CEO of J.P. Morgan's Reply to a Gold Digger

A reply from CEO of J.P. Morgan to a pretty girl seeking a rich husband

A young and pretty lady posted this on a popular forum:

Title: What should I do to marry a rich guy?

I'm going to be honest of what I'm going to say here.

I'm 25 this year. I'm very pretty, have style and good taste. I wish to marry a guy with $500k annual salary or above.

You might say that I'm greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York.

My requirement is not high. Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annual salary? Are you all married?

I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you?

Among those I've dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit.

If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden(?), $250k annual income is not enough.

I'm here humbly to ask a few questions:
1) Where do most rich bachelors hang out? (Please list down the names and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)
2) Which age group should I target?
3) Why most wives of the riches are only average-looking? I've met a few girls who don't have looks and are not interesting, but they are able to marry rich guys.

4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only be your girlfriend? (my target now is to get married)

Ms. Pretty

A philosophical reply from CEO of J.P. Morgan:

Dear Ms. Pretty,
I have read your post with great interest. Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours. Please allow me to analyse your situation as a professional investor.

My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I'm not wasting time here.

From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you. The answer is very simple, so let me explain.

Put the details aside, what you're trying to do is an exchange of "beauty" and "money" : Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square.

However, there's a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason. The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can't be prettier year after year.

Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset. It's not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation. If that is your only asset, your value will be much worse 10 years later.

By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a "trading position".
If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term - same goes with the marriage that you wanted. It might be cruel to say this, but in order to make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or "leased".

Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you. I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy. And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income.This has better chance than finding a rich fool.

Hope this reply helps.

signed,
J.P. Morgan CEO


--------


Real or not - this shit is truth


- knowledge

"A Very Brave Woman"

It sucks 'cause she probably wouldn't have to do that if care about appearance wasn't so slanted towards women.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I have a vendetta against make-up. Up until that video, I actually despised make-up...but I hate it a lot less if it makes people like her feel better. Must be hard as hell to deal with that stuff. Especially when it's in their teens/younger adult years when it matters the most to the rest of the world.

I've always said that beauty lied primarily in facial structure (if it had to be physical), but I do know people who care about their bf/gf having clear skin. I feel for you ladies (in general) - there's just so much pressure that it's hard not to care about appearance.

But I still don't like make-up. I've never seen anyone who I honestly think NEEDS make-up (not even the chick in this video). I don't find her repulsive, but it saddens me that other people might.

Either way, I think it's admirable that she outed herself like that. Good for her.

- knowledge

Beauty Is A Cruel Mistress

Related/linked blog posts (reading these might give you a more thorough understanding of what the post entails):

We're Not All Equal

Heidi Montag & The War Against Beauty/Perfection

For a good portion of my life, I've always held that we owe it to ourselves to be as good-looking as we can. Or at the very least, we shouldn't be so quick to "let ourselves go". The reason we owe it to ourselves is because life--or at least life in the Western society--is all about opportunities. And a good part of having opportunities available is being able to market yourself; either through looks, or some sort of merit (intelligence/proficiency/etc.) Until personal appearance stops being a factor in the potential for opportunity, any rational person will see that being well-groomed, or looking after themselves is an investment of time that does yield rewards.

A couple of weeks ago, someone said something that had me re-thinking my whole stance (Berni):

You'd assume that if you were a girl you'd want to be good looking yet they are the least confident human beings? Where does that leave plain girls? I think it's a lack of maturity and overall world view. Lots can't seem to be able to deal with the constant pop culture onslaught that dictates what they should be and look like. That's a lot to ask of a young mind. When I was in my teens and 20's I would look at fashionably dressed and tarted up pretty girls in a positive light, from the point of view that they got it going on and stuff. As I got older it seemed more like these girls came from a position of weakness. Like it's not good enough to be born pretty and healthy but they have to squeeze that last ounce of "look at me, I'm a going concern" out of every public appearance.

He likened it to a neighbourhood of houses, where one goes way out of their way to set themselves apart or look good; they use lawn ornaments, have decorations all over their house, etc. But at the end of the day, everyone can see right through the fact that they're trying to prove something

But I argued that maybe striving to be better-looking isn't about having a tacky house. Maybe it's more about making sure that the walls aren't grimey, that the walkway doesn't have mildew, that the grass is healthy and neat, that the shrubs are maintained, etc. (Get your minds out of the gutter, guys. haha). Maybe it's about maintenance.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: why are we so quick to condemn beauty? We tend to see this dichotomy of beauty and intelligence, where one matters more than the other. But I couldn't see any real reason for them not to be equally regarded. Granted, beauty's always gotten a bad rap for being an unearned, arbitrary, lucky roll on the genetic die - you just happen to be good-looking and life works out a little better for you. But couldn't the same thing be said about intelligence? We always have this notion that being good-looking is inherited, while intelligence is something that you work on. But what a lot of people don't realize is that like beauty, intelligence has a baseline, too. To be intelligent, you also need to have the capacity for it. In a sense, you need to be born with whatever characteristics allow you to become intelligent. If this weren't the case, then people who aren't intelligent wouldn't exist (because everyone would have the potential). So if it's clear to see that both require a bit of luck, and a lot of work, then why is beauty looked down on so much?

For weeks, I thought about the conversation and the questions that it raised. The answer only came to me while I was watching RockNRolla: "beauty's a cruel mistress". 

It's insane how deep this statement actually is. The reason it gets such such a bad rap is because it doesn't last. Of course, I could argue that eventually, neither does intelligence - but I think the most important distinction is that intelligence lasts a lot longer than beauty usually ever does. Intelligence carries over to your later years, while beauty hits its peak a lot earlier (think models vs. professors).

