There is Still Zero Evidence
I should begin by saying that I hope an independent investigation is conducted in the Trump/Russia connection. Not because I think it will yield any type of actionable results, quite the opposite.
Ever since the election the medias actions have been led by mass hysteria, easily disproven speculation, and the partisan message of "Today is the day that we've got just the thing that will impeach President Trump!"
I'm not sure why people keep falling for it. Let's see some evidence. It's true? Impeach him, draw and quarter him, hang him whatever. Until then, do some investigative reporting instead of subjective speculating ( I'm looking at you Rachel Maddow)
House Democrats will use an obscure legislative procedure known as a discharge petition on Wednesday to try to force a vote on a bill that would create an independent commission to investigate Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Unless more Republicans are persuaded to join calls for an independent commission, the longshot tactic is the best chance Democrats have to bring such a bill up for a vote in Congress.
What's a Discharge Petition?
Discharge petitions are the legislative equivalent of the "Advance to GO, Collect $200" Monopoly card — they allow a bill to skip past hearings, committee votes, Ventnor Avenue, and all the rest on the way to a final vote on passage. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have discharge petitions at their disposal, though the process works a little differently in each chamber of Congress.
In the House, a discharge petition can only be filed if the bill it pertains to has been idle for 30 legislative days, at which point supporters must gather the signatures of a majority of House members (218 normally but 216 now due to vacancies) in order to force the committee to release the bill. If supporters have met that signature threshold, and the committee doesn’t act within seven days, then the bill can be brought to the House floor for a vote.
Things get a little more complex in the Senate, where discharge petitions can be used for normal bills in addition to executive branch and judicial nominations (like for a Supreme Court vacancy). Legislation that’s the focus of a discharge petition can still be blocked by the filibuster, so supporters must have the backing of at least 60 Senators in the process to prevent it from being stopped.
What Does the Bill do?
Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-CA) Protecting Our Democracy Act, the bill that would be brought up for consideration if the discharge petition is successful, is pretty straightforward.
It would create an independent, 12-member commission similar to the one created after the 9/11 attacks that’d have the ability to interview witnesses, get documents, issue subpoenas, and hear public testimony. Once its investigation is complete, the commission would provide Congress and the president with a final report offering recommendations within 18 months of the bill’s enactment.
The commission would be made up of prominent U.S. citizens who’ve worked with distinction in government, law enforcement, the military, law, intelligence, elections, foreign affairs, and cybersecurity. No federal officials or employees would be eligible to participate, and members would be chosen by congressional leadership from both parties.
Will it Work?
It’s pretty unlikely, as it needs 216 supporters to get a majority in the House and only 200 lawmakers have announced their support for it. That being said, if more Republicans join their two colleagues who’ve cosponsored the Protecting Our Democracy Act it just might have a chance to reach the floor.
If it works, it'd be only the fourth time in the modern era that a discharge petition has been successfully used. Discharge petitions were used to approve a gun-rights bill backed by the NRA in 1986, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 2002, and by the House in 2015 in an early attempt to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
A snippet from The Jason Stapleton Show
YouTube Description:There are winners and losers. Jason Stapleton Program explains.
Don't forget to follow the Unofficial Jason Stapleton Recommended Reading List Twitterbot@JasonSuggests
Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout!
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of (politicians), too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us all to slavery." -Thomas Jefferson
The problem with the news today is they no longer provide an objective look at what happened. Instead, they provide a biased point of view and then tell you what to think and how to feel about it.
Instead, I'll cover two competing views on Republican Representative Justin Amash's YES vote on the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and allow you to make up your own mind. Haven't read it yet? I'll post it at the bottom of the article in an effort to declutter.
We'll first look at his decision and validate it against our Principle of "Constitutionalism". This allows us to determine whether the new AHCA bill is even valid, legal or constitutional.
The second way to critique Representative Amash's decision and look at his reasoning. We can then determine if the new AHCA incrementally takes us 'Closer to Liberty' or 'Closer to Tyranny'.
Is AHCA even Constitutional?
There is no gray area on this question. The AHCA Bill is either constitutional or it's not. If it's not, Rep Amash took an oath to uphold the constitution and failed by voting YES. A NO vote on an unconstitutional bill is a constitutional vote. A YES vote for an unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional vote.
The argument from those who uphold this principle of Constitutionality will claim that we even if AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare, his vote on a law that violates the Constitution should be an automatic NO.
They would also claim that just because this unconstitutional law is slightly better than the previous unconstitutional law, Libertarians have never been about voting for the lesser of two evils, Quite the opposite.
So is AHCA unconstitutional? Again, I won't tell you what to think but reading more on it should color your favorability (or not) or Rep Amash's vote. No one has ever been able to clearly articulate to me why the Robert's precedent made ObamaCare constitutional so I'm not the guy to give legal advice. Might I suggest a couple great articles:
Is Ryancare’s ‘Lapsed Coverage’ Surcharge Unconstitutional Under Roberts’s Obamacare Precedent?
Why I voted NO on the American Health Care Act - Representative Andy Biggs
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Does AHCA Take us Closer to Liberty or Closer to Tyranny?
Those who support Rep Amash's YES vote because "AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare" will typically claim that they are 'realists' in the room. They understand that we won't wake up tomorrow living in a libertarian society with a perfectly Free Market Health Care system. They argue that libertarians have to do what we can, when we can, to reduce the size of government, even if incrementally.
Rep Amash knows that a NO vote doesn't repeal ObamaCare, it's the law of the land. Realistically, he notes, a YES vote can at least get us started in a new direction, one towards Liberty.
This might be true even though I believe AHCA to be a monstrosity of legal code atop another monstrosity of legal code.
The problem is that for for the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. And now, even though they claim this is it, they are only amending ObamaCare, retooling the subsidies, taking out the individual mandate, and ensuring the government is the one who maintains power of the health care market.
The AHCA is bad politics for the Republicans and bad policy for Amash's name to be tied to. Why risk putting your name on a slightly better turd sandwich than the one you inherited? The one they all got elected on promising to repeal? The one they passed very clear Repeal Legislation on more than 50 times when they knew President Obama would just veto?
It seems to me that allowing the ill-effects of government intervention into the health care market only empowers those calling for Single Payer, a death knell for individual liberty and one that ensures increased scope of government and decreased quality of product.
My principles of Limited Government and Free Markets refuses to support AHCA. Part of me cheers knowing that it's not likely to pass the Senate in it's current form.
This is a tough one. I'd love to hear your thoughts below on whether your support the AHCA because 'at least it's a slightly better turd sandwich' or if you'd prefer a NO vote on it because 'Repeal ObamaCare or NOTHING'.
Would you be happy living with ObamaCare for another few years in an attempt to try to get full repeal? I'm not optimistic that any power given to the government is one that you'll see them give back without a long fight and without multiple electoral consequences for politicians.
Rep Justin Amash's Response
This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future.
Latest Fad: Indexing
Indexing has become the hottest trend in decades. Over the last two years, investors have purchased over 924 billion dollars in index funds. The largest index of all is the S&P 500 and is actively managed by the S&P 500 Committee at Standard and Poor’s. The S&P 500 is a market-weighted index; this means the bigger the company market capitalization, the larger percentage holding in the S&P 500 Index. The largest five stocks account for about 12% of the Index and the top ten stocks account for 20% of the index. On average, between ten and forty stocks are replaced every year.
The current concern with indexing is that everyone is doing it. For example, in 1999 the trend was to buy Cisco, Intel, Yahoo and Lucent. Today’s indexing trends are buying the same type of tech stocks such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, the top five companies in the index.
We have seen some research that indexing beats over 90% of the market over a ten to fifteen year period. How is it possible that a committee at Standard and Poor’s outwits 90% of the active fund managers? Either they are the smartest people in the world or something else is affecting the results. One answer is that they have about a small fee advantage. The more likely answer is that the S&P 500 has become the benchmark and most managers are either now indexing or shadowing the index. We are witnessing a replay of the Nifty 50 of the 1960s and the 1999 Tech Bubble, as market cap weighted indexes are all essentially utilizing the same fifty stocks.
Indexing Fails in Bear Markets
The effect to all of this is that a very substantial portion of the entire world is buying the same 500 stocks. Recent research found in contrast to the success in Bull Markets that in bear markets, index funds underperformed. Indexes were able to beat active managers between 34% - 38% of the time. In the next bear market, indexing will likely fare worse than those numbers because there is so much money concentrated in index funds. Despite the popularity of this latest fad, I believe over the next five years active managers will outperform the indexes market. Savvy investors will their funds with professional active managers, like MaxOut Savings Advisors.
Listeners of the MaxOut Savings Show know that we are very concerned about valuations in the stock market. One number that has been of particular concern is the price-to-sales ratio. As can be seen by the red line in the graph below the only time in recent history the price-to-sales number has been this high was in the 1999 Tech Bubble. The Price-to-Earnings ratio the number is not as close to the bubble peak but price-to-sales is. The likely reason for this discrepancy is that S&P 500 companies are over-earning by cutting costs and not investing in R&D or new plant and equipment. In effect, they are maximizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth.
The second line in the chart is the total equity market capitalization divided by the GDP. This number is also approaching the 1999 Tech Bubble high mark. The total market cap-to-GDP valuation parameter has been mentioned as a market valuation concern by the Federal Reserve recently. The bottom line the stock market is very expensive and priced for perfection. Signs point to a market correction, are your retirement assets professionally managed to help protect against losses during a market correction?
Notice we are at 1999 Tech Bubble peaks in both valuation parameters.
The Census Bureau chart below shows a huge jump in the percentage of young people living at home with their parents. In the United States today, there are more young adults living with their parents than there are young adults living with a spouse. We have had a generation trapped at home living with parents, a sad commentary on the jobless recovery we have had since 2008. The Federal Reserve and Barrack Obama were able create an asset bubble, but no jobs. Going forward, we should concentrate on job growth, not asset prices.
We should define success as providing a future for our children. As we all weather this period of economic uncertainty, it is more important than ever to enlist a financial advisor. Don’t leave your retirement savings at undue risk!
Tax Bill Outlook
We are starting to make real progress on the tax bill and Obama care. Expect to see some sort of deal to repeal Obamacare in the next couple of weeks in the House. It will then be sent to the senate where we could see more changes before it passes. The Trump Tax proposal is a great start. The cut in corporate taxes by 50% and programs to repatriate the almost $2 trillion in corporate cash overseas is very bullish for jobs in the economy. The middle class tax cuts will help middle class families.
The Trump proposal is somewhat different from the House proposal, put forth by Paul Ryan. Ryan would like a Boarder Adjustment Tax (BAT) and wants to eliminate the carried interest provision. Both will be very bullish for the US economy. It will take at least 5 to 6 months to pass a tax bill; in the interim, expect a stock market correction.
1958: Officer Bill gives Jimmy a stern lecture about listening to his parents and not running away from home, then brings him back. Jimmy's mom is so grateful, she bakes a pie and brings it to Officer Bill's house the next day.
2017: Unsupervised juvenile observed at 1300 hours. Juvenile taken into custody. Arrest warrant issued for negligent parents. SWAT team dispatched to residence. Front door accessed with battering ram. Family dog shot. Female suspect pepper sprayed. Male suspect tazed three times for refusing to immediately comply with orders. Male suspect then handcuffed and tazed again. After spending the night in jail, the parents are arraigned. The father is charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest and is sentenced to 30 days in the County Jail. The mother pleads to endangering the welfare of a child and gets 1 year probation. Jimmy is sent to foster care where he is molested for 5 years before committing suicide.
Jimmy Kimmel's kid had a hole in the heart and went to LA Children's Hospital. World renowned. Private. Non-profit funded by donations only. Doesn't even touch ObamaCare/TrumpCare.
No matter what the government does, it's adding a monstrosity of regulation on top of a monstrosity of regulation and prices will only rise.
I donated to LA Children Hospital when I saw Kimmel's story because I think it's important that we prove that the private, free market can cover these woes, while the government could give two shits about costs.
If stories like Jimmie Kimmel's tear at your heartstrings, like it did mine, it's immoral to sit by and think that government will take care of us. More than 85% of CHLA donations goes to care(higher administrative costs than a typical charity bc it's a hospital vice a 'fundraising' charity) whereas only half of my tax money trickles down into a health benefit for someone.
Put your money where your mouth is. These large influxes of private donations make headlines and prove the government 'assistance programs' aren't necessary.
Administrative costs: http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/America-s-Top-50-charities-How-well-do-they-rate
They say that authors are not the best judges of their greatest work. Only the wisdom of time can determine that. This seems especially true of Henry Hazlitt. Seventy years after he wrote Economics in One Lesson, the book is still going strong. Most recently, it was recommended by Mike Rowe:
Just last week, I heard Mike speak. He loves the real world – and I can understand his conviction of the sheer fakeness of the world imagined by politicians. Hazlitt shared that same view, and this comes through in the text.
This brings to mind one of the special moments in my life. Before his death in 1993, I sat in the back of a limousine on the way to dinner with Henry Hazlitt and discussed the book. I asked him if he felt pride that his book was still a best seller. He said that he did not, since he didn’t think it was very good. A book he felt genuinely proud of was Foundations of Morality – probably one of his least known works.
Pushed Out by the New York Times
Before starting his next job, Hazlitt decided to take a few weeks to write a primer on basic economics. His attitude is understandable when you consider the context in which Lesson was written. For twelve years, he had been writing daily editorials, mostly unsigned, for the New York Times. He was also writing book reviews under his own name for the Sunday paper. He was aware of the ideological conflicts at the paper. There were many partisans for the New Deal. He was not among them. But his status was protected there because of the desire for diversity of opinion.
But as the war was ending, the paper had to make a choice. Powerful elites had gathered to cobble together a post-war planning apparatus that included a world bank and a new system of monetary management. It was the new dollar standard – one not entirely divorced from gold, but the US dollar would be the only currency tied to gold. The rest of the developed world would tie their currencies to the dollar.
Hazlitt knew that it couldn’t work. The US was not in a position to determine the fiscal policies of other nations. They would not feel the discipline that gold would impose and would be incentivized to spend freely without facing downward currency pressure. This would ultimately cause gold outflows from the US as the demand for gold would rise, even as its dollar price was fixed. This would prompt unsustainable gold outflows. The imbalances would cry out for correction and the whole system would collapse.
Fired (Sort of)
Hazlitt explained this day after day. But as time went on, it became ever more clear that the Bretton Woods system was a foregone conclusion. The paper would have to adjust. The editor brought Hazlitt in and told him to stop editorializing against it. Hazlitt complied but also began to tidy his desk to prepare his resignation. He left in 1946.
His next job was writing for Newsweek, while also helping Leonard Read get the newly formed Foundation for Economic Education going. He had also become good friends with Ludwig von Mises, and eagerly anticipated serving as his literary champion.
It is doing for us in 2016 what it did for people in 1946: teaching the fundamental truths.But before starting his new job, Hazlitt decided to take a few weeks to write a primer on basic economics. After all, it was what the world needed now. He wrote it in a white heat, putting on paper all the apparatus he carried in his head. He avoided hard theory but jumped straight to the large lesson: economics is about the effects of policies on all groups over the long run, not isolated groups in the short run. He applied it as broadly as possible to all existing political and economic controversies.
Why does a book become a wild best seller? The title. The timing. The clarity of content. The benefit it provides to the reader. There are many reasons, and, for whatever reason, it all came together for Hazlitt in this one book. It would secure his reputation. To his private dismay, it would be the text that would define his legacy.
Since Rowe recommended it, FEE.org has been blowing up with hits and downloads of the book. Good. It is doing for us in 2016 what it did for people in 1946: teaching the fundamental truths. And given the way things are going in this election, which has provided frequent occasions for head-slapping for many months now, it is once again serving its intended purpose.
Economics must be taught anew in every generation. Hazlitt continues to be the world’s teacher.
Bretton Woods is long dead. But this book lives on.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email. Tweets by @jeffreyatucker
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Both big-ticket news items out of the Trump administration today remain largely speculative in many ways, so it's too early to draw firm conclusions about them. That said, based on what I heard today, I want to offer a few points for consideration.
It is no secret that our corporate tax code is grossly uncompetitive. It is among the most expensive on the entire planet and is structured such that it discourages investing, hiring, and other key facets of a healthy economy. It discourages entrepreneurialism, encourages companies to move their headquarters to other countries, and creates an incentive for American corporations to leave large amounts of their cash overseas--cash that could be brought home and put to work in our own economy.
This is what happens when you have a very archaic and outdated corporate tax system. When I say "outdated," I mean it literally: the U.S. is one of the last remaining developed countries with a world-wide tax system (meaning that money corporations earn around the world, not just the income they derive from the U.S., can be taxed here). Most of our peers got rid of world-wide tax systems decades ago.
I agree with Trump: 15% is a reasonable corporate income tax rate. (There are strong arguments to be made for its elimination entirely, but that's for a post another day.) This is the hallmark of his plan, and I like it. I need to point out two grave concerns I have though.
(1) It isn't clear that his plan will dramatically simplify the corporate tax code. Rates do need to come down, but that's far from the only problem. The code's complexity creates an additional tax in and of itself because complying with it is such an expensive legal and accounting endeavor. Any major reform must include simplifying and streamlining the tax code.
(2) Trump said that he doesn't care about revenue, and this plan seems to bear that out. This is a plan that, when combined with Trump's high levels of proposed spending, would add mightily to our national debt. Any tax and spending plans Republicans pass through Congress MUST seek to reign in our exploding national debt. You cannot increase spending while cutting tax rates and narrowing the tax base. The base should be broadened, the rates lowered, and the spending brought to heel.
There is a myth floating around the White House that cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% will lead to enough economic growth to offset tax revenue losses at current rates. That is not true. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher growth, but it will not lead to enough growth to stem the rising tide of national debt. (Corporate tax rates are but one of many headwinds our economy faces.) Any tax plan must be, at a minimum, revenue neutral and passed in conjunction with LOWER spending plans. Otherwise, you're essentially mortgaging your future for a little short-term relief. Additional government debt can quickly crowd out additional private investment, after all.
Rumors are circulating that Trump may be planning to sign an executive order expressing our intent to leave NAFTA. This would be an error of historic proportions.
It is a good idea to occasionally revisit old agreements. Our economy and the world in general are very different places than they were when NAFTA was negotiated. We should never consider economic frameworks to be entirely permanent.
Thus, re-opening negotiations could be a very good idea. Re-negotiating and leaving are very, very different outcomes though. If we left NAFTA, three realities are absolutely certain to set in: (1) a small number of jobs would come back to the U.S.--far too few for most people even to know someone who held one of those new jobs; (2) far, far more jobs would simply be automated--no one would hold them; and (3) the prices that ALL Americans pay for many goods and some services would increase sharply.
It wouldn't end there though. This would be catastrophic for Mexico and Canada and near-catastrophic for the U.S. Stock markets would be hammered. GDP growth would slow--possibly even reverse (which means lower standards of living for many people). Anyone who has a 401(k), an IRA, or simply invests a little in the stock market to plan for retirement would find his retirement calculus suddenly looking less rosy.
