to be left at the table without any explanation or apology, or even a blunt text saying "go home - just saw you and uh-uh."

All these silly presumptions and signal-to-noise analysis! TALK to people!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Others are divided on whether this is a scam
Posted: 4/24/2014 10:02:05 AM
Well, the degree might be in STEM teaching, or it might just be a broad classification.

Anyway, Bilateral hugs, you are very lucky. You got a message and an invitation to meet. Hang onto your money and important personal details, and go see her. It's an adventure! It's more than you'll probably get for the next 6 months you're hanging out on PoF!

If you read the forums, you'll notice that almost all the threads are started by people asking why nobody sends them messages or replies to messages. You are way ahead! Gambatte!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 3/6/2014 1:54:57 AM
I guess that's why one so rarely sees a house being driven off its lot.

Seriously, houses tend to go DOWN in value, particularly when new. LAND, or the right to build on it, tends to go UP in value (though they are free to fall, as when there is a nearby natural disaster or economic crash). "You're buying dirt" is what Real-Estate Pimps call it. Condos don't go up much compared to detached or semi-detached homes because so little of their value is their tiny allocation of dirt; that's why new condos commonly fall in value for a year or two.
* * *
For all the people designing formulae for compounding risk, forget it. Nobody will take a mortgaged asset as security for its full value. When credit is sought, piggybacked debt must be disclosed and discounted.

It was specifically allowing that sort of thing to start happening due to more sophisticated "securitization" that multiplied the risk by 2008. Bad deregulation, separation of risk from profit, and misrepresentation of risk.
* * *
Now, on the other hand - inflation IS related to the money supply. (among other things)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 229 (view)
 
dating without motorcycle
Posted: 3/6/2014 1:41:16 AM
I was at a City Planning meeting her in Vancouver, and in the discussion of parking issues one councilor took off on the complaints he got about noisy unmuffled bikes at night. I reminded him that parking for daytime visitors was not related to nocturnal noisemakers, and as he left I invited him to listen to my bike at the sidewalk outside. (It's a Suzuki Bandit 1200, a 4-cylinder streetbike)

We walked the 25 steps or so to the bike and I apologized to him that I'd already started it before seeking him at the exit. He didn't hear it over the street traffic even when we were standing by it.

Nobody notices the bikes that don't make a lot of noise. That's why we put horns on them.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 91 (view)
 
What's the best way to deal with my FWB situation?
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:25:56 AM
Ah, thanks... seen that one.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 2/25/2014 12:00:46 AM
Banks aren't payday loan operations or loan sharks. They don't make unsecured loans (though they operate credit-card businesses that DO, charging astonishing interest rates - as do the payday loan operators and loan sharks). Callable business loans are not so simple, but the banks still make sure their debt is always covered.

Banks make a loan by demanding you provide security. They are not permitted to make unsecured loans because they have no upside profit; they only get fixed interest, and a small amount, to avoid risk.

When a bank makes a mortgage, it is in effect doing a hock - it gains legal control of the property (a lien) and is sort of conditionally selling it to you (like a pawn shop), and you have the right to buy it back with interest. Where you get the interest is your problem; if you don't pay, the bank still has your house and will sell it to recoup its cash. If your home's value threatens to fall below the amount owed, the bank will "call" your loan - pony up enough to cover the uncovered amount or get foreclosed right now. Callable business loans, too, take action immediately if the bank thinks the business isn't going to make it, and the banks will close a still-profitable operation if they don't have confidence in its future, just to get what they can before things get worse.

The banks aren't creating money. They are trading value - cash for the security - in a reversible transaction where they get a fee. The client come in with a house, which already has value, and the bank comes in with cash. Only if the house burns down is the value destroyed - and that's why you are required to insure secured property like houses and cars. It's why buying a car on credit not only screws you for the interest, it requires you to over-insure, as it's VERY easy for a car to devalue below its outstanding loan amount. Not so much for a house.

If you borrow money, buy a house, rent it and make money, you are bringing in the wealth you need to pay back the interest; you are creating (rental) value by putting the place on the market to be rented, rather than just sitting in it as it consumes money for maintenance and all the other costs. If you buy a sewing machine and start making clothes and selling them, you are creating value - the clothes.

Printing cash or issuing IOUs (bonds, certificates of deposit, etc.) does not create or destroy value.

In both the S&L and investment-banking disasters, the sensible banking rules were voided and warnings ignored, or pushed aside "to enable freer wealth creation," but all that was created was bad debt. The shysters who sold them got their money even if both the lenders and borrowers ended up bled dry. They lobbied for it, they got it, and they ran off with a generation's life's work of value.

That's why I agree with Buffett - nobody's going to give up those ill-gotten gains unless they're forced to.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
What's the best way to deal with my FWB situation?
Posted: 2/24/2014 11:12:39 PM
drinkthesunwithmyface: It would help if you mentioned the film's NAME! Not everyone is able to stream video.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 48 (view)
 
When people don't leave their profession
Posted: 2/17/2014 9:56:01 AM
"Sales," "business owner" and "self-employed" can be feast-and-famine, all feast, or all famine. Some people have low incomes but huge stacks of cash. For financial solvency, the government stats people tell us it's INVESTMENT income, not EARNED income, that matters.

While I don't like having financial info on file at a dating site - I never provided mine to PoF, which is why I haven't been able to update my profile for years - I think questions about debt or asset levels, as well as non-earned income, would be more important. The person with the paid-off home and solid portfolio can have a much better life than the type-A hustler deep in debt and liabilities (dependents, addictions, front-end-loaded careers).

"What's your financial bottom line?
A: >$100K US debt
B: $50-100K US debt
C: $10-50K US debt
D: less than $10K US debt
E: no significant debt or assets
F: less than $10K US assets
G: $50-100K US asets
H: >$100K US assets"

Sound interesting? Remember -

Charles D1ckens is pictured at the age of 48

1. Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Charles D!ckens, David Copperfield

And equally important - "Do you shop for entertainment or pleasure? (not either/or)"

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 2/17/2014 9:33:33 AM
Demigod1979: You've got it wrong, and Igor has it right, this time.

"Money" is not the whole economy. Wealth is grown as food, mined from the earth, made with labour, provided with as services. Anything that someone else will give you something or do something for is wealth that has value. The actual cash really only comes into it as an exchange medium when the guy with the oysters doesn't want the cigars the oyster-lover is making.

Most of the rest has been covered here pretty well; the long-term problem of the current economy is that there is STILL a huge amount of illusory wealth left over from bubble-blowing in the last two decades. It's all being juggled (or the chairs moved around) and nobody wants to be the one to catch it. There's no way to pay debt other than to stop spending until you earn enough. That has its own problems, of course.

At the dawn of the '90s, the dot-com boom and the "economy 2.0" fantasy made people willing to believe that technology was going to create things/services that people would be wiling to pay more and more for. (Of course, most of it was amassing wealth by making people unemployed so they couldn't pay anything at all.)

The dot-com boom went bust. Lots of people lost everything. The ones who got out in time, or who had one of the really functioning businesses, had lots of money- and a problem. They were used to massive returns on vapor - literally money for nothing - and they were too greedy to invest in anything that would simply return solid, safe profit. They also worried that all that loose debt and bankruptcy was going to drag down other businesses as a whole, and wanted a safe place to put their money.

So, at the end of the decade and the boom, they put their money into seemingly "real" assets - housing. "Safe as houses," the real-estate pimps always said, and people seem to always need a place to live. They bought real estate, and in the process drove up real-estate prices with demand, keeping them rolling in income as they'd hoped.

But those losses were still out there, still looking to be paid back. Businesses failed (save for construction) and people were unemployed. Did they need houses? Maybe - but almost everyone could rent, or downsize, share, move back into mom's or score a repossessed trailer. They could rent out part of their property, or all of it, to pay their housing bills.

Housing, though, is an UNFAIRLY PRIVILEGED INVESTMENT. It comes with tax breaks and the promise of ill-gotten inflationary gains, despite its long history of boom-and-bust with only the "bottom feeders" who had money during the busts to clean up. Since the construction industry needed more buyers for all the houses they were building to grab that greedy money, more liberal lending pushed people to buy what they couldn't afford and not let it earn anything; everyone fixated on the tax advantages without remembering that they were CONSUMING housing by living in it instead of renting it out. They were told that the more housing they had, the more they'd make.

They bought it.

Meanwhile, the perfectly sane and long-proven post-depression regulations that kept banks safe and solvent were done away with by deregulating gamesters (like those backing Gramm-Leach-Bliley) who said there would be new ways to amass money. There were - ways that provided no value, but simply grabbed from others.

While it was the oil price tripling that started the collapse, stopping the auto industry in its tracks, it was the huge bubble that made it a massive disaster. As everyone should remember form the Savings & Loan disaster, separating risk and profit guarantees failure for those stuck with the risk. And those who got away with the cash have no reason to give any of it back; that's why I think higher income taxes are necessary for long-term economic recovery.

Can people work and create wealth to pay back the money borrowed from the future? America's exemplary productive capacity can do that. But is isn't, because now the greedy money has freer trade, and can build things overseas. Since unemployed people can't buy them, they SELL them overseas as well. Suddenly, the American production machine is spinning in idle. Staving off bankruptcy by selling resources, government contracts and other productive entities offshore takes the public sector and resource wealth out of the equation.

And the political power of wealth has so far staved off restoration of regulation, restoration of income taxation, and criminal prosecution of those who took all the cash. How is buying insurance on loans you haven't made different from insuring a person you don't get any benefit from? You'd be motivated to secretly KILL that person, so it's illegal. But investment firms and investors ARE able to insure loans and then cause defaults to cash in - either by cutting supplies, screwing with management or in some cases actually paying the loan holders to pay a few days late - just enough to trigger the default.

Why is higher income tax critical? Because of all the borrowing, borrowing, borrowing that allowed massive high-end and corporate tax cuts. There's no argument that US income taxes have been reduced and made flatter. And giving all that cash to businesses and wealthy investors DID make them richer - but when the borrowed money has to be paid back, the lower tax rates mean that someone else will be bearing the burden.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
 
The Value of Sex
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:57:03 AM
While plenty of people treat Neil Strauss' "The Game" as a hookup manual, he is a serious journalist and the book was presented as a look inside the pick-up-artist community, not a hookup guide. He understood that many people are tempted by the promise of an instant answer to one of the most complex issues in human civilization's history, and wanted to shed light on that without people having to spend money on sleazy, cynical abusers and end up with diseases, kids and emotional disaster.

As for the rest - just reading this thread is yet another demonstration of how everyone sees everything differently, and those who declare their view the only right one will have to wait for the freshly-installed pope to wear out.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 53 (view)
 
What's the best way to deal with my FWB situation?
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:45:20 AM
Women aren't cows, and there's more to them than milk. Or cream.

This sounds like a case of two people liking each other but not being sure about commitment. How is FWB>relationship really different from dating>relationship? It is the natural progression of accepting another person. Or, if one learns one doesn't want to, progressing to not being anything more.

If the guy was more in the mood for a relationship, and you are now, too, say so and ask if he wants to try that. Don't forget to talk about what you want, what he wants, and how you want to deal with each other if it doesn't work out. There's a chance both of you were holding back in hopes of more than you were seeing, but you are seeing more now.

Is he someone you would be unhappy to lose as a friend? (Spending almost every day together is a good sign of enjoyment!)

Every relationship is a negotiation. Communicate and he honest with yourself and him.

EVERY FWB relationship really should include some agreement - or at least understanding - about how you will deal with either of you finding a lover and wanting exclusivity.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Break up or give him a chance?
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:20:58 AM
I agree that this man is probably so used to beign alone that he wants to nail things down while he has some attention. But I don't think he's a Red Flag From Hell, necessarily.

Or, maybe, he's just buying into the social-religious conditioning crap that says everyone should be charging off to fill the pockets of the wedding industry at the earliest opportunity.

