@Whisper Gosh - where to start with this. Firstly, I'm not under 40, sorry to say! And secondly, you write 'money is not a measure of labour' - I said it was a 'store of labour' not a measure of it. You then go on to say that money is a 'piece of technology'. Gosh.

I was only referencing a small part of the Labour Theory of Value: and that is that money can buy future labour, which is what makes money a store of labour. Currently, we have a generation of people that think that value is created from 'assets + technology + labour', whereas the Labour Theory of Value would argue that assets and technology have no value at all without labour. This is what gets me about all the current tech bros and their fantasies of a labourless economy (think drones, AI etc).

It's actually just impossible . They think that tech + assets can replace labour, but they are dead wrong. Tech can only improve the productivity of labour. Assets are useless without labour. A high tech asset + tech requires higher skilled labour to operate and maintain it. They keep flogging the same horse.

The reason why we save for our retirement is so that money can be used to purchase labour.... sometimes that might be direct labour (nurse to jerk me off) or indirect, like I might buy an apple to eat (but that apple will have to have been picked, so the $485.99 that I pay for the apple includes the labour).

That is why I say that money is store of labour. You can invest all you want in assets and tech - but you cannot get around the need for labour.

But.... you seem to go straight into angry mode - so, looks like you're not that interested in Economics. Really not that interested in arguing with you brother, so go well and good luck.

Maybe you ought to be a touch more polite to strangers? What is with all the anger? Roids? Not getting any action? Don't take it out on your fellow men.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

A) most incels just sit around and wallow in self-pity. A few smarten up and start doing the work.

We live in a culture that celebrates victimhood. Wallowing in self-pity is, in their minds, a totally valid way to change the world and get what they want. They are 100% wrong of course, but they are following the roadmap they've been given to it's natural conclusion.

B) I don't think any of the men in that conversation were "men [who] aren't getting laid", not even the ones I disagreed with.

I wasn't really referring to the men here specifically, but this is a valid criticism. I could make the argument that what they are really discussing is the (unfortunately not great) state of our world today, and that is definitely one where most men aren't getting laid and that contributes to the nature of the conversation. That's a stretch though.

I've said many times that the political conversations here are pointlessly off-topic. Back on the subreddit, I seem to remember political discussions being generally frowned upon. The attitude was always one of "we aren't here to save the world, let's just talk about the relationship dynamics between men and women". Things are a lot more freeform here, and I think a lot of the guys have grown older and want to talk about bigger ideas than how to get laid, so they end up talking about it a lot more on trp.red than they did on the sub.