Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen
Don’t be turned off by me telling you to shut up.
It’s not personal. This is business. And I’m an ally. Got it? I’m on your side. The good news is that my telling you to shut up is actually conditional. Once you start reading this article, you might decide that you’ve already got a lot of what I’m saying down pat; if so, then use this article as a tool to hone what you’re already doing. Use it for ideas to perfect your game. On the other hand, if you start reading this article and feel immediately defensive because after reading umpteen articles on how to improve your life, and failing to find anything practically useful from them, then it’s time to shut up and listen. Oh yeah. There’s one more option: you could keep reading umpteen articles.
Why listen to me?
If you haven’t read this yet, then start there. Its true. I’m way out there. But besides all that rubbish about scores, I have a practicality often lacking in the typical ultra-intelligent people you might meet. The typical über-smarty pants out there might be shuffling around talking to himself about some exotic non-existent math problem that he thinks will one day mean something. Fostered from birth in some nurturing environment with loving parents and pleasant schoolmates, he might have some lofty life-is-wonderful approach to everything he sets his eyes upon. True too, he might make significant contributions to science or some other subject. A school might be named after him. But his accomplishments and efforts will be largely inaccessible to the vast majority of the rest of the population. He won’t necessarily say something that could help you directly. Not so with me. I grew up with my face pushed down on the pavement in a decaying suburb of Detroit. Take away that nurturing environment from a smarty like myself and you have this strange hybrid human who is half cosmopolitan, half walking scientist. Hip-hop lip-syncing, sneaker wearing urbanite by day; creative revolutionary by night. A monster, possibly. Or a little bit of you and a little bit of not you.
So let’s get started. This article will follow the following pattern: each section will list an abstract concept, then have specific details about the abstraction, then real-world examples to illustrate the details. What we’re going to do is treat everything we know, primarily our individual lives, as individual businesses. Then were going to make those businesses immensely profitable. Here’s the bad news: everyone cannot make their lives immensely profitable. It turns out that the way we’re going to define immensely profitable is hinged on the crucial measurement of our profits being relative to something else (namely, the other businesses). If everyone’s businesses grew in profit to the same degree, no one would actually get rich (I’ll explain this in more detail later). Here’s the good news: the person who cannot make their business profitable happens to be one of those who does not make it to the end of the article, or is someone who does but does not take it seriously (in other words, they didn’t shut up and listen). If you’re one of those relatively precious few who can do both, well then, I’ll see you on the other side.
The three roads to the two roads to wealth
There are only three ways to wealth. But those three ways are really only two ways. These two ways will form the basic overarching hypothesis that will guide us.
1) Some people are born into wealth. Hate it or love it, it’s life. If you were rich, you’d probably pass something along to your kids too, so if you’re resentful of those born lucky, get over it because if you follow along carefully, and make it too, you’ll have some lucky kids.
2) Some people hit the jackpot. Could be the lottery, life insurance payout, or the work of a brilliant lawyer pulling the strings in some punitive damage lawsuit. Whatever you want to call this road, its a windfall.
3) Some people are extremely industrious. This is the most common road (and the only realistic one for us). Those who hit this road are the actual creators of the vast majority of concentrated wealth.
Immediately throw out #2. Try it if you want, but every time you try to play that road, what you’re really doing is consistently making someone else money. For that one lucky S.O.B. who hauls in the 28 million dollar Powerball jackpot, there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who shelled out for it. The odds are ridiculously against you. I can’t tell you how many people I have tried to steer away from the lottery who have responded with the expected, “but it could happen”. I always want to say, “Are you f–cking kidding me?” Instead, I smile politely and wish them well. Don’t be like them. And if it’s not the lottery you’re after, but the life insurance payout, then you’re a despicable human being, kissing Grandma on the forehead in the hospital right after your phone call to your travel agent. That’s pretty sick. In both cases, what you’re actively doing to get rich is passively hoping to get rich. Good luck. Now then, finally, it might seem strange, but if you are neither #1 nor #2, then you’re almost completely screwed. It turns out that #3 is the most common road, but it also turns out that almost all of those on the third road started on the first. Ouch. The test would be this: line up the rich people and scrutinize their origins. Take a man like a Bill Gates, who has indubitably created vast fortunes and then check his birth certificate. Parchment or fine cloth? Fine cloth. A rich family bred an (no doubt) intelligent man who went on to become wealthy. Road one often leads to road three. This is why articles like this one make me laugh. They serve up junk food for the masses, many of whom won’t make it to this paragraph. The article insinuates that going to Harvard increases ones chances of becoming a billionaire. The cause and effect here is simply incomplete. Most of those who go to Harvard have an inside track. Money. Here are some stats on Harvard students aid habits:
A whopping six percent of the students used state and local financial aid. Do you think Bill Gates was eligible for state and local financial aid? Going to Harvard doesn’t increase your chance of becoming a billionaire. Being born rich increases your chances of going to Harvard. The worst part is now that we’re done using the saw, we haven’t much limb left. You have no choice on #1. You cant pick your parents. Don’t choose #2. You’re either dumb, lazy or plain evil. Choose #3. But, most who can choose #3 easily, start on #1, which makes the job significantly easier for them. Also, both #1 and #2 are based on the same substance: luck. That’s why they are really one and the same road. This simplifies everything: we can get rich by being lucky or industrious, and luck is always against us.
