Pragmatists vs. Academicians

The foregoing article was originally written October of 2012:

If there is one word you've seen emphasized throughout this entire website, it is the word "pragmatic." I think now would be a great time to define that term.

prag·mat·ic/prag-matik/
Adjective:
Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Since the topic of this conversation is Pragmatists vs. Academicians, now would also be a great time to define an academician.

ac·a·de·mi·cian/akədə-miSHən/
Noun:
An academic; an intellectual.

Someone may be asking, "but which one is more important?" In truth, both are important, but one is more important than the other. On one hand, academic knowledge of a thing can provide a general understanding. But until you've actually put that information into use, and have gained experienced, your understanding is largely theoretical. Why? Because you haven't actually done it to prove that it works. Once you've done a thing successfully, you can then speak about it from experience because you know how that particular thing works realistically...which is pragmatism.

In the real world, pragmatism wins. I've saw situations where young college graduates (academicians) are competing for a high level job within a prestigious firm. The grad thinks that because he's got a college degree, that he's a lock for the position. In fact, every grad who's competing for the job thinks the same thing. But little do they know, there's another guy competing for that same job who's not a college graduate, but who has 15 years experience in that particular field. To make a long story short, the experienced guy ends up getting the job and the college grads are left wondering what happening. I've seen it happen. Even in the most competitive, professional environments, pragmatism wins. Had the company hired those young grads, their academic training wouldn't have been enough to complete their assigned duties. The company still would have had to train them how to do the job in the real world. But since the guy with 15 years experience has done it, and for so long, the company felt he was the better candidate because they knew he could come in and hit the ground running.

When it comes to my studies, every book I read is pragmatic. The authors may have an academic background, but you'd better believe that they also have real world experience to prove what they say is true. Those are the only kind of people I listen to, those that have done it...successfully. For example, I was reading "The Alchemy of Finance" by George Soros a few weeks ago. Mr. Soros is a billionaire who achieved that level of success through trading. Mr. Soros did attend college, but he himself said that what really made him wealthy was getting out in the real world. Warren Buffett, a billionaire with an academic background, said the same thing! These are both two of the richest men in the world concurring that pragmatism is absolutely vital.

I remember a conversation I was having with a guy. We were discussing whether we thought obtaining an MBA or being the apprentice of a successful businessman would be more beneficial for success in business. To my surprise, the guy believed that having an MBA would be the better option. What this guy (and people who think like him) fail to realize is that professors usually aren't businessmen. In fact, they've most likely never done a business deal in their lives. While their lessons may be valuable in the sense that the student learns the academic side of business, however, the pragmatic side is more important.

That reminds me of a book I was reading by Kevin O'Leary of Shark Tank & Dragon's Den. If you're interested, the book is titled "Cold Hard Truth: On Business, Money & Life." In one part of the book, he told the story of an event that occurred between himself, a few other investors and a college professor. The story was basically this: He and Robert Herjavec (also of Shark Tank and Dragon's Den) struck a deal to invest $200,000 into a business created by a couple of college students. When the deal was to be finalized, the students brought their business professor with them. During the meeting, the professor basically attacked O'Leary and Herjavec, saying that since neither of them had business degrees, they had no business trying to help the two students with their businesess (mind you that Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Herjavec are both worth well over $100 Million dollars through businesses they both founded). For some strange reason, the students allowed the professor to run his mouth to the point where Robert Herjavec tore apart the check for $200,000 on national TV! All because they allowed academia to interfere with pragmatism.

I'm not telling anyone not to pursue academia. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that anyone who wishes to excel in anything most take a pragmatic approach as well. That is because in my book, I define power as "Accurate knowledge that has been confirmed by intelligent action." What this means is that whatever we learn, assuming its accurate (knowledge), doesn't become power until we use it....successfully. Which explains my point about professors who teach in a lot of business schools. They're very smart men and women, but they most likely haven't done it. So what their knowledge hasn't been transformed into power. If you look at what we've been discussing, you'd see that the only thing separating the pragmatist from the academician is experience.

Black Consumerism In America

The foregoing article was originally written July 2012:

Here’s a topic I’ve been meaning to write about but never quite got around to it. But this is a serious issue in our country that I feel I should explain to the black community in a way in which no one else has ever attempted to.

But first, let me state that I don’t intend to spark any racial debates. This isn’t some anti-white/black topic. If you feel compelled to spew some racial hatred or conspiracy bullshit, this isn’t the topic for you. Anyone who’s read my writings in the past knows that I’m all about equality and against racial categorizing, but in this case, we can’t argue with the facts of black consumerism in America. So now you’re asking “Black consumerism in America — what does this mean?”

In short, black consumerism describes the high number of black consumers there are in America compared to the low number of black producers. For blacks to be such a small percentage of the American population (13.6%), we tend to do a great amount of the spending. Not only has consumerism gotten a hold of African-Americans, we’ve managed to combine it with materialism…which as as deadly as it gets in terms of economic production. Let me tell you a quick story of my childhood to explain what I mean.

When I was in school, kids would often torment me because I didn’t wear name brand clothes/shoes. When I was in kindergarten, there was a group of kids who’d gang up on me and would harass me daily, and would even try to fight me in some cases, again, because they didn’t like my clothes/shoes. My family didn’t have that kind of money. We weren’t impoverished. But spending lots of money on name brand clothes just wasn’t a priority. By the way, just because I didn’t wear name brand clothes, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t neatly dressed. Moving along — then, one year, my mom decided to buy my brother and me a pair of Jordan’s with the Michael Jordan jersey to match. This was around 1997, so I’m guessing she must’ve spent well over $500. Amazingly, when I wore my new shoes and jersey to school, the harassment came to a halt. Students treated me like royalty. Then on days when I wore a different pair of shoes, we were back to normal.

Let’s fast forward a few years into my 10th grade to senior years in High School. During this time, I held an after school job. When I received my paychecks, I’d get the latest brand name clothes, shoes, expensive necklaces with medallions, watches and bracelets to match, etc. Heck, I even had the “mouth-jewelry.” Most people had gold teeth, but I had silver….6 across the top. I didn’t know any better. I was only trying to fit in, something I realize as a mistake today.

Needless to say, these peers of mine came to school daily wearing the most popular brand names at that time. Mind you, these people lived in the same neighborhoods as my family — meaning, they weren’t any “richer” than us. When I got older, nothing really changed. Women wouldn’t date me because they claimed I was “too cheap” to buy any “real clothes.” Whatever that means. These same women would fault me because I didn’t drive the latest model car. Mind you, every car I’ve ever owned (except one), I always paid cash and owned it outright. Which means no car note for me! And on the flip side, these women who demanded that I have the latest model car, the latest style of clothing, a high paying job, etc., had none of those things themselves.

So that’s my premise. Now here’s my main point. Black people in America have come to worship brand names and to spend unbelievably amounts of money on them. Research has shown that African Americans spend over $500 Billion a year on goods and services, while our earning power is $840 Billion (and has been estimated to reach $1.1 trillion by 2015)! That means that 59.6% of black America’s income is spent on material bullshit. This same study has shown that African Americans spend only $320 Million on books. At first, corporate America hadn’t noticed this until the early 2000′s. Since then, they’ve exploited  it, and rightfully so. Now I see teenagers and young adults committing crimes just to buy these expensive items. This doesn’t only pertain to clothing items, this materialistic mind state of African-American goes all the way from the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the beverages we drink, all the way down to the foods we eat. Are we paying more for MORE or for better quality? Hell no! It’s usually more for a lot less. But, a lot of us don’t care about that, we only care about being able to brag about consuming a product with a certain name tag with a high price tag.

I study Finance and Economics, so I’m pretty educated on how something of this nature can effect us in the long run. We have got to start teaching our children, from an early age to start saving and producing instead of being wasteful consumers. Of course consumerism doesn’t apply only to African Americans, this is an American problem. But, blacks tend to do the majority of spending. Here’s how it affect us economically: By consuming so much and producing so little while also not saving any money (the average American saves less than 3% of their income), households tend to spend more than they earn.Which means that most households are living on borrowed money a.k.a debt. All to fuel their consumer lifestyle. But the doesn’t stop there. The government is no better. They (the govt.) has to borrow money from other countries (countries who were responsible enough to save and create a surplus) in order to fund consumer demand. So we end up importing more than exporting, which creates a trade deficit. A deficit that’s been running every year (except one year) since the 70′s. That’s not a huge problem in the short term, but it definitely is in the long-term. Why? Because foreigners own a lot part of American debt, and that obviously can’t continue forever. Now we’ve covered the basic economic effect of consumerism. Now the question is: what do I mean by producing? This simply means creating things instead of consuming. The foreigners (including the Africans) have no problem coming to America and becoming producers. But your average black American laugh and make fun of them, but then are jealous a few years down the road when those same foreigners are living pretty well.

I see parents buy some of the most expensive clothes and other items for their children, when they barely have enough to live on as it is. Infant babies wearing Jordan’s. Really!? Never mind that they’re gonna grow out of them in a month. So, this is what we’re teaching our kids…to be label whores and high-dollar consumers. It’s not smart to have every single big name product in every category when you’re living in the projects or in some apartment. Just saying! How about trying to OWN something instead of trying to look good by making someone else rich and wearing their name? But of course this stuff goes a lot deeper than what I’ve explained. As black youth, we see rappers and other celebrities sporting these big-ticket items to suggest that’s what it takes to be “cool.” Of course that is no excuse, but I point that out because some of us may not be aware of how something so simple can have such a huge impact on our lives.

Knowing what I know now, if I could go back to that event in 1997 where my mom bought me the expensive Jordans and matching jersey, I’d tell her NOT to, but instead, put that money toward something more useful and economical. When I look back on my life today and think about the torment I suffered as a kid due to not being a walking billboard for companies, I feel no regrets. In fact, it taught me to be strong, because now in my adult years, I don’t care about name brand stuff, labels, or rocking high-dollar items just to impress others. I live a very frugal, conservative life. I probably own more books than I do outfits and shoes combined.

Back to a point I made earlier — we’ve got to teach our children to be financially responsible. I don’t want to hear any bullshit about “no one taught me, so I can’t teach my children.” That’s nothing but an excuse. If you don’t break the cycle, it’d be pretty unrealistic to expect your child to. It has to start somewhere. Besides, it’s not too late for YOU.

In closing, I’d like to mention a story I heard involving Oprah Winfrey. I haven’t verified this story yet, but, it still makes the point of this article. The story goes — Oprah supposedly built a school in an African village. African Americans were outraged and labeled Oprah all kinds of vicious “sell-out” type of insults. They said, “why would she build a school in Africa when black students in America can use schools?” I was told that Oprah, in response said, “When I asked the kids in Africa what they wanted, they wanted a school so that they can learn. But when I asked black American kids what they wanted, they wanted clothes, shoes and other material things.” Now think about that…..

Thanks for reading!

Sean Tudor Carter

“We live in deeds, not years. In thoughts not breaths, in feelings, not in figures on a dial.”

Sean Tudor Carter is an experienced investor, entrepreneur, research and writer for the Young & Opulent Group, a company formed to serve the needs of up and coming entrepreneurs, investors, and scholars who wish to reach opulent goals and stay consciously afloat in these fast changing times.

