Contrary to persistent media coverage is the key line in the opening paragraph.
The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously“. see Goebbels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie for more on this.
So right here you have a situation that is EXACTLY what Goebbels and Hitler laid out, and they dont see it. So no one draws attention to what is propaganda in media!
In case anyone here isnt on the same page.
A constant lie promoted by the media is the big lie of Goebbels and Hitler. It changes the perceptual landscape, which changes our behavior, and if our behavior doesnt match the REAL landscape, we walk off cliffs thinking they are solid ground.
You will also find below that they are PROGRAMMED to be spendthrifts, not culturally indoctrinated. Which is a problem for our ideology of wrong Keynesian economics (which Keynes said himself that he was wrong!), where we have to get them to spend us all into the ground to destroy the economic system to promote a system in which there isnt any economics and like pets we are owned by the ruling class that will not allow anyone to rise and oppose them, even a little bit.
Its hard to feel special when others can do the same as you
(which is what socialist pretends to sell, but cant deliver meanwhile capitalism delivers, but we are crippling it to prove socialism right. Sabotaged capitalism while denying the sabotage even exists makes us blame capitalism for what its not responsible for)
When you see certain facts, you then see why they promoted things like feminism, which is communism. they werent promoting the communism aspect openly, but the biology aspect as a means, all the while denying biology so that they would believe their different behavior that is destructive is the same behavior as men and not distructive. Totally confounded as to why men succeed and they are not.
Lets just say that someone that spends as they earn never saves enough to do bigger things.
Females are no more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts, but males are nearly three times more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts.
This means that by giving the ladies the key to the bank, they run through it all, and no one ever saves enough so that they get wealthy and can rise up.
By putting women in charge they insure that their children will never be anything, as the women will have noting left to give their children an advantage like the men did and do for the children.
Lets just say that the number of women that earn money, save it, then create foundations, and do good work, is minimal. Which is why they ahve to demand the state to do it. in that way, they get to keep their money, and take the men’s savings precisely because their saving gives them money.
They cant acquire wealth as easy, because wealth is what you hold on to, and they, by their biology, cant hold on to it.
So I guess it turns out that men controlling the purse strings created more successful families so that all this was reinforced.
The ones more likely to eat now as if tomorrow they may die, and not save some for later, did die. Just as our society is dying for doing the same.
Unless you make it wealthy all at once, a person cant climb up. their changes not only favor sociopathy, but favor letting the air out of the balloon before family can be successful. And since she is so unaware of her poisonous nature, she blames him for not making enough, when the problem as most males will tell you is that they cant reign in the frivolous spending.
No wonder single mothers cant get enough money, they are made never to have enough which creates a force which then promotes the male to earn more, and not take a breather.
Annual income differs little between tightwads and spendthrifts, suggesting that the observed differences in debt are largely driven by differences in spending habits.
So even if women earn as much as men, or more, they will be poorer than men as compound interest is not earned by Manolo Blanicks.
Though true to ideology, they can’t let the discovery actually be framed as ‘nature’. They skirt it at the end.
Tightwads outnumber spendthrifts
We all have a friend who cant seem to save, constantly splurging on new shoes or the latest gadgets. But, contrary to persistent media coverage of overspending and under-saving, a recent international survey of more than 13,000 shoppers suggests that chronic under-spending is far more widespread than originally thought. In fact, the study reveals that tightwads outnumber spendthrifts by a 3 to 2 ratio.
Appearing in the April 2008 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, the study by Scott Rick (University of Pennsylvania), Cynthia Cryder, and George Loewenstein (Carnegie Mellon University) reveals that tightwads save, not because they care more about the future than spendthrifts, but because forking out the money is too painful of an emotional experience.
Therefore, those who experience the pain of spending money more intensely tend to spend less than they would ideally like to spend. On the other end of the ‘Spendthrift-Tightwad’ scale, spendthrifts typically experience minimal pain when spending money and tend to spend more than they would ideally like to spend.
Spending differences between tightwads and spendthrifts are greatest in situations that amplify the pain of paying and smallest in situations that diminish the pain of paying, the researchers explain. The evidence suggests that frugality is driven by a pleasure of saving, as compared with tightwaddism, which is driven by a pain of paying.
The researchers also found that tightwads and spendthrifts differ demographically:
– Females are no more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts, but males are nearly three times more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts.
– Respondents under the age of 30 were only slightly more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts, but respondents over 70 were five times more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts.
Whether one is a spendthrift or a tightwad also predicts a wide range of spending behavior, the researchers found. Spendthrifts are no more likely than tightwads to use credit cards, but spendthrifts who use credit cards are three times more likely to carry debt than tightwads who use credit cards.
Annual income differs little between tightwads and spendthrifts, suggesting that the observed differences in debt are largely driven by differences in spending habits.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that tightwads are also most sensitive to marketing ploys designed to reduce the pain of paying. In one experiment, participants were asked whether they would be willing to pay $5 to have DVDs shipped overnight. The cost was either framed as a $5 fee or a small $5 fee. Spendthrifts were completely insensitive to the manipulation, but tightwads were 20 percent more likely to pay the fee when it was less painfully presented as small.
The research provides a new perspective on spending and saving money. Whereas traditional economic theory assumes that the propensity to spend or save is largely determined by the degree to which one cares about the future, this research suggests that spending and saving are driven, at least in part, by more immediate emotional concerns, the researchers write.
The researchers administered the scale to more than 13,327 people, including 10,000 readers of The New York Times.
Source: University of Chicago
Add A Comment