The New Economy: Entrepreneurship, Part One