Why Privatizing Schools Would Be Beneficial

The foregoing was originally written in November of 2012:

Earlier today, I went to check my mail only to find that it contained a junkmail flyer titled, “Conservatives Against Obama! Millionaires and Billionaires Want to Make Schools Private For Profit.” This was nothing more than socialist propaganda using class as their tool of choice in order to brainwash the reader and once again proving how clueless Obama supporters are. I also heard of people receiving a similar flyer, except about the post office. It really amazes me how stupid these socialist liberals think we are. Actually, some people ARE that stupid, but some of us are well informed. Those that are well informed will see through propaganda such as that I received in the mail. So I’m gonna tell you why a private school system would benefit society, not only monetarily but also on a personal level.


But first, let me explain the difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism is a system in which the government controls the majority of the country’s enterprise. In other words, a lot of the companies are owned by that country’s government. China would be a great example (although China is starting to allow more of citizens to own businesses). Capitalism on the other hand is a system in which most of the country’s enterprise is controlled by private owners. In other words, most businesses in a capitalist society are owned by private citizens. Now it becomes obvious why people have always referred to the American economy as a system of free enterprise because again, most companies are owned and created by the citizens — not the government (as in socialism). Capitalism is the reason America had the biggest economic expansion ever witnessed in the world’s history. America believed so much in capitalism at one point that The Federal Reserve, our nation’s central bank, is a privately owned company. But now, the tables have turned. The government is involved in more enterprise than probably ever before. As recent as 08, after the financial crisis, government bailouts (with your tax money) lead to companies being nationalized (taken over by government). We are as close to being a socialist society as we have ever been.

Now that we’ve made the distinction between capitalism and socialism, let’s discuss how privatizing schools would benefit our society. First off, the government is nothing more than a body of people who provide services to a nation. With that in mind, the government eventually took over the American school system (providing a service). Before then, most Americans were either home schooled or attended private schools. During that time, Americans were better educated, not only academically but they understood how things worked in the real world as well. But since the government has taken over the educational system, the quality of education in America has diminished severely. Its to the point where high school graduates can barely read, they only understand math on a rudimentary level and they have no clue what’s going on around them unless they see it on TV. Don’t believe me? Check the statistics! This in turn lowers the level of intelligence of Americans, and decreases the amount of skilled workers in the labor force. Since the governments runs the schools, you’re unable to demand that public schools provide a better education for your child. This also makes it easier for governments to program the mind of the young in order to brainwash them with their own propaganda (but that’s beyond the scope of this article).

But most of you probably don’t even care about the quality of education your child receives, because after all, it’s free! Right? Nah, that’s a lie. Whether you know it or not, you’re paying for your child to attend public school. The money to fund public schools comes out of your taxes. Quick question: what do companies typically do when they want to gain an edge over their competitors? They usually offer to provide better service/product at a lower price. Now imagine a chain of privately owned schools by different companies. Under such a system, the same thing would occur in any other business. More privately owned schools would mean more competition between schools. More competition would mean schools fighting their hardest to provide the highest quality education for the lowest possible price. Just like any other business, if you were unsatisfied with their service, you could file a complaint. After all, you are the customer. But you don’t have that luxury in the monopolistic government-run public fool system (shout out to Djehuty Ma’at-Ra). A higher quality education at a lower price, once again, would raise American workers to the top of the world’s most skilled workers…something we’ve been lacking for quite some time now.

Another benefit you’d receive is paying less in taxes. Earlier I told you that the government is an entity that provides services to a nation at a fee, usually in the form of taxes. By now, it should be obvious that the less services government provides, the less you’ll pay in taxes. If the schools were in the hands of the private sector instead of the government, that’s one less tax you’d have to pay. Not only that, by privatizing most industries, more capital would flow throughout the economy instead of sitting idle, which would put a lot of skilled Americans back to work. You’re not trying to hear that because you all are being brainwashed into thinking a socialism is the answer. Its easy to sell the idea of socialism to a bunch of lazy people who think the government and the wealthy should take care of them. Keep it up and we’re gonna end up like China — a socialist AND communist society and you all are gonna ask for it. But…that’s another topic.

The fact that most American citizens don’t know the difference between a capitalistic and socialist society and are allowing politicians to take their rights away by disguising their intentions as charity, by itself explains why the public school system has failed us and needs to be eliminated. More private companies (not just schools) would mean higher quality of products and services in America which would in turn lead to more American prosperity. More companies competing to win customers is always good for the general public, even in the school system. Its a sad FACT that the majority of people that are super successful in American society are successful only after they’ve unlearned what the public fool system has taught them, which comes as a result of their own independent studies. But if you want to believe that your child’s education is worth the illusion of free education, then I’m powerless to stop you from thinking in such ways. But I have, however, provided you with the truth.

Thanks for reading!

Sean Tudor Carter

“We live in deeds, not years. In thoughts not breaths, in feelings, not in figures on a dial.”

Sean Tudor Carter is an experienced investor, entrepreneur, research and writer for the Young & Opulent Group, a company formed to serve the needs of up and coming entrepreneurs, investors, and scholars who wish to reach opulent goals and stay consciously afloat in these fast changing times.

Survival Of The Unfittest?

“The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated.” - Gordon Gekko

The natural law of nature has always been Survival Of The Fittest. We can even observe that law in effect in the animal kingdom. But in America, we’ve decided to reverse the law and make it Survival of the Unfittest. I don’t really get political, but I have to in order to get my point across. These past 4 years, Democrats have worked diligently to create a society where we reward people for being consumers while punishing the producers. The Obama campaign has done a hell of a job of diverting attention away from the fact that this country is in terrible financial shape, but instead, has turned it into a class war. But don’t get it twisted, we’ve been going down this path for quite some time now…ever since “The New Deal” was struck during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration.