Virgins and other less-experienced types can be blown away by acceptance. (I know I still am!) I'd urge you to talk to him, say you like him but you need to discuss:

1. What you want out of your lives, and each other.

2. Some of the experiences and lessons YOU have learned, which he may not have had yet.

3, What you have seen in other peoples' relationships that you like, are repulsed or scared by, hope for or learned from.

4. Whether you are both cool with enjoying getting to know each other and worrying about the future later.

5. What your approaches to handling money are. (Which will include expectations of lifestyle and whether it's a one-income scenario.)

Just keep telling him you like him and won't run away if he doesn't get a ring on it right away.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Worst Valentine's Day ever
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:07:11 AM
I'm only saying this because all the negative things have already been said:

Hey, Bell Tresor, congrats on getting a date for Valentine's day!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Is it normal is obsess?
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:54:26 AM
This is a dating website. Everyone here is here because they are desperate. Desperate people obsess.

So, yes, it IS normal to obsess. Get used to it and try to recover as quickly as possible.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Just ask ??
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:52:03 AM
I've found that "just ask" leads to evasion or no answer to what's been asked if one bothers to try. Such are people who like to have the advantage, I guess - show me what you've got before I bother offering you anything.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 107 (view)
 
Are there any gentlemen out there?
Posted: 2/9/2014 3:50:48 AM
Folks, there are PLENTY of married couples who don't cohabit, and their marriages are not invalidated. People off at school, taking foreign jobs, in the military, up in space, or in long-term care. No reason to challenge their marriage, even if the only reason for separate rooms is snoring.

Now, the REAL injustice is the common-law compulsion - it's illegal to NOT be married and enjoy cohabitation, of course, because very woman "deserves" to be a wife.

Poppycock.
ED BEAR
(Not attacking those who WANT a common-law relationship, guys. I'm all about choice and not hurting other humans.)

(I'm a humanist - so sue me.)
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
A girl I met for the first time on Sunday
Posted: 2/9/2014 3:29:53 AM
I know a guy who always opens a conversation with women by asking if they have a boyfriend. I owe him one for saving me from getting hopelessly hung up on the lady at the Japanese Restaurant who's always so sweet and welcoming.
ED BEAR

Edit: And yes, she DOES have a boyfriend.
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Post-First Date Call Situation
Posted: 2/6/2014 7:47:57 AM
Fur Chryne Oot Laud, what's so hard about this? She gave you the correct number when, if she wanted to ignore you, she could simply have never texted back. Even if she DID deliberately give the wrong number, why the heck would she - no matter how "nice" - bother replying to a guy she wanted to give the slip?

If she doesn't want you, she won't see you again. Until then, it's never too bad an ideal to listen to what someone is telling you.
ED BEAR

Ironic crack: Maybe she wanted to just make sure she had a date lined up for the 14th?
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 31 (view)
 
something shocking
Posted: 2/6/2014 7:39:48 AM
I'm one more in the column labeled "What the heck is this guy talking about? What is he trying to say about it?"
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Valentine's Day Question
Posted: 2/6/2014 7:34:35 AM
And then there's the all-too-obvious "wait and see how it's going, and as the day nears ask her politely if she would let you give her a little token, promising it would not be anything so over-the-top or expensive it would make her uncomfortable, despite their recent start?"
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 81 (view)
 
Are there any gentlemen out there?
Posted: 2/6/2014 7:30:26 AM
All of the flood of messages generalizing about "all men" or "all women" are bunk. Humans are diverse and varied. You can see that in every thread of responses to an "all men" or "all women" lament.

I've certainly never propositioned anyone for sex on a first date, or any time when things weren't already comfortable with snuggling and kissing at least. On the other hand, I've been contacted by Fishies who seemed incapable of talking about anything else - usually people with no real photos on their profiles (just cartoons or the like and the excuse that they had to put one up to message me) who were out to sell me some dubious "services."

As far as the insurance thing - as others have noted, if you're married and the premium's paid, you're insured. You're MARRIED. Love has nothing to do with the legal consequences of legal partnership. You don't need love to have a marriage any more than you need a marriage to have love.