The scary truth about wealth
Earlier I said I would discuss in greater detail the notion that everyone cannot equally become extremely wealthy. In a single phrase, think of wealth as market share. To increase your wealth, or share of wealth, or your share of the market “wealth”, it has to come from someone else’s. This is not a crash course in economics, but there is often a widely used rebuttal: increase the market. This is tricky to grasp, but stay with me. You might be thinking that by increasing the whole market, and assuming that everyone’s relative share of that market stays the same, then everyone gets wealthier. Sure, on paper. But all that really occurred was inflation. The reason this does not make anyone feel wealthier is because of the notion of scarcity. Let’s use a simple example. 2 natives on an island and a gold dealer with 1 gold nugget. Everyone on the island starts with $100, so the wealth market is $300. Option one: fist fight. Native #1 wants the gold nugget, but it costs $200, so he beats the snot out of native #2 and takes his $100. Then he goes to the dealer and buys the nugget who gladly sells it because he has tripled his own money. But some people don’t like this because it feels unethical so they say we should increase the market so everyone can have more. Some act of a god (or federal reserve) makes it so that instead of there being $300 available on the island, there is now 3 million dollars. Problem is, there’s still just one nugget. The market is much bigger, but the scarce goods are still scarce. Now any native knows they can go to the gold dealer and offer $200 for the gold nugget. But he has a million bucks too.
This concept has to be a fundamental part of your groundwork. Forget about an altruistic vision that falsely allows you to believe that you can become rich and have clean hands too. You can still do it nicely, but I honestly think that many people fail to become rich because they do not have the stomach for it. If you want to become rich, then it cannot bother you when you step on someone else. Now we’re getting somewhere: getting rich will not occur via luck, and will not come via any other road except one that led through someone else’s loss. Don’t do it. I know you’re already tempted. You might be thinking, but if I want a yacht, and there are other people who want yachts, my yacht doesn’t have to be at the loss of someone else’s yacht; let’s just hire another yacht maker so we can all have more. You just lied to yourself. You’re thinking that not all goods are scarce, that yachts, in opposition to gold nuggets can be produced, that they are not necessarily fixed. Two problems with this one. 1) Why don’t you want a plastic kayak instead of a yacht? Probably because anyone can get one for $200 at a local sporting goods store. If it’s something everyone can get easily, it’s suddenly not so fun. There was a point when automobiles with air conditioners cost much more, but now even basic models have them. So now we want leather. Lesson: wealth is relative wealth. 2) You increase the demand for yachts at the local yacht manufacturer, who in turn places a classified ad for the new position he needs to fill so he can make your yacht. Problem is, Fred, the potential new hire, was on the verge of becoming a gifted math teacher at a local university, but decided not to because he ran into the classified ad. You just cost Johnny the freshman at the university his particularly gifted math education. Lesson: you cannot create more wealth in the sense that feels in harmony with some kind of justice. It is relative wealth only, and that dictates that is comes to you at the cost of someone else. I encourage you to think of other examples on your own.
Finally, here’s one last example of why you cant avoid stepping on someone in your pursuit of extreme relative wealth. Lets say you wanted to flip cars. If you buy a $500 1978 Pinto from your neighbor, you can’t very well sell it for $500, right? You would have to sell it for say, $700. But you can’t sell it for $700 unless either a) its worth $700 or b) you take advantage of someone and make them think its worth $700 when it’s only worth $500. In either case, you step on someone. All business transactions must necessarily fit this pattern in order for you to make a profit. Even if the transactions are purely voluntary, you’re still stepping on someone.