Now people are too focused on rich vs. poor to notice that they’re being setup to take the fall again. The rich vs. poor angle works well for the Obama camp because its an emotional angle which gets people to vote out of emotion instead of logic. Its the Robin Hood approach. People are angry at the rich, but they forget that its the rich who provide the jobs in which they work, who produced the homes in which they live, the cars they drive, every gadget they use, etc. Those are producers and yes, they deserve tax breaks. So not only do you want the rich to produce everything which you use to live, but you want them to take care of you too? If it weren’t for the rich producing these things, you’d still be building homes by hand and hunting for food. If any of the complainers have ever studied the tax code (which I doubt any have done), they’d see that our tax system rewards producers!

Get your attention off the rich vs. poor nonsense and focus on the financial health of our country. We’ve reached a record deficit in these past 4 years ($16 Trillion). That’d be okay if our currency were strong, since a strong currency is good for imports, but it isn’t. But you can’t have a deep deficit and a strong currency at the same time. Countries like China and Japan can have a weak currency because they’re exporting nations. Our currency is weak and yet we insist on importing more than we export, which creates a trade deficit. We consume more than we produce which creates a budget deficit, because we import not only goods from other countries, but investment capital as well. Who do you think owns most government debt a.k.a Treasury Bills? Government spending, instead of employing austerity measures, is putting us even deeper in the hole. That’s exactly what this administration continues to do. Spend, spend, spend instead of saying enough is enough. Now they’ve snuck a huge tax increase in the mix which you asked for without knowing. But YOU are fine with that, right? We may not see the long-term impact our actions have today, but we’re putting generations that have yet to be born in debt! The snuck that tax increase in because they disguised it as them taking from the rich to give to the poor. And you fell for it. Click the HERE to hear a full explanation of how detrimental Obamacare really is

So this is what its come to? The current administration would also like for every child to attend college without financial worry. Sounds good in theory, right? But here’s the kicker: People can agree with this current administration’s fascist message if they want, but they’re failing to ask where’s the money gonna come from to pay for every child’s education? It’s gonna come from YOU in the form of higher taxes. People love Obama’s Robin Hood mentality but fail to realize that its gonna cost THEM in the end. Besides, what happened to parents saving for their kid’s college education? Oh, I forgot. The parents are too busy buying big screen TVs, homes they can’t afford, financing every new model vehicle, buying expensive clothes, etc. But they want someone to pay for their child’s college education? People are a joke.

Everyone wants freedom, but at the same time, they want the government to do everything for them. You can’t have it both ways. Excessive government intervention is NOT the way its supposed to be. The government intervening in free markets (and economies) means giving up rights. It also means taxing YOU to a high degree. So you have two choices. Either you can take responsibility for your own life in every possible way which limits government interference and gives you more rights, or you can let the government do everything for you (good ole Keynesian methods), and let them dictate your world for you. The choice is yours.

 

We need to go back to survival of the fittest where every man and woman produces. We need to end the days of taking care of those who WON’T do anything for themselves. Its the only way we can survive. I’m sure a lot of you want to go places in life and are working hard to get there. If that’s the case, then how do you feel about being punished for your success when you finally make it just because someone somewhere don’t want to get off their butt and produce? We’ve tried that exact approach for too long and look where its got us….

The Law of Success – 1925 Edition

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THIS BOOK, CONTACT ME AT MY NEW SITE: WWW.THEBESTINVESTMENT.NET
FYI: CONTACT ME ONLY IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO MAKE A  PURCHASE. NO EXCEPTIONS.

By now, I’m sure many of you have heard about the The Law of Success 1925 Edition by Napoleon Hill. For those that are unfamiliar with this edition, this is the one that was never released to the public. The mass market Law of Success, the one readily available in stores, was published in 1928. This is NOT the one from Orne Publishing (the one from the infomercial). This is a new and improved edition. For the record, I used to sell the Law of Success from Orne Publishing. Despite that, I’m gonna offer no bias statements. I’m simply gonna tell it like it is.

Here’s the story behind The Law of Success. In 1908, Napoleon Hill was given an assignment by a magazine for which he was then working. Hill's assignment was to compile a story on successful men of that period. His first interview was Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in the world at that time. During the interview, Mr. Carnegie was so impressed by Hill that he extended the amount of time which he'd originally granted Hill to conduct the interview and even allowed Hill to sleep at his home. After the second interview, Carnegie offered Hill the task of devoting 20 years to interviewing, living with and studying the richest people in the world, and compiling all of their “secrets” into a success philosophy. Carnegie went on to explain that Hill would have to pay his own way for that 20 years with no financial assistance from him. Carnegie's reasoning was that: If Hill is going to write a book on success, then he should be able to prove through real world experience those he's applied those principles successfully himself. Which, in my opinion, was a very wise point of view by Mr. Carnegie.

After accepting Mr. Carnegie’s assignment, Hill then spent the next 20+ years interviewing business magnates such as John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Marshall Field, Harvey Firestone, J.P. Morgan, W.M. Wrigley, Jr., John Wanamaker, and so on. In other words, Napoleon Hill interviewed the Billionaires of the early 1900′s. After gathering the knowledge from these powerful, successful men, Hill then created The Law of Success philosophy. In 1925, Mr. Hill made somewhere around 100 manuscripts (which came in 15 booklets, pictured above), and issued them to some of the people whom he interviewed for review. Here’s where the story gets tricky. It’s a well known fact that this version of The Law of Success never hit the market. There are two stories floating as to why this never came to be.

Story #1: This story has been made popular by Kevin Trudeau. The story goes: the super wealthy men who Napoleon Hill studied and interviewed, who were all supposedly members of a secret society called "The Brotherhood," read the manuscripts and concluded that they didn't want this book released because they didn’t want their secrets revealed to the masses. So, the group got together (lead by Henry Ford) and had the book squashed and edited down to what we know as the 1928 edition and then watered down even more to Think & Grow Rich. This story doesn't make sense, in my opinion, but I’m including it because a lot of people have heard this version of events. I say that because --- if the interviewees didn't want their secrets revealed to the masses, why reveal their secrets to Hill in the first place? Secondly, why would Henry Ford spearhead a censorship of Hill's work when he contributed to the creation of it's content more than anyone? According to Trudeau, the only reason those men freely shared their secrets with Hill is because they were under the impression that Hill was an apprentice of Andrew Carnegie and had no idea that Hill was actually writing a book.

Story #2: Napoleon Hill edited The Law of Success to remove religious references and to keep a promise to Andre Carnegie. If you were to read the 1925 Edition, you’d see that he explains how the Law of Success philosophy (including Universal Laws) are related to biblical teachings. He even goes on to mention Jesus’ name a few times. Mr. Carnegie had originally asked Hill not to include any form of religion, due to the fact that it might offend some people. So it’s been said that Mr. Hill went back and removed most religious references before publishing the mass market edition in 1928. Hill also held out til 1928 in order to keep his promise to Mr. Carnegie — that of spending 20 years (1908-1928) working on the Law of Success philosophy. To be honest, I think this story holds more weight because I noticed the difference in both books.

To put it in plain and simple language my overall opinion on The Law of Success is this: If you want to achieve success in any undertaking, this is the most important book you’ll ever read in your life.
The difference between this (the 1925 Edition) and the 1928 Edition is slight, but great. There’s no night and day difference between the two editions, to be honest. But the slight differences do matter a lot. In my opinion, the 1928 Edition is a great book, but it loses much of it’s value because there seems to be a lot of filler content. It’s kind of easy to miss the most important parts of the book because of all the stuff in between. Whereas, in the 1925 Edition, Mr. Hill just gets straight to the point. Every single sentence contains meaningful content. That by itself makes the 1925 Edition the better book. Here’s another change that was made: Lesson five in the 1925 Edition is a lesson on ACTION, but that lesson wasn’t included in the 1928 Edition. The Mastermind introduction, which was in the 1928 Edition wasn’t in the 1925 edition. Instead, the concept of the Mastermind alliance was talked about in virtually every chapter to illustrate how that concept tied into every lesson.

Those are the main differences. After reading this book and understanding it, you’ll understand why people are rich and why people are poor. You’ll be able to analyze someone whose wealthy and tie everything that they say and do to a principle taught in The Law of Success. It really amazes me how differently I view the world after understanding this philosophy. If you’re looking for a blueprint or a roadmap (not a shortcut) to success, this is it. The knowledge contained in this book isn’t something Napoleon Hill just conjured up and put into a book. These are the words of the richest people who ever lived. These people gave Mr. Hill intimate details and access to how they created their fortunes. Napoleon Hill was quoted as saying, about the principles he was taught by the people he interviewed, “When these techniques were applied, the money came so fast and in such large quantities that it frightened me.”

Here’s another interesting note. There’s a section in this book which explains techniques that the government around the world use to control the minds of their citizens. Even today, those same techniques are still being used. So, as you can see, this book isn’t just about making money, it’s about opening your eyes to the truth.

One last thing. If you’ve ordered the 1925 Law of Success by Orne Publishing, then you’ll definitely love this one even more. The one by Orne Publishing was edited (which I didn’t know at the time). It omitted the names of some people that Napoleon Hill referred to and omitted other key elements. This book is also made of a higher quality material than the Orne book. So, not only are you getting Napoleon Hill’s words in their original form, you’re getting a book made with high quality material. Included with your order also will be an essay written by Napoleon Hill in 1915 which was also never released to the public. I’ll throw that in as a bonus.

If you live outside of the U.S., please contact me before ordering. This is not an affiliate program, so you’ll be buying directly from me. If you want a new and improved copy of The Law of Success 1925 Edition, click below to order your copy.

The Fallacy Of Searching For The Perfect Mate

I’m writing this article, because I think I am going to scream the next time I hear someone complain about being single because they haven’t found that “perfect” man or woman. I’ve actually engaged a few of these type of people in conversation and their entire way of thinking is off. Its funny how people will admit they themselves aren’t perfect, but they can’t seem to fathom the idea that no one else is perfect either. That doesn’t even make sense, to me. But these people continue to search for their perfect mate. Years pass and they end up meeting lots of good people, but the first time a person shows any imperfection, they’re quick to dismiss the person. But, they expect to find someone to accept their imperfections. But anyways, why are you even seeking  a relationship? Do you even know what a relationship is? Let’s discuss that briefly.

What is a relationship? First, let’s look at the root word in “relationship,” which is: relate. I’m not gonna insult your intelligence by telling you what it means to relate to someone (some of you probably don’t know). So, a relationship is when two people are able to RELATE to each other better than anyone else could. In addition to relating to each other, the two should be adding value to each other’s lives. If the two of you aren’t relating and adding value to each others lives, then you don’t have a relationship. It’s really that simple. All I see are people focusing strictly on themselves (such as the person who want a perfect mate when they aren’t perfect themselves). They’re only focused on what they can get out of it. There are two types of relationships, by the way. One is general, which is the friendship type. Then there’s the serious/committed type, which is what we’re discussing. The difference is: friends relate to each other in a general way, and lovers relate to each other intimately. When two people relate to each other in a state of harmony, the result is synergistic. Hence the term “soul mate.” You should now understand why being with someone to further your own self-interest never works. It’s impossible to be in a true, loving relationship if you only care about yourself. This is why the selfish are always lonely. A relationship is about the two of you connecting on a higher level and adding value to each others lives. To put it in another way: the two of you are looking to become one. There’s some deep metaphysics behind this which I’ll probably discuss in a later article.

