Michael Noer’s article was brilliant


———————————————-

Michael Noer’s article was brilliant
juliandroms

What a brilliant article. He has the bravery to come out and say what most knowledgeable men know but are afraid to say publicly.

Marriage for most men (at least those who have the gumption to try it) is the most substantial financial investment he makes in his entire lifetime.

It’s high time someone looked carefully at the risks, odds, costs and benefits from an economic perspective.

My question, when will the market innovate a secure way for a man to hedge on his choice to marry? I can’t wait for the day!

08-23-2006 09:17 PM

———————————————-

Re: Michael Noer’s article was brilliant
rykov

Actually, not a bad idea. Entering a partnership agreement with the person you marry, agree to divide things 50/50 in event of dillusion of partnership upfront, and establish roles and responsibilities from day 1. Annual reviews for modifications and alterations to the agreement, with a 3rd party arbiter agreed on by both parties at the start of the partnership. This way, if one member of the partnership feels a changing set of roles is in order, the arbiter can help enact those changes, or dissolve the partnership.

This would be especially nice for reproduction, the arbiter would decide if a partnership represented a sound enough investment for reproduction, or if the eventual child product (lets call it our gross child product, or GCP) would be inferior quality. For low GCP couples, their offspring could be used to offset the high costs of raising meat, and could serve as “long pig” providers to local markets. Helping both to keep the partnership producing valuable GCP for the market, and insuring only the finest quality GCP makes it to our nations colleges and universities.

Brilliant indeed! This would aid in the increase of financial stability of partnerships and eliminate difficult to predict “emotion risk”. God knows we wouldn’t want to enter in a relationship solely on the basis of love, companionship, and compatibility!

08-23-2006 09:28 PM

———————————————-

Re: Michael Noer’s article was brilliant
jlseagull

“Brilliant indeed! This would aid in the increase of financial stability of partnerships and eliminate difficult to predict “emotion risk”. God knows we wouldn’t want to enter in a relationship solely on the basis of love, companionship, and compatibility!”

Right. That’s why girlfriends are preferable in almost all instances to a wife. Once the state enters into your lives in the context of a marriage, you get the existing situation – 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman, alimony is assigned arbitrarily in excess of 100% of the man’s income, and sole custody is granted to the woman 80% of the time.

08-23-2006 11:05 PM

———————————————-

Re: Michael Noer’s article was brilliant
juliandroms

> This would aid in the increase of financial stability of
> partnerships and eliminate difficult to predict “emotion
> risk”. God knows we wouldn’t want to enter in a
> relationship solely on the basis of love, companionship,
> and compatibility!

Yeah, some people certainly like to emphasize things like love, companionship and compatibility at the time of marriage.

Funny though, how many of those same people learn detailed principles of accounting, orders to show cause, stuff like that when it comes time for them to request a divorce.

Which brings us back to a very old principle that every businessman knows: never do business with friends.

08-24-2006 12:59 AM

———————————————-

Re: Michael Noer’s article was brilliant
grrlpower

your rebuttal was brilliant. love it.

08-24-2006 12:33 PM

———————————————-

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: