WHY NOT STUDY THE MILLIONAIRES?

Several years ago I read a book called, “The Millionaire Mind,” by a Dr. Stanley J. Thomas. Dr. Thomas was a professor of marketing at Georgia State University in 1996 when “The Millionaire Mind,” was first published. Since then he has transitioned in to a researcher and writer on the the rich and how they got that way. He now has a total of seven books to his credit, and is probably the foremost, and definitely the best known expert on millionaires and how they got to be millionaires. Heck, he may be the ONLY expert on millionaires and how they got to be millionaires. He's certainly the only one that I've ever heard of.

I'll tell you a secret though, he ain't that original. At least not in how he obtained his knowledge. He employed the simple method of finding them and asking them, “How did you get rich?” And, while it may be effective, it's not something new. My father used to tell me to do that when I had a car that I couldn't diagnose as a teenager way back in stone ages of the 1980s. Granted Dr. Thomas used more scientific methodology than just asking them out right. He had them take surveys and studied them as some scientist study lab rats while they were filling out the study.  And, he did extensive interviews with many of them.  But, he did get them to voluntarily participate. Trust me, the rich are VERY difficult to force into anything.

Here's what blows me away though is that we tend to teach by emulation  nearly all other subjects, but not when it comes to money. Why is that I wonder? Actually I don't wonder, I don't even care why it is that we won't study money the same way we study other subjects, I just want to change it. I do think though the reason why has to do with the love/hate relationship we all have with money. We all want it, but we don't want anyone else to have it. So rather than study those with money we vilify them, and hold them in scorn. Heck we even attempt to tax them back to our level with a confiscatory 'progressive' tax system. But, if we'd just take the time to learn about them, and how they go to be rich we'd all benefit. First off we'd know that if we didn't get rich, or at least self sufficient that the fault was all ours. Which may be part of why we don't study them. Who wants to take responsibility for themselves after all? And, we'd learn how they did it so that we would have the choice to do it ourselves.

But, it's not just millionaires that Dr. Thomas studied. First he studied the demographic of millionaires, and found that some huge incorrect perceptions about the rich. First off he found that most of them are indeed first generation rich, and that their children are financially self sufficient. Which leads me to believe that studying them is not some hopeless study of life's lottery winners. It's a study of repeatable behavior. With that in mind I think that developing a curriculum based on his work and making it required learning in our schools is something we must start doing immediately.

WHY OUR SEX DRIVE MAKES SOCIALISM A FAILURE

Let me say that I am not politically correct. Sorry, I'm just not. I will however try to keep it clean.

Now to get started, it is buried in our subconscious that we mate and propagate the species. It's just hardwired into us as a species. With that in mind, from caveman times, really until just the last century or so the female's role in this left her helpless for long stretches of time. Think about it, she had to carry the child, and for some of that time she had at least diminished capacity and was less able to fend for herself. So she needed someone to help her fend off the predators and elements. Who better than the miserable jerk who got her in this condition? That's right, he had a role in this, and so should share the responsibility. So he'd better be able to provide for her and her offspring. And that need didn't end for several years after the offspring was born. First couple of years of course she had to nurse the baby and tend the baby. Of course when the height of technology is a sharp bone tied with rawhide to a long stick for your main weapon pumping milk and saving it was not realistic. So she had to physically have the baby with her for several years, and anyone who's ever even baby sat knows how that cuts down on your freedom of movement, and ability to work on productive projects. Eventually of course the baby grows to the point that it must be taught how to survive and live on it's own, and its role in society. That to usually falls on the mother because the male is out slaying the woolly mammoth to feed these other 2 mouths.

The male's role is more simple, and his motivations are also. He want's someone to keep the cave clean, the food cooked, and the bed warm. In exchange for this he will gladly go forth and undertake the most dangerous of tasks, including attacking a woolly mammoth that outweighs him a hundred to one, and has tusk the size of Grecian pillars. Of course he doesn't know the tusks are the size of Grecian pillars since the Greeks haven't been invented yet, but he knows they're huge and sharp, and can impale him in half a second if isn't careful. Then at night, when the saber toothed tiger comes around looking for a snack, he has to crawl out of the bed, and grab his puny spear and go convince it to get it's snack elsewhere. She can't, she's busy nursing the baby, and no matter how much the man would love to trade with her and let her risk her neck, he is simply not equipped to nurse the baby.