Now let’s discuss the fallacy of searching for the perfect mate.

The reason a lot of people have such a hard time finding the mate they desire is because they are searching for perfection instead of compatibility. In truth, your ideal mate will possess at most 80% of the qualities you desire. Needless to say, the 20% will be qualities you may not find desirable. That’s compatibility. Perfection is looking for someone who has every single trait you desire without being willing to compromise on a single thing. The trick is finding someone who’s 20% you can realistically deal with and still be happy. Its possible to find someone with 80% of the qualities you desire, but their 20% makes being with that person unbearable. Their 20% could be that they’re abusive, prone to infidelity, not supportive of your goals, etc. We can all admit that no sensible person would date someone with those qualities, no matter what their 80% consists of.

Don’t get it twisted, there are people who stay in relationships in which their partner mistreats them, because they’ve been blinded by the 80%. They can’t stop thinking about how good that person WAS to them when they first met and still is when their 20% isn’t taking over. That’s not what I’m recommending here. I’m not saying you should get with a person who has 80% of the qualities you desire and suffer that person’s bad treatment on the 20% end. Not at all.

That’s why I said that the trick is finding someone who’s 20% is something you can truly still with and still be happy. For example, a person might like to watch a lot of sports and you’re not into sports. They like to party and you’re a homebody. You prefer someone who can cook and they don’t know how. You’d prefer someone who looks like they stepped out of a magazine and they look like your average person. You want someone who’s well off financially and they haven’t gotten to where they want to be career-wise but is working on it. You’re a christian and they’re an Atheist (if you let your religious beliefs determine who you’d be with, you deserve to be lonely). I could go on, but you get the point. There is room for small disagreements…for lack of a better word. You could actually learn something in the process. Besides, who REALLY wants to be with a person possesses every single quality they desire? I’d imagine that would be pretty boring.

Another thing I want to touch on before I conclude this discussion. I’ve seen people find a mate who possess that perfect 80/20 combination of qualities they desire, but they couldn’t get over the 20% even though the 20% wasn’t anything bad per se. They then begin to believe the grass is greener on the other side, so they find someone else who possesses the missing 20% their mate is lacking. But after some time passes, they realize that the person they’re having an affair with possesses ONLY that missing 20% and nothing else.  Then realize what a mistake they’ve made giving up their 80% mate for someone who only had the missing 20%. Don’t let that be you.

In closing, I’d like to advise you to let go of the idea that there’s a perfect man or woman out there for you. There may be a perfect man/woman in the sense that their 80% vastly outweighs their 20% to the point where you don’t even care that 20% of them you found undesirable at some point. But to think you’re gonna find someone who has EVERYTHING you want is Grade-A bullshit and will keep you single. But in our society, Hollywood plays a huge role in pushing this belief, especially on women, that there’s a man out there who will be their Knight in Shining Armor. These movies have caused women to expect the men they meet to compete with fictional characters, which is impossible. That is, by the way, why I could never date a woman who’s deep into Hollywood romance. So from now on, remember the 80/20 rule.

Secret Investments of the Fortune 500

Within the last century or two, finance, risk, and financial markets have taken on a new precedence. Mathematicians, street merchants, and trend makers have introduced new financial instruments that are comparable to the discovery of nuclear physics. Names like currency options, stock options, commodity options, and derivatives have yet to be comprehended fully by the average person. Ironically, these misunderstood financial abstracts are responsible for the real wealth in the world not oil, gold, vehicles, or anything related to the gross domestic product.

Now, imagine opening the paper and you read, “Allied-Lyons loses $270 million”, “Air Product & Chemicals loses $113 million”, and “Metallgesellschaft suffered loses over $1.34 billion”. When asked to elaborate (as these are not operational based losses), all of these companies refuse, and maintain silence. What happened?

One of the best kept secrets of corporate America: some of the biggest name companies are trading with advanced financial instruments. Big names like Ford, Procter & Gamble, and Air Products & Chemicals have been found trading not only for profit, but for financial insurance. According to the paper “Use of Foreign Exchange and Interest Rate Risk Management in Large Firms” by Professor Walter Dolde, 85.2% of Fortune 500 companies use derivative securities. Yes, you heard it right, around 85% of large firms are trading in derivatives. Some sources say General Motors, used currency options to pay the principal on the bond/loans they were granted. I mean, this is going on all around the corporate world. Derivatives and other trading are now as important or more important than marketing, production, and Research and Development segments.

This is not old, but it is definitely not anything new. Corporate entities have always had trading rooms, and financial teams that dealt with the markets. Shareholders have no idea what is going on in due part to the lack of financial accounting laws, and regulations. Usually shareholders are kept in the dark until they learn the business has lost millions (sometimes billions) of dollars in some type of complicated financial trade. On the flip side, companies are also generating millions and billions of unaccounted profit via financial markets. It goes both ways.

Why are these companies doing this? They are doing this to minimize risk and capture economic advantages. Its called hedging, which in my eyes, is not your “typical” hard-nosed investing.
Derivatives (remember 85% of large firms are involved in derivatives), like the mathematical function, are none other than financial packages that protect against potential risk.

Lets look at an example: A baking company need to buy wheat in order to produce some of its goods. The company knows that wheat prices fluctuate based on season and other factors. Being financially savvy, a representative from the banking company buys something called a “wheat future”, which allows them to lock in a steady price NO MATTER how the price of wheat fluctuates. It’s that simple!