Time to run our business
Here’s where everything gets more useful. Have you ever wanted to own your business, watch it grow, and massage its finances for maximum gain? You already are. Every. Single. Day. Almost everyone I know, and everything I read is constantly referencing some nostalgic-smelling rose patch off over the horizon that we can, through long trials and tribulations, finally and just maybe, arrive at. We’re always looking too damned far away. And it’s absolutely miserable trying to imagine such a long and stupid trip, a trip so seemingly hard to take that it seems almost futile and childish to even play with the idea of ever actually finishing it. Stop it. I’ve started this part of the discussion so far into the article for a very good reason: many, many people do not have the attention span to read a lengthy article. Use this to your advantage. Most of your competitors are off to youtube by now. We the remaining, have to break this fallacy: we think of a distant goal in such a way so as to make it only enjoyable once we attain it. For example, many of us imagine the joy we would endure if we were self-employed and not subject to the fixed and competitive income associated with being an employed person for someone else. But until we are self employed, we’re miserable. But, if we were just self-employed, as in say day two of our being self-employed, would we be off to Hawaii on vacation just yet? Of course not. We have to make our business profitable enough so that we can afford such a trip. So we’re back to imagining about the day when we can enjoy the vacation that we wanted that was supposed to come from being self-employed. But even still, being self-employed by itself would be more enjoyable than being employed for someone else. But if we were just laid off and have a family, being employed for someone wouldn’t seem so bad. You must fix on this. Think about it often until it becomes a real part of you: live your life today with the same mentality you would have, if you were living the life you want. Own the business you want tomorrow today. You are your own business.
Our fundamental hypothesis
Now all the essential groundwork is in place. After abandoning any belief that we will gain wealth through an encounter with luck, and after deciding that our way to wealth will be through conscious and deliberate actions, and after acknowledging the fact that the acquisition of wealth must necessarily come at the loss of someone else’s, and finally adapting to the perspective that requires us to operate our daily activities as though they themselves were the business or vehicle that will bring us to that wealth we seek, we can now become rich. We won’t be waiting or hoping to make it. We will be actively ensuring that the motions we make are all aimed to the same end. We will become businesspeople. Businesspeople actively pursue profit. That pursuit requires us to buy low and sell high. The sense of fairness must be eliminated. And lastly, because it is fairly easy to recognize extremely wealthy businesses (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) we are going live out our daily lives as though those lives themselves were the profitable businesses we seek to emulate. We do not need to wait until some distant achievement is here in order to begin. We can begin immediately.
The life is business perspective
This will begin the fully pragmatic part of this article. The shift from the highly typical consumer perspective to the business perspective will be a radical transformation for most people. So long as you maintain this perspective, you will never lose, and here’s why. Businesses lose, or fail, because they become insolvent. They do this when they spend more than they earn to the extent that they no longer have assets. They disappear. If you, literally your body, is the business vehicle that we start with, your insolvency will be your death. As long as you are breathing, you are or can be a profit turning entity. Eventually, once, using this method for long enough, you actually have significant capital, then you can literally run a business of some kind. The reason it is essential to begin with you the individual is twofold: 1) it allows you to begin immediately and 2) it will make you business through and through. Business will become an instinctive part of everything you do. So what do businesses do? Businesses earn revenue, then they incur expenses and what is left is profit. With that profit they can grow the business, acquire assets or pay off liabilities. Or of course they can keep the profits (and once they do that, its just an asset).
Its not necessary to have an MBA in order to do this effectively. However, I’ll run through some basics. You’re about to see why the vast majority of people are poor, why they would never acknowledge that they feel as wealthy as a Microsoft or an Apple. If profit is the remaining revenue after expenses have been paid, then how much should that be? Twenty percent is solid. Any business that has twenty percent of its revenue left after it pays its bills is doing very well, though obviously this amount can vary significantly. In other words, for every $100 in revenue they bring in, after they pay their bills they have $20 left. Right away you probably can see a problem. After paying your bills, do you have twenty percent left? In other words, are you saving that much from every paycheck? If businesses have assets and liabilities, how much of each is good? Generally speaking, the difference between the amount of assets a company has and the amount of debts it has is called net assets. Because this is a dollar amount, the amount varies significantly between different sized businesses. One way to compare them is to determine how much they are making given the net assets they have. Again, in the simplest fashion, this is just return on assets. Here, even just ten percent is good. Again, we can see a major problem. Most people don’t even have more assets than debts, let alone a return. For a large part of peoples’ lives, their mortgage puts them in the red on the asset side. In our example here, for every $100 in net assets a business has, they would be doing well to be making $10 in profit. Almost no individual can say that. Here going forward, all we have to do now is play out this daily game where we manage our business in such a way so as to be able to operate more profitably than the best businesses out there. I will use examples from my own life to illustrate what is possible by doing this.
Revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities
All businesses are simply machines. Machines are run by operators. Well maintained machines run by skilled operators produce the desired outcomes for which the machines were created. Decide what you want your machine (your business, your life) to do then operate it skillfully. What each of you can do, starting immediately, is to determine how your business is operating. If it’s operating poorly in comparison to some great company out there, then all you have to do is change your habits so that you can out compete them. The greater degree to which you can do this, then the more quickly you can become nightmarishly rich. To begin, start by jotting down some details about your business.
Revenues
For most people, this will be their job. However, if you have other sources of income, include these too. Obviously, growing your revenues is going to be one of the most important things you can ever do in your entire life. At the same time, making more money isn’t all that easy, or if it was, everyone would be doing it all the time. There’s something we can do long before we increase our income though: decrease our expenses.
Expenses
If raising revenue is hard, lowering expenses actually is not. The best part is that as you decrease your expenses, you open the door to an increase in revenue. When examining your expenses, I think it’s best to make this distinction. If you were a business, which is what we are pretending to be, you incur expenses that are related to your business. In other words, if you manufacture silly putty, you incur costs that are related to silly putty manufacturing. This is where the major revolution in your thinking can occur most quickly. As you examine your expenses, what do most of them relate to? Remember now, the intent is to make the most highly profitable business that is in the business of making profits. Do your expenses relate to making money? Are they the raw ingredients needed for the money machine?
Assets
When you spend your profits (assuming you have any), what are you buying? Are you buying assets that contribute to your money making? Many of the assets we buy are assets in a way, but not in the way that a business would consider useful assets. A manufacturing firm might invest in a plant that they can use to manufacture their goods. What if the same manufacturing plant bought say, firewood? It wouldn’t make much sense, and from a business perspective, it would actually be about as useful as just lighting the cash on fire would have been. It would be a waste because it wouldn’t contribute to their manufacturing process.
Liabilities
In truth, the only liabilities you should have are ones that you incurred so you could obtain assets that contribute to your money making lifestyle. Period. Everything else is firewood. But in this case actually worse, because now you have a useless asset and you owe someone for. The best businesses out there only take on debts that produce useful assets. You should too. Here’s the main kicker on liabilities: interest. Remember when we talked about return on investment earlier? Here is when you use it. If you can get an asset that will earn you ten percent per year on that asset, but you have to borrow to get it, and the interest for borrowing it is twelve percent, don’t do it. You should only take on liabilities when you can earn more of a return on the assets you get from them than the interest you are charged to obtain them in the first place.
Are you a consumer or a money maker?
By now you should have begun to think over things in your life that you do, and examine them under a purely business light. As a business, are you trying to increase your revenues? Are you doing side work, training for a promotion, educating yourself, or whatever that will allow to make more money? Are you looking for business opportunities in your area? Are the expenses you incur a function of making money, or are they for personal pleasure? Does eating out make you money or someone else? Does owning a $25,000 car make you money, or could you have the same essential transportation for $10,000? Why do you own a plasma TV? Are you that bored? Can you find nothing better to do with your time but watch shit on a screen? Do you even need cable? Does owning an SUV somehow make you money? What about your DVD collection? Do you buy everything new? Most people won’t answer these questions without feeling like I’m some kind of jerk, but these questions need to be asked, and answered. Besides, I’m not the one searching for articles like this on Google, I’m the one writing it.