It's a symbiotic relationship. But how did they pick each other? Well, the male being a guy looked first for willingness in the bedroom, and then for aesthetics. Face it, he's a guy, he's thinking with the little head here. If he's luck he gave some thought to if she'll be a good cook, and treat the kids right, but pretty much once he found someone who would say yes to sex, and not be hideous to look at if he is normal, he is lazy, and done searching.

The woman on the other hand has a whole laundry list of things to look for before she'll say yes. Is this guy going to be able to feed me and my babies? Is he going to be able to fend off the saber toothed tiger? Is he going to actually stick around, or is he going to go to the next cave neighbor and canoodle her at the first sign of trouble? Lastly, can I live with him long enough to raise the kids without using his spear on him myself?

Well, that last one is a personality thing, and highly subjective, but the others really boil down to will he be a loyal father who will provide well for her and her offspring? Answer yes, and she's willing, answer no, and she's not. Simple as that. But, how to answer this question? Ah, now we've hit the crux of the matter. You see, she can't just ask him, he's not totally stupid, he'll give the right answers, and usually will mean them. So she has to observe his behavior. Does he jump up and run out to confront the aforementioned saber toothed tiger, or does guard the fire pit? Does go on hunts with the other males, and does he come back with meat? Or, does he hide by the river pretending to fish while actually snoozing?

Well, any guy with half a brain soon realizes that to feed his little head he has to produce, both security and meat so he sharpens those skills, and if he's good at them he finds himself with a mate. If not he's lonely his entire life.

Fast forward a few million years, and it really hasn't changed. Substitute a large house for protection, and money for meat, and that's still where we're at. Women want (note I said want not necessarily need) security, and men want sex so to accommodate each other the woman looks for a man who can provide financially before she says yes. With that in mind socialism takes away not only all external incentive to produce, but also all signs that you have produced if you do produce. So, the male of the species has ZERO reason to produce. So he won't get up and go slay the wooly mammoth, or risk his rear end driving off the saber toothed tiger, or attempting to build a financially successful business. Instead he will spend his time trying to appear like he's able to provide security and meat. Usually that means turning to either governmental work, of which there is a limited supply, or extra legal work. That of course has it's own risks, but does offer the possibility of the reward he is seeking at the expense of undermining the socialistic system.

So, as you can see laying aside my attempts to make it humorous our sex drive makes socialism actually a failing proposition no matter what. So why don't we just let it go folks? We won't do it, and it won't work. You may argue that those things aren't needed anymore, and to some degree you're correct. Technology has tended to make us less dependent on raw physical skill, and a mate than ever before. And while that makes sex for fun a nice bonus it doesn't change the last 3 million years of hard wired behavior. Until that changes we need to be aware that we simply are not going to allow socialism to work. We as males will be able somehow to show our prowess as providers, and the female of the species will reward those males that do with sex. And anyone who's ever tried to get between a guy and his sexual partner knows how futile that is. Sorry, just the way it is.

THIS IS FAILURE?

It was recently suggested to me by one of my Facebook friends that I as a White Christian Male Heterosexual, “ sit the f*** down and shut up for a change.” Now she tried to make it nice with the obligatory smiley emoticon, but she was serious in her collectivist goals, and that those of us that met her description should quit running for office since we have had centuries to get 'it' right, but instead have, “failed extremely bad bad bad.”

In particular she seemed to be annoyed with my ideals of personal property rights, rewarding individual achievement, and personal responsibility. Apparently to her the self made man is to be scorned. She claims to be centrist leaning Democrat, but then espouses the teachings and writings of either outright socialists or anarchists. Of course no specific examples of anything we have gotten wrong were given, just that we have, “failed bad bad bad.”

So, I got to thinking about our failures in the areas she did mention that her people would improve. Primarily improving the economic plight through the use of co-ops and local economies, and improving human dignity and rights in ways not specified, and thought of all the ways we White Christian Heterosexual Males have, “failed extremely bad bad bad.” Things like:

- Our life expectancy is longer than at any other time in known history.
- Our 'poor' typically have the problem of obesity rather than malnutrition. Multiple televisions, and often multiple cars. Frequently living a life style that in the 3rd world would be considered wealthy.
- It was a White christian male Republican president that ended slavery.
- Sen. William Fessenden & Rep. Thaddeus Stevens both White Republican (presumably) Christian Heterosexuals wrote and rammed through the 14th amendment.
- Come to think of it much more recently it was White Christian male Republicans that voted for the civil rights act in the 1960s when Democrats were against it.