Do you now see why companies are interested in derivatives like options, futures, and mortgage backed securities? It potentially protects companies from loss, in minimizes risk and costs. Don’t be fooled though, there are obvious downsizes to this, as evidenced by the reported losses.
Is this information important to know? Of course. The world is changing. No longer are “investors” and “traders” using simple financial instruments to boost profits and stay ahead. They are using complex instruments to make profit. The companies are trading for profit! These are billion dollars deals, many of these people are taking home millions of dollars in bonuses. Don’t you think you should understand what’s going on here?

Essentially, if you are an entrepreneur and you are going to be opening up any type of company that deals with commodities, goods, or products, then you can benefit from having someone on the team who can deal with derivatives.

On the flip side, every citizen needs to be aware of what is going on in their perspective country. Its called awareness. If top companies are trading derivatives, if most of the world’s wealth is held in this abstract market, then obviously, one should understand what is going on. There is all kinds of politics behind this phenomena, and some even call it toxic finance, a type of finance that could end the civilized world as we know it, if done incorrectly.

For more information, go to your local library and ask for the section on derivatives, options, and foreign exchange trading. I recommend the book “The Vandals’ Crown: How Rebel Currency Traders Overthrew The World’s Central Banks.”

Remember, we cannot cover a complex subject like derivatives, and its connection to Fortune 500 companies in a single blog post! My research on the topic is enough to fill a book.

Sean Tudor Carter is an experienced investor, entrepreneur, research and writer for the Young & Opulent Group, a company formed to serve the needs of up and coming entrepreneurs, investors, and scholars who wish to reach opulent goals and stay consciously afloat in these fast changing times.

Voting Is One Of The Greatest Lies Ever Told

Personally, I don’t vote, and people look at me like I’m crazy when I tell them that. They say, “You’ve got to vote! Your one vote can make a huge difference!” I usually laugh because they’ve fallen for one of the greatest lies ever told (voting started with good intentions, which I’ll address later in the article). The #1 reason I don’t vote, which is a personal reason, is because there’s nothing a politician can do for me that I can’t do for myself.

But aside from that — What people don’t realize is that the power to change America hardly lies in Washington. The steps that need to be taken to fix our system, there is no politician bold enough to actually implement those steps. Instead, they’re gonna keep lying to you and telling you that they’re gonna stimulate the economy by flooding it with more cash because that’s all they can do. They call this “stimulus.” When it comes down to the bare essentials of the economy, who do you think sets the rules? The free markets does! It is the traders who determine how the economy runs. Traders decide the price you’ll pay for food, the price of precious metals, what you’ll pay at the pump, the value of currencies, etc. Washington has no say in it. In fact, Washington answers to the markets. Believe it or not, politicians are nothing but fronts (or pawns) for the big players in the markets.

Here’s a quote by Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas) from the 1987 movie “Wall Street.” That quote puts everything in perspective.

“The richest one percent of this country owns half our country’s wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It’s bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you’re not naive enough to think we’re living in a democracy, are you buddy? It’s the free market. And you’re a part of it. You’ve got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I’ve still got a lot to teach you.”

Now you can take that statement to the bank! Free markets run the economy, not governments. Politicians (especially presidents) are personally selected by the big market players. These market players put into office people that are going to create favorable circumstances on their behalf. For example, President Obama was selected by Investment Bank Goldman Sachs (GS) to become president. How did that benefit GS, you might ask? Put it this way — GS was one of the key figures responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. GS along with other banks, sold faulty securities known as “Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS)” to investors. These securities’ value derived from the underlying mortgage of homeowners. To make a long story short, when people began to default on their mortgages, these MBS instantly became toxic investments. Because of this, GS knew the market was going to collapse and actually bet against the market they’d helped to create. GS was stuck with a lot of this toxic debt themselves. As a result, GS along with other banks and Insurance Companies talked George Bush into bailing them out through the $700 Billion Dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). President Bush’s term was about to be up before they could make TARP official, so GS then chose President Obama to to be president because they knew he’d pass TARP along with other favorable incentives. If you don’t believe me, do the research. You’ll see that Goldman Sachs was President Obama’s biggest financial supporter. Through that real life example, you can see that big market players choose who become President, not the citizens. Now let’s talk about why government is damn near powerless in effecting the economy….

When prices start rising as a result of supply and demand and the government devaluing the dollar, you begin to hear words like “price gouging.” They want you to believe that prices are rising because merchants are just being greedy (that is true in some cases), but in reality, its just the natural effect of supply and demand and the result of the dollar's devaluation. Then governments try to enforce price limits, which causes even more damage. Then when prices come down as a result of supply and down, they want you to believe it was because of them. By now, this should prove to you that politicians don’t control the economy.

So, basically, people have been duped into believing they actually have a voice in politics. There was once a time when presidents looked out for the good of the country. During this time, the only people allowed to vote were tax payers, before that, only male land owners were allowed to vote. In my opinion, that’s the way it should have remained (with the exception of the male only part), simply because those groups of people had more at stake to lose if they chose an incompetent president. The founding fathers believed that by granting voting privileges only to land owners, that would allow only the most informed and personally invested citizens to vote — with which I agree.

Just take a look at the voting system today. If a politician wants to win an election, only thing he or she has to do is promise the more handouts than their opponent…that’s it. Want a real world example? Sure. Why do you think the Obama administration has so much support? Because Obama’s supporters aren’t personally invested in the economy. They want to snatch away the wealth of those that are invested without doing any of the work. Their intention is to play bottom feeder. That’s your typical Obama voter. I know Obama zealots (who are typically ignorant as to how things work) are going to get highly upset, but ask me if I give a fuck.

My advice? Fuck politics, study economics. Preferably the Austrian School of Economics, NOT the Keynesian system. That is because knowing economics allows you to see through the lies politicians tell. With a solid understanding of how an economy works, its easy to tell when a politician is promising something they can’t possibly deliver on. If people were smart, they see that’s exactly what’s happening with the current election.