Proof that this works
My rate of return is much higher than yours. I can say this with confidence because I know hundreds of people. So far, I haven’t actually met anyone who lives as frugally as I do who still enjoys the level of comfort that I do. On paper, you’d think that I should be in the poor house. But I’m far from that and I’m keeping so much of my money and am doing such useful things with it, that with every day that goes by, I’m earning even more money at a faster pace than anyone I know. And then I’m using that to make even more. Its like a self-fulfilling circle. The truth is, ironically, that all those hundreds of people I know could easily outperform me with almost no effort. It’s weird, because I’m making more money than anyone I know, but I “make” less money than anyone I know. And I mean by legions. Just so you know, I live in a comfortable 1700 square-foot, 2-story, newly constructed home in a nice suburb with wealthy neighbors, a pool nearby and nice lawns everywhere. I drive a car that is less than a year old and I eat like a king (more because of my wife’s fine cooking skills than because of what we spend on groceries, mind you). I wear nice clothes to work (in fact, I generally out-dress my superiors). Oh by the way, I have a wife and two children. And my wife doesn’t even work. And, if you read my short bio on the “About” page, then you’d know my circumstances and know that while smart, I don’t even have a college degree. As a result, I only make about $35,000 a year. It gets even better. As far as revenues versus expenses? My profit margin, that is, my earnings left over after I pay my bills is about 28%. Could you imagine if I actually had a degree and could market that in the workforce, or even if my wife worked? All of that additional income would be pure bonus; it would all fall directly to the bottom line. Now don’t get me wrong here either, I’m not hanging out on some mountain of cash either. As you know, I’m trying to return to school and have several debts to destroy before I can do that, so all of my profits are going toward my liabilities. What’s your profit margin? Or your household’s?
Now it’s your turn
So you want to be rich? Run your life by the numbers and you will. Operate with the intent to be a money maker not a money consumer. Leave that for all the people who yawned off at paragraph two. Examine your lifestyle and spend your energy on finding new wealth, limiting what you spend only to the things that make you money, accumulate assets that really do help you in your venture and use liabilities only to acquire assets that do the same. Finally, I hope to see you soon in this site’s brand new forum. Not many users yet, but don’t be shy. I want to hear about the ways you will make it too. And as always, if you’ve enjoyed this, tell your friends.

























Digg/dacoatne
Facebook/Dereck
YouTube/dacoatne
Del.icio.us/dacoatne
Technorati/dacoatne
MyBlogLog/dacoatne
Twitter/dacoatne
Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.
Tom Humes
Thanks for this interesting post. I think the basic idea of living as if you were a business is sound and something that few people do. I actually do live like this and my ‘profit margin’ is about 50% Next year I estimate this will rise to 65% unless I incur some unanticipated expenses. I live well below my means but I still manage to live a very nice life. I do this by being quite careful about expenses, trying to find value where I can and, above all, keeping good track of my expenses. My ‘profit margin’ could be higher, but then I don’t want to be even more frugal. You can take this too far!
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
@Tom
Thanks! Just checked out yours too. It looks like there’s tons of great material there! Will be back soon to read up
@Michael
You just made my day! Glad to hear you’re doing so well by knowing what you need and not being wasteful. I hope the long-term implication of your lifestyle brings you much more, but somewhat delayed, abundance. You have all my best wishes.
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not Die. Debtors’ Prison [...]
Carnival of the Entrepreneur - June 9, 2008…
Welcome to the June 9, 2008 edition of the Carnival of the Entrepreneur. At the Carnival of the Entrepreneur you will find articles submitted by authors from all over the internet relating to anything associated with being an entrepreneur. Topics range…
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen. I’m [...]
[...] the last twenty-four hours. There are primarily two articles being stumbled at the moment. “Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen” and “Write your biography before someone else does” which is strange because the [...]
[...] of positive feedback in some e-mails about the little phrase I recently threw out about Harvard in this article (which went something like this): Harvard doesn’t increase your chances of becoming wealthy, [...]
Great Article here, lots of sound advice. I think a putting a proper personal finance plan in place is the best thing that anyone can do for themselves financially. My wife and I have our plan in place and its going great. No matter how often we explain it to them, some of our friends still question why we do it, but they’ll know why in a few years when we are mortgage free and they are still living paycheck to paycheck.
Great job again! and look for your article in this weeks Carnival of Improving Life!
@ImprovedLife
Thanks for the feedback, it’s much appreciated. I’m glad your plan is going so well. Mortgage free? I’m glad to hear you’re on the way.