The world is a different place today. Taking another look at NAFTA's terms is a good idea. As I said though, the world is a different place today, and whereas whether to join NAFTA was a good question in the 90's, two decades later, whether to leave it shouldn't even be up for discussion.
Great article from a list I subscribe to over at Norada. Biggest failure I see in my clients is that they have no desire to better themselves or build Human Capital and expand their skillset. READ! Bottom line is that in 5-10 years, you will be the same person you are today with the exception of the books you read and the new people you meet. Try to be better 5-10 years from now. Keep growing. Read.
Research shows that 88% of wealthy people devote at least 30 minutes a day to reading. If it works for them, it could work for you.
Below, we’ve rounded up 12 of our favorite books, from personal finance classics to new releases. Here’s to a prosperous year!
1. “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill
Journalist Napoleon Hill researched more than 500 self-made millionaires, including Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and Charles M. Schwab, before releasing this 1937 best-seller.
Hill’s timeless personal fiance classic will help you understand that getting rich is more about mentality above anything else. In fact, he barely mentions the words “money,” “wealth,” or “finances.” Rather, he explains the psychological barriers that hold many people back from building fortunes — and teaches you how to start thinking your way to success.
2. “Business Adventures” by John Brooks
Rich people tend to believe starting a business is the fastest way to make money. This read, endorsed by self-made billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, will teach you just how to do that … but not the way a conventional business book does.
“Unlike a lot of today’s business writers, Brooks didn’t boil his work down into pat how-to lessons or simplistic explanations for success (How many times have you read that some company is taking off because they give their employees free lunch?)” Gates explains. “You won’t find any listicles in his work. Brooks wrote long articles that frame an issue, explore it in depth, introduce a few compelling characters, and show how things went for them.”
Don’t let the 1969 publication date throw you off. While a lot has changed in the business world since the 1960’s, the fundamentals of building a strong business have not, Gates writes, adding, “Brooks’s deeper insights about business are just as relevant today as they were back then.”
3. “The Little Book of Common Sense Investing” by John C. Bogle
One of the most effective ways to build wealth is to invest. At least, if you do it correctly.
Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group and creator of the world’s first index fund, details the simplest and most efficient investment strategy: Investing in low-cost index funds.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett also says that every investor, large and small, should pick up a copy.
4. “The Essays of Warren Buffett” by Warren Buffett
If a blurb by Buffett doesn’t entice you, get directly inside the billionaire’s head with this collection of letters and notes written by the “Oracle of Omaha.”
The 700+ page book offers a clearer picture of Buffett’s philosophies on business, investing, and life.
5. “Tools of Titans” by Tim Ferriss What does it take to be a billionaire? Best-selling author Tim Ferriss’ latest book explores the daily routines and habits of celebrities, professional athletes, hedge fund managers and others.
Ferriss went straight to the sources and interviewed more than 200 world-class performers.
For a sneak peak, check out one, peculiar habit that the wealthiest, most successful people share.
6. “The Richest Man in Babylon” by George S. Clason
Nearly a century ago, Clason revealed the “secret” to getting rich in his 1926 personal finance classic.
It turns out that the “secret” isn’t much of one. All it takes to get rich is mastering a few simple concepts, such as paying yourself first and living within your means, which Clason preaches via a collection of entertaining parables.
7. “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Robert Kiyosaki
Kiyosaki shatters the myth that you need to earn a lot of money to get rich in this best-seller. By telling the story of two dads — his own, and the father of his best friend — he explains how to build wealth even with a small salary.
Additionally, Kiyosaki challenges the popular belief that your house is an asset, details the differences between how rich people and average people choose to get paid, and emphasizes the critical difference between an asset and a liability.
8. “The Automatic Millionaire” by David Bach
Self-made millionaire and financial advisor David Bach exposes a handful of money misconceptions in his easy-to-read best-seller.
You don’t need a budget, you don’t need to make a lot of money, and you don’t even need willpower to accumulate a fortune, he writes.