 That's just a short list that I came up with off the top of my head.  Feel free to add any more in the comments if you'd like.  So while I've left some stuff out, and America is still a work in progress just as all history is a work in progress, all in all the last 250 years has been just that: PROGRESS. Progress in technology that makes our lives more comfortable, safe, and healthy. And, progress in freedom for all races and religions. While we may not have gotten to utopia yet right now we're doing pretty well, and moving along the right path. So, NO, I don't think this particular White Christian Heterosexual Male will sit back and shut up just now. But, thank you for asking.

Instead I think I'll continue what I'm doing, and urging the parts of the world that aren't doing as well as the United States is to emulate the United States, rather than allow the third world to drag the United States down in both the standard of living and personal freedom areas.  Indeed, I will if needed fight to the death to stop that downward slide.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE FOLKS

IT'S HUMAN NATURE FOLKS or WHAT THE COLLECTIVISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND

Via the wonders the internet I have been in touch with people all over the world, and more importantly the United States lately who have been espousing either extremely high taxes, and/or some sort of socialist/communist/collectivist government. Preferably run on a global scale to make everyone everywhere equal socially and financially. There is one small problem with that, no one does anything for free. Anytime you do anything it is because you desire the perceived results of that action.

I fix appliances, I desire the money that those jobs will pay me so that I can pay my bills and feed my family. Monks value a relationship with God far more than money so they take a vow of poverty. Sadly a battered wife values something in her abusive relationship more than she values her own safety. When you give the bum on the street corner a buck it just means that you value presumably the feeling of having helped that bum more than you valued the dollar.

So if you take the freedom to gain financially from those that produce financially they will either flee or go underground. This has been historically proven over and over again. Once the financial activity becomes inaccessible to the government the government will have nothing to take to that will enable it enforce its policies, and give the masses that keep it in power. When that happens civil unrest ensues, and it has brought down every civilization that has tried it in the past.

Fleeing to financially freedom is one of the reasons America became a nation, and then a super power. Now though you can see it happening right here in America. The rich are fleeing California and New York in droves. Just the other night I saw an interview with Donald Trump who is normally liberal leaning in which he made a threat to take his money overseas if taxation and regulation got any worse here in America. I don't know how many people Trump employees, but I can't imagine dumping them all into the American unemployment system will be good for our economy. That flight of financial producers is leaving those states with HUGE financial obligations, but no financial activity with which to pay for them. Want to look overseas, then look no further than birthplace of democracy in Greece where they have recently had riots because their economy is so hideously enmeshed in collectivism that no one bothers to produce because there is no gain from it.

Think about it this way. Tomorrow you go to work, and your boss tells you that your tax rate has gone down from the average (includes city, state, and federal) of 40% to 1%. You've just gotten a HUGE raise courtesy of the government. Most of us would suddenly be working fools, and we'd enjoy our newly found income. I personally would buy a new truck as soon as I got off work that first day. My ancient Ford is on it's last leg, and I'm worried about it going belly up any day now.

But, if you went in and found that you're tax rate has been hiked to 99% most people would simply not bother to show up the next day because it would cost more to drive to work and back than to stay home. Especially if a collectivist government is promising to pay you the same whether you work or not.

Now of those two scenarios which one creates more financial activity and more safety, comfort, and happiness for the people? And, which one ultimately leads to a de-civilization of American society? And, no discussing the destruction of American society over taxes isn't hyperbole it's a definite historic fact. There is no magic bullet that makes America immune to the lessons of history.

Unfortunately for those that would like to see a collectivist-every-one-is-equal world the people are GOING to feed themselves and their family, and defend themselves and their family. They are then going to try to obtain comfort for them and their family. That is not only a simple animal instinct, but a natural right of any species. Which is why there is rioting in Greece. The people realize that the gravy train of government money is drying up, and their first instinct was/is to riot and scream, “Hey reopen the gravy spigot!” When that doesn't work because the well is dry they'll have to reinvent their society to match the new reality. But, that transition will NOT be pretty. History tells us that there will most likely be more rioting, violence, and possibly a civil war. And historically it will not end up in more freedom for the Greek people until it gets much worse. Out of such things world wars and genocides are made.

All of which can be avoided if collectivism would simply be done away with, and people were allowed to work at what they wanted to work at while keeping what the market sees fit to give them for that work. Oh and being allowed to sink or swim on their own but that's another blog.

Unfortunately I can't say that taxes should be done away with, but as in all things in life a balance should be reached. And, since historically higher taxes have meant less economic activity while lower taxes have meant more economic activity I'd say that we need to examine the idea of cutting rather than raising taxes. Certainly raising taxes in a recession is not the way to go.

Hey, don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.