Thirteenth Edition of the Carnival of Improving Life…
…
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
Dereck, Thanks,
I chose this post to be the ‘Post of the Week’ for the carnival, so Congratulations!
Yes, pending no major setbacks, we should be Mortgage (and debt) Free by the time I turn 33 or 34. This is assuming we have the 2 kids we are planning to have starting next year. If we get a bigger house (like we plan) this will only hold off the ‘mortgage free’ date by 2-3 years . We aren’t rich, or make a crazy amount of money, although both my wife and I do work. What It all comes down to, is a sound financial plan, and making those extra payments towards the mortgage (once any higher interest debt is payed off). Follow Derecks advice and don’t buy things that you don’t actually need. Look at your expenses as a business and you will prosper.
Congrats again on what you have accomplished Dereck! and all the best in the future!
@ImprovedLife
Hey, thanks for the prominent mention! Mortgage free by your mid-thirties, now that’s beyond impressive. I might need to blog about you
Good article on the whole.
I have to respectfully disagree with major parts of your premise.
I only read the entire article to see whether you would redeem yourself perhaps by explaining away my concerns. Alas, you did not. (But I’m glad I did finish reading it, you have good points towards the end. My favourite principle: Making a concious decision to spend money on those things which improve standard of living the most (nice house in good neighbourhood, etc.))
The two things which I disagree with is your arguments of complete scarcity, and relative wealth (though they are closely related).
The concept of scarcity (while thrown around ecstatically in introductory economics classes) does not hold up to reality. Wealth can indeed be created, it’s called a non-zero-sum game. For example, I hire a scientist and research potential technologies in oil extraction. I spend $10 million on the scientist and his equipment over a year, and at the end he has created a oil extraction technology that allows us to extract 50% of oil in oil fields instead of the current 30%. I sell this technology to a large oil company for $100 million. I pay the scientist a bonus of $5 million for finding the technology (I just created $5 million of new wealth for the scientist), and pay back my investors plus return of $20 million. I’m now $75 million richer ($75 million of new wealth for me). The oil company uses the technology to extract more oil. In the first year alone, the increase in extraction results in $1 billion increase in revenue, and they can continue to reuse the technology forever ($x billion more wealth for the oil company). You see, every party in this transaction is making money (Initially there are some losers, for example the competitors of the oil company are now less competitive. However their loss in revenue is, guaranteed to be, less than the first companies gains. And eventually the technology would be licensed out, and these companies would also make money of it). This is how it occurs almost everywhere.
Now, you may agree with this, and then I would say our only disagreement is over the concept of relative wealth. You would say, that after the above occurred, every single person not party to the transaction actually lost out (thereby maintaining the equilibrium). You seem to be saying there is X amount of wealth in the world. And perhaps right now US$Y equals X. If you calculated every single asset in the world in US dollars you would have Y, if you then apply the conversion, that is the amount of wealth in the world. When somehow more assets (in terms of US dollars) are created, the rate of conversion merely falls, leaving X (the amount of wealth) intact. It seems to be like we are keeping wealth artificially constant, but I guess you are saying wealth is less something you can physically measure and more something people feel. So as the amount of assets in the world increase, people feel like the same asset actually represents less wealth. Fair enough, to some extent I agree with this, I wouldn’t say wealth is absolute. I would say it’s in between. Let’s take another example. Say you had twice the amount of money (total assets say) as the average person in America. Living in the US, you would then feel wealthy. Now also imagine you had twice the amount of money as the average Nigerian, and if you lived in Nigeria, you would also feel wealthy. Now imagine that these worlds could never cross. We have two universes, one which comprises entirely of the USA and one which is made solely of Nigeria. If you could live in either with twice the amount of money as average, which would you choose (culture and other mitigating factors notwithstanding)? I mean your wealth, according to your theory would be the same. If wealth is relative, in both cases you’re simply twice as rich as other people and you should therefore feel equally wealthy in both. I say absolute wealth does have some say and you would chose to live where your absolute standard of living is higher, rather than your relative standard of living. Let us take another, more extreme example. We have country A and country B. Country A has per person assets of X. Country B has per person assets of X/10 (one tenth X). You could chose either to live in country A with assets of X/2 (half X) or in country B with assets X/5 (one fifth X, or twice X/10). Which would you choose? Interesting dilemma isn’t it. In country B you would feel rich compared to others. In country A you would feel poor. Yet on an absolute scale you would have a higher standard of living in country A than in B. Would you seriously chose country B simply because you would feel richer? Another effect comes into play here. Given the normal trend for everything to move toward the average. You would have to exert great effort in country B to remain rich, let alone get richer; whereas in country A it would be much easier to get richer as you are moving toward the average. Hmm, I would say, quite safely that wealth is more absolute than relative (Try for example telling a starving person in Africa, that despite the fact that they can now afford food, they are actually no wealthier, because everyone else in the world also has more).
The concepts of Sustainability and Social Responsibility are bandied around a lot these days, and for good reason. More and more people are realising they can make money without taking from others.
I guess my main point is simply that ‘The only way to get rich is to walk over others’ isn’t the greatest attitude. It forces a zero-sum world view on you; and that is what causes people to miss opportunities.
In fact I would go so far as to say, you would benefit more in the long-term if you aided others to generate more wealth alongside yourself. And, that’s exactly what you’re doing right here, isn’t it? Good on you.
kindly,
Levent.
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
@Levent
First, let me extend my appreciation for your having taken the time to write such a lengthy comment. Most people do not possess the motivation required for such a feat. Second, I’d like to say that it seems to me like you may have come into conflict with much of what I said because you are not party to the “mostly general” intended audience to whom I wrote the article for. That said, after carefully considering your points over the last several days, I’m not sure what you said is very persuasive. Here’s why:
You say my use of the idea of scarcity does not hold up to reality. You also say it in such a way which makes it seem that my understanding of the concept was granted to me through an only introductory education. This is not the case, and even upper tier economics courses (many of which I have taken and excelled in) throw it around too. Ecstatically. May I have your credentials, sir?
You go on to introduce the use of a non-zero-sum game as an example of how wealth can be created. The example you used, an advancement in oil-extraction technology, could appear to counter my assertion that wealth can only be traded, but, and a huge but, game theory restricts itself to two things that my article does not (remember, you introduced game theory, not me): 1) the participants are generally finite and 2) game theory is measured in terms of “utility” or how people “feel” about the transactions they complete. But even your example is grey when held up to game theory (and not just because your math is shoddy). After you sell the new technology to an oil firm, you have $100M. You say you pay back your investors ($10M, right?) plus a return of $20M plus $5M to the scientist as a bonus. That should leave you with $65M, not $75M. Either way, in the end, you have $65M, the scientist $5M and your investors $30M. None of this is “new wealth” as you call it. It’s the oil company’s wealth. So far you’ve only actually followed what I was saying to the letter. However, you go on to say that now, we have a long stream of revenue that wasn’t possible before. This is true, but we only have this new stream of revenue because we have new resources. Game theory is explicit about this. Zero-sum games only occur when new resources are not introduced. You introduced new resources. Fair enough. You could have summed your whole point by simply saying that new wealth can be created with the introduction of new resources. Be as cognizant as possible about who you are speaking to; I don’t need the endlessly detailed explanation to comprehend your point (and the bad math only made it worse). Even so, this would in fact then be a non-zero-sum game.
But, how many people reading this article are scientists? How many of them are going to be able to introduce new resources? Sure, people can produce “more” by becoming more efficient, by working smarter for instance. I could have written an article motivating people to create new wealth through innovation, but this is where my intended audience is out of sync with your expectations of how you hoped I might redeem myself. Some Joe in a cubicle who is fed up, tired, weary, decides to increase his wealth through your method of innovation. How likely will it be that his employer gives him a fat raise? Ha. Most employers are going to nickel and dime him and maybe send him a thank you letter. A year or two down the road he might get a promotion that he wouldn’t have otherwise. But that would be an article titled “Want to retire slightly more wealthy than you are now? Then relax and take your time.” But that’s not quite what I was writing about. I was writing about how you can rich damn it. Rich!
I wrote the article for both the ambitious and the meek. For those who feel the drudgeries that can be commonplace, who are fed up with it, and who want to goddamn do something about it. So my article said you have to have balls. Is it nice? No. Do I believe it’s the altruistic answer to mankind’s woes? No. Does it help light a flame for people? I hope so. Does it measure up to reality, something you think it does not? You bet.