I have certainly known quite a few people - especially Americans, who often have serious health insurance issues - who have stayed married for health insurance, vehicle insurance, mortgage, school access and other benefit issues. Some because their work and social lives demanded that they have a presentable Spouse Doll. One for the free air travel, too. People in the process of breaking up are often financially stressed or unemployed (both of those are big CAUSES of breakups, too!) and unable to assume full funding of a separate life.

Judging people by how other people act is never a useful plan. Pay attention to THEM - what they say, what they do and what they have done.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Karen Carpenter
Posted: 2/6/2014 6:57:30 AM
I remember a CBC piece on anorexia that introduced us to a woman who, even as doctors warned her she was near death from self-starvation, took the news and photos of Karen Carpenter's death with a reaction that shocked ever her herself. She looked at the last photos of the tiny, shrunken human skeleton Carpenter had become just before death and heard her own thoughts in horror: "But she looks WONDERFUL!!!"
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
A girl I met for the first time on Sunday
Posted: 2/6/2014 6:25:59 AM
I always assume (until proven wrong) that a woman at work is NOT hitting on me by being pleasant, greeting me with recognition or smiling. They are in the unfortunate position of having to be nice to people who take it as an invitation to pitch them. Even those who genuinely enjoy their customers and are happy to see a familiar face in a tiresome day aren't likely to be looking to jump anyone's bones!

And if they start touching me, leaning wayyy over as they serve me (at counter or table) or using meaningless terms of endearment, I KNOW they're sucking up for tips and will really resent anyone dumb enough to take it as an invitation.

On the other hand, if I meet them in another social situation, I might read their behaviour in a slightly different light - because they can leave or not talk to me if they choose to. Or if a co-worker tells me that they really had a shine for me. (This has happened to me a few times, but always only after the person had stopped working there.)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 155 (view)
 
Where has Intimate encounter gone?
Posted: 2/2/2014 2:20:02 AM
All the "intimate encounter" and "other relationship" e-mails I ever got were from people trying to sell me "services" - mostly woo-woo sorts of energy therapies and fortune-telling. One wanted me to bankroll expanding their medical business in the Ph1ll1p1nes. And there was one single one that was obviously faked - someone thinking they were doing an "cheater check" on me. Almost completely illiterate, she stole another user's photo and created a profile claiming to have a PhD. It wasn't a good job.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Vancouver women ranked pickiest daters in Canada
Posted: 2/2/2014 2:00:34 AM
Justagirlwithacat:

>I noted this too, "“There are more people in Vancouver online dating than anywhere in the world because one of the largest free sites Plenty of Fish is based here,” he said. “With a bigger pool, your odds of meeting a quality person are less, so screening is essential.”"

Gee - this seems to be saying that a bigger pool means having lower quality. Who's to say that the first people in the pool are always the best, so that it only gets diluted as more enter? That person's opinion doesn't seem well-thought-out.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
need some advice
Posted: 2/2/2014 1:45:39 AM
Comedy clubs are also a great way to explore each other values - see what you find funny and what offends you!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 110 (view)
 
Instant Old Age
Posted: 2/2/2014 1:22:02 AM
I'm pro-science, in medical practice, drug therapy, nutrition and lifestyle.

Magnesium and Vitamin C are chemicals. (Magnesium is also an element.) They can both be used as drugs, though neither is regulated as such.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Has attaching photos become a paid feature?
Posted: 1/28/2014 12:44:19 PM
Cowboy: Interesting, then, that clicking the "attach photos" link takes you to the subscription page, eh?
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 108 (view)
 
Instant Old Age
Posted: 1/28/2014 12:39:10 PM
I'm not going to get into arguments about specific nostrums for specific conditions, but MSM IS a chemical, and it IS a drug, though not regulated as such. ANYTHING that is taken to specifically produce health effects is a drug.

The anti-quackwatch site, which attacks scientific medicine as usual, is full of insult and invective, but its own text serves as a warning to us all about how much of the over-strained health-care dollar is expended on unproven treatments for undemonstrated problems. And it generously exhibits the self-serving bias it alleges in others.
ED BEAR
 
Show ALL Forums