Research shows that 88% of wealthy people devote at least 30 minutes a day to reading. If it works for them, it could work for you.
Below, we’ve rounded up 12 of our favorite books, from personal finance classic to new releases, to work your way through over the next 12 months. Here’s to a prosperous 2017!
9. “How Rich People Think” by Steve Siebold
When Steve Siebold started interviewing hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, he was “completely broke and searching for answers about success I wasn’t finding in the classroom,” he writes.
“What I discovered was, to get rich, I had to learn to think like a rich person. … Once I changed my thinking, the money started to flow.”
Anyone has the opportunity to build wealth, he stresses in “How Rich People Think,” and it all starts with changing your mindset. For a sneak peak, check out the number one way rich people view the world differently than the average person.
10. “Be Obsessed or Be Average” by Grant Cardone
As Siebold says, to get rich, you have to learn from those who have already done it. Self-made millionaire Grant Cardone knows a thing or two about managing money: The entrepreneur has built five companies and a multi-million dollar fortune.
In the best-selling author’s latest book, he emphasizes that if you want real success, you have to be hungry, hyper-focused, even obsessed.
While Cardone offers some contrarian advice — he discourages investing in a 401(k) plan and buying a home — his wealth-building strategies helped him go from broke at 25 to earning his first million by age 30.
11. “The Power of Broke” by Daymond John
“Shark Tank” investor and entrepreneur Daymond John turned $40 worth of fabric into a $6 billion brand, FUBU. Along the way, he’s been rejected a lot and has lost a lot.
Being broke, however, offers at least one major advantage: It sparks creativity and out-of-the-box solutions, he explains in “The Power of Broke.”
Don’t write off your chances of wealth and success if your bank account is low, he suggests. Use it to your advantage.
12. “You Can Negotiate Anything” by Herb Cohen
If you want to earn more in 2017, a simple yet often overlooked strategy is to negotiate your salary.
If you’re nervous about approaching your boss to ask for a raise, try Cohen’s best-seller. It will help you get what you want, and what you deserve.
For more great suggestions follow me on Twitter at Jason Stapleton Suggests and Tom Woods Suggests.
You can also get two FREE Audiobooks by signing up with Audible on the link below:
For instance, no nation has ever become rich with big government. But that doesn’t stop leftists from advocating in favor of higher taxes and more coercive redistribution.
They are equally capable of rationalizing that economic misery in places such as Greece and Venezuela has nothing to do with bad policy, and you can even find a few zealots willing to defend basket cases such as Cuba and North Korea.
So long as they don’t burn me at the stake for my heretical views, I guess I won’t get too agitated by their bizarre fetish for statism.
But I will periodically mock them. And that’s the purpose of today’s column. We’ll start with this nice comparison between a capitalist grocery store and a socialist grocery store. I have no idea, by the way, if the lower image actually is a supermarket in a socialist country, but let’s not forget that a real-world version of this comparison is one of the reasons there’s no longer an Evil Empire.
But the bad news about socialism is not limited to economic deprivation for the masses.
The system also leads in many cases to totalitarianism (see this article by Marian Tupy, for example).
Which makes this set of images from Reddit‘s libertarian page both funny and sad.
As you might expect, Milton Friedman had some very pointed observations on this topic.
The really good part starts shortly before 2:00. He explains very clearly that socialism is based on force and coercion.
I’ve saved the best for last.
The PotL sent me this collection of risky temptations and it perfectly captures the attitude of many statists. No matter how many times socialism has failed, they never learn the appropriate lesson. It just hasn’t been tried by the right people, they tell us. Or been imposed in the right circumstances.
So they want us to give it one more try, just like a person with no willpower will eat one more bite of chocolate.
The bottom line is that statism is a recipe for stagnation and free markets are a route to prosperity.
Republished from International Liberty.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Random Liberty Lover spouting random Liberty goodness.
Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
Find out more!