Going back to your comment, you then proceed to disassemble my use of relative wealth. You do this by making divisions that I did not make, meaning that your argument holds only if it’s your argument. I’ll skip to the end, because it’s really the only useful example you use. Let’s say some Joe in America has $40 in comparison to some other guy who has $20. He feels twice as rich. Then we have some guy in Nigeria who has $20 in comparison to some other guy in Nigeria who has $5. He feels four times as wealthy. Your point is that my saying relative wealth is how we measure things is wrong because even though the guy with $20 in Nigeria feels much more wealthy than his counterpart, he’d still want to come to the states. Duh. That’s because of relative wealth. That is, relative between the two countries, both of which you introduced and I did not. You make two “universes” then decide to merge them again. Your logic seems to have much in common with your arithmetic. Not trying to come across uncivilly, but I’m not the one who diagnosed me as having “not the best attitude.” This is fair play
Lastly, you end by saying that “The only way to get rich is to walk on others” isn’t the greatest attitude. No, but two things 1) it’s not necessarily the attitude I possess (read my about page) and 2) this isn’t an ideal world we all live in. In truth, I’m about as altruistic as they come by. However, I have also have scraped knees after having spent years in the same trenches as the men and women for whom I wrote this piece for. If I was writing primarily to academics who aspired to make the world at large a better, happier place, then I’d load up on non-zero-sum games too. For the rest of the world though, for those who are stuck and want out, and who need a good and sober reason to stand up tall and fight their way up the long cliff they face every day, they need to bite down hard, put their game face on and go out and kick some ass.
Kindly,
Dereck
I didn’t say YOU have a bad attitude (that’s is an inference YOU made). From what I can see here, you mostly do not. However you are encouraging others to take this attitude, and that is what I take issue with.
I do still think that encouraging your audience to consider resource creation is a good move. I’d personally say there is more money in technology than in simple trade.
Doing the hard yards is important, but being aware of opportunities is key to making your hard work go farther. And that is what I’m trying to suggest with my introduction of resource creation. Why restrict the explanation, everyone can take part in resource creation. Surely your readers are smart, you don’t need to oversimplify.
In terms of relative wealth, I guess I overcomplicated my explanations. Perhaps simply imagine that by some sort of diving intervention 6 billion Luxury cars appeared in the world. One for each person. Would we all not be better of? Or are you suggesting that because now everyone has one, the value of having it is zero? That would be relative wealth. I can’t agree with that.
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not Die. [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
Thank you for submitting this to the Blog Carnival.
Rosemary
http://mydiyhometips.com
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] be turned off by me telling you to shut up. It’s not personal. This is business. Dereck presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
Marketer Review Saturday Blog Carnival #7…
Tali Shapiro has said that it’s time for her move on and to focus on her passion. The Marketer Review blog had exceeded all her expectations but she has decided to commit her time elsewhere. I enjoyed her blog carnival and have decided to carry …
I originally stopped by to tell you that I’ve just published your article on the most recent Marketer Review Blog Carnival.
Come by to vote on the best post of the 31 posts this week. Yes, you can vote for your own post. Use the social media of your choice to help get traffic back to your site. I stumbled your post just now.
Remember that Friday is our deadline for new articles, so mark this Friday on your calendar as the latest that you can get to Blog Carnival to submit for next week.
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
[...] presents Want to be rich? Then shut up and listen posted at I Will Not [...]
I quote, “If you buy a $500 1978 Pinto from your neighbor, you can’t very well sell it for $500, right? You would have to sell it for say, $700. But you can’t sell it for $700 unless either a) its worth $700 or b) you take advantage of someone and make them think its worth $700 when it’s only worth $500. In either case, you step on someone. All business transactions must necessarily fit this pattern in order for you to make a profit.”
This is a mistake. You are adding value to the car because you are connecting a seller and a buyer. Finding the person selling a Pinto for $500 is certainly doable for the person who bought it for $700, but it may not have been worth all the time and effort they would have had to expend. Convenience has a value. Your value added to this exchange is your role as the middle man. Not much of a role perhaps, but it still adds value.
In the end, labour creates wealth, skilled labour more than most. A middle man expends labour by buying low, providing convenience for the seller, and selling higher, providing convenience for the buyer.
Also, an example in the following paragraph contradicts your entire point that we are merely redividing shares of the same fixed pie. Cars with air-conditioning used to be a luxury. Now they are common. Where did the extra wealth for this supposed luxury come from, such that it’s now affordable for everyone? Wealth is growing. Perhaps “relative wealth” is not growing, but such a metric is very subjective.