You hit your peak maybe some time between 18 and 30 (I kept a big range because some people hit their physical peak in their early-mid 20s, but don't figure out what look works best for them until their late 20s). After your peak years, it all just goes downhill from there. You do what you can to prolong the onset of physical degeneracy, but at this point in your life, it's a complete shift over to intelligence (think of older professionals, lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.)

People think that the beauty aspect isn't important because of it's short-term effect, or lack of longevity...but what makes it so important is that it gets you the initial opportunity for any long-term potential. If you look at jobs that revolve around beauty, most of them don't last very long. Cheerleaders, models, marketing gigs, promotions gigs, all have very short careers (for the most part). But let's face it, someone has to GIVE you a chance for you to even have that very chance, to begin with. It's hard to give someone a chance when they're repulsive, don't take care of themselves, or are just downright ugly (as unfortunate as that may be). Or even if you can give them a chance, you're still more inclined to think that what's beautiful is good.

But at least now, I think understand why Berni appreciated it a lot less as he got older. The older you get, the less relevant beauty becomes. When your "opportunities" are secured, you don't need to do much more in the looks department. An example of this is how some guys stop working out once they get a girlfriend (which I disagree with, but is another topic altogether). Or when couples grow old an ugly together; when that happens, the relationship is about everything BUT looks, and it no longer matters. For jobs, after a certain point, your resume does all the speaking for you at job interviews. And after a certain point, the effort that you put into looking good begins to outweigh the rewards that you get from it (sort of like the women who spend thousands on creams and hours of their day putting treatments and masks on, just to look marginally younger).

But I'm torn between the two sides because it's hard to blame people for clinging on to their prime (in terms of their best physical years). After all, the alternative--realizing that beauty doesn't last and it makes sense not to care--is equally disastrous because you take the decline at full speed instead of trying slow the process down.

On the other hand, what you need to take into account is that (generally speaking,) the people who hold on to their beauty are the ones who were beautiful, and the people who often condemn it are the ones who never had a reason to value it. It should also be noted that people obviously miss things that used to be a big part of their lives. So the people who also condemn the whole quest for perfection or beauty are the ones who stopped holding it as one of their highest values.

But what makes "beauty [such] a cruel mistress" is the fact that people spend their whole lives with it as a side-project; something that always distracts them from giving some other (arguably more important) factor 100 percent of their attention. They spend their entire lives chasing after it, doing their best to keep it fulfilled, working towards it, and catering to it. But in most cases, it never lasts enough to warrant the lifelong effort that you might put in. In a way, people stay loyal to the concept or ideal of beauty - but that loyalty isn't mutual. One day, sort of like an ungrateful girlfriend who you just bought a new set of titties for, beauty just decides to get up and leave. 

And for some reason, it always comes as such a surprise to people (even though they saw it coming a long time ago). At this point, they start desperately trying to hold on to it - they wish that they still had it, or they spend a whole lot of time and money trying to coax it into coming back. Nothing physical ever lasts - beauty's fleeting at best, and irrelevant at worst. With all that in mind, it makes you start to wonder whether you should've ever been dumb enough to have a mistress in the first place. 

My solution? Put work into it until it no longer profits you. Until the (extra) work that you put in stops benefiting you in some way, it'll always be justified. There's no reason to be subjected to picking either beauty or intelligence - why not pick and cultivate both?

Peace,

- knowledge

Heidi Montag & The War Against Beauty/Perfection

For anyone who's dumb enough to be a fan of "The Hills"(oh hell naw!) show, or anyone who listens to the radio...I'm sure you've heard of everyone bashing Heidi Montag for getting like 10 procedures in one day  (click here).

I think all of you people need to fuck off. Or if you won't do that, then at least realize what you're implying by condemning plastic surgery & Heidi Montag. Plastic surgery is a step towards (subjective) perfection. Is it unrealistic? Of course it is. They're putting materials that aren't supposed to be in them, in them - but it's still striving for perfection, nonetheless.

I would say that Heidi Montag's a pretty attractive woman to begin with, and that she really didn't need the surgery. She looked fine the way that she was...but I'm not her - and that's what actually matters. I'd be lying if I said that it didn't make her look better, because it did!

For the parents who say that this sets unrealistic standards for your little daughters...maybe you should stop blaming people and work on making your daughter realize that the type of beauty gained from alterations like that aren't natural. Your value judgments don't matter, and to force your children to think about  plastic surgery as some evil thing is no more different than shoving your ideologies down your child's throat. Maybe it is evil, and maybe it isn't - but that's for your child to decide.

And how about people that say "oh, the image of 'beauty' that the media portrays is unattainable". They sure as hell are, but to blame that on the beautiful people would be to condemn beauty itself for not being a commodity. These people don't realize that what makes things beautiful is the way that everything comes together. It probably wouldn't be as appealing, or attractive if mediocre aesthetic appeal was the norm. What makes beauty so significant is the fact it's not as common as we'd all like it to be.

I never understood what made attractive people so despicable to the general public. it jealousy, envy, or legitimate hatred because of something that we don't have? After all, look at the critics: the one criticizing the sexy starlets who flaunt their curvaceous bodies are often the non-sexy starlets who are unable to flaunt their curvaceous bodies. Instead of pointing out the obvious, why not enjoy things for what they are. A beautiful woman's, a beautiful woman. 

It's a shame that people need to go to lengths of plastic surgery just to be satisfied with who they are...but then again, many of us go to great lengths, in other respects, in order to be satisfied of who WE are. After all, everyone's got their own demons to fight.

Take it beauty at its face value, and leave it at that. 

:)

Peace,

- knowledge


p.s. I checked out a debate for "Upcoming superpowers: Chinv
a vs. India" and I've been reminded on how much I've been missing out on, by neglecting debate team meetings.


p.p.s. I start writing a book this week...hopefully