Conclusion: The fact of the matter is that the economy is going to do what it’s going to do and there’s nothing a politician can do to stop the inevitable. They’d like for you to believe that they have the power to influence an economy, but that’s false. They only have the power to ruin it. When you vote, you’re simply selecting who’s gonna either speed up the destruction or postpone it. The best way to avoid this trap is to get educated on how an economy works and why. That way, you won’t be dependent on politicians to do for you what you can do for yourself if you take advantage of being a player in the free markets.

Recommended Reading:

Gold Standard vs. Debt-Free Fiat Currency

Recently, I've been listening to advocates from both the gold-money crowd and the debt-free fiat money crowd. Personally, I've always thought that the gold-standard was the best policy under which to issue money, but I've heard fiat-money supporters make a compelling argument in favor of a debt-free fiat money. In this article, I'm gonna discuss what I think are the pros and the cons of both. First we're gonna discuss two major problems which plagues our money system today which would support the argument in favor of fiat money.

Fiat money supporters believe that the solution to monetary reform would be to grant government the power to issue a paper currency and for government to also control the quantity of that currency. Their belief is that if government were to control the issuance of money, there wouldn't be any debt owed to pay to a central bank. As it currently stands, all money in circulation has to be borrowed into existence through The Federal Reserve (our nation's central bank) with interest attached, which puts government in a debt that it could never repay. That is why I laugh when politicians discuss their plans to pay off the national debt. Their commentary may impress those that don't understand how money works, but I know better. Paying off the national debt would be impossible without taking ALL of the nation's money out of circulation. And if that were to happen, we're looking at a global economic collapse.

This very same crowd also believes that banks should operate under the full reserve lending system. Currently, we operate under what it known as Fractional Reserve Banking (FRB). FRB allows a bank to lend far more than they have in actual reserves. For instance, if a bank holds $100 in actual deposits or reserves, they can lend out $900. When they approve you for a $100k mortgage with a small down payment, they just type the remainder in the computer and the money is there. Essentially creating money out of thin air. The majority of the money in circulation (or that we think is in circulation) was created in this manner. This allows a bank to collect interest on money that they don't even have. A bank can collect interest on $100k while only holding reserves of $1k for that $100k. This scheme works just as long as depositors never withdraw their money in large amounts at once....a run on the bank.

Now that we have those two issues out of the way, let's talk about the gold standard. First, there was the gold standard, in which each paper dollar (note) represented a fixed amount of gold. These notes were convertible into actual gold coins. Then came the Bretton Woods agreement, which worked like this:

Under the Bretton Woods Agreement (BWA), the U.S. Dollar was redeemable in gold (except domestically). The fixed price of gold was $35 an ounce (today gold is $1252.20 an ounce as I type this), and one U.S. dollar was the equivalent of 1/35th of an ounce of gold. During this time, The Federal Reserve could print only enough money to match the country's gold reserves. For example, if they had one ounce of gold in storage, they could only print $35. As you can see, the gold standard provided stability to our currency. Now comes the BWA. Under this agreement, it was determined that the U.S. Dollar would become the world's reserve currency due to it being linked to gold. In a sense, that would link all the other country's currency to gold as well. The U.S. til this day is still the world's reserve currency, despite the abolition of the gold standard.

We've outlined the basics, which should give you a full understanding of each point being discussed, now let's get into which system would make the better monetary system. The argument from the fiat-money crowd is that since gold is controlled by the world's central banks, issuing money backed by gold would still put control of our money supply into the hands of a small group of bankers. I can't argue with that. However, gold does have a proven track record of providing economic stability. But...the economy was still subject to manipulation (systematic crashes) even under the gold standard by simply contracting the nation's money supply --- this is exactly what caused the great depression. But an economy that uses fiat money is even easier to manipulate. There have been historical accounts of countries simply flooding a rival country with counterfeit money, thereby causing massive inflation.

Now we have the issue of inflation. Gold money has had a history of keeping inflation in-check, whereas, economies with fiat money would experience periods of hyperinflation. This goes back to fiat money being very prone to manipulation. Since fiat-money can be printed without limit (due to the fact that it isn't tied to anything with intrinsic value), governments will print money and use inflation as a hidden tax on the public. Under the gold standard, government didn't have that luxury. The money that government printed had to match their gold reserves. For instance, if the U.S. had 1 million ounces of gold at $35 an ounce, they could print only $35 million dollars.


Under the current system which the U.S. operates, the government DOES print money relentlessly, but that money has debt attached to it. Because of that, we've experienced rampant inflation over the years...since we dropped the gold standard in 1971. Inflation, by the way, typically occurs when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. The obvious solution to stabilize an economy with a large money supply would be to ramp up production. But as anyone can see for themselves, production and manufacturing has actually declined significantly in America. Most jobs that are being created are being created in the service sector. While at the same time, we import the goods that we consume instead of manufacturing them at home, and with a weak currency, that leads to a higher cost of living.

Let me ask you this --- do you think it's possible for a blue collar worker to raise 8 kids and support a wife in today's time? You might have answered "Hell No! Not unless you're wealthy." Well, prior to 1971, this was entirely possible because the cost of living remained stable due to a reasonable money supply and there were plenty of domestically made products to go around. I'm sure that anyone who grew up during the mid 1900's could validate what I've stated. 

In the end, it comes down to this:
I'm in favor of a money system in which the money is tied to a commodity of intrinsic value. It doesn't have to be gold. Just as long as it is a commodity that is in high demand. That way, the money actually represents an in-demand commodity that is redeemable. When you understand that, you will see that the money which you receive for your product or service isn't paper but a note representative of a commodity which you could actually use. With fiat money, it doesn't work that way. If there were ever a time where the government declared a fiat currency worthless, it would lose all of its value. It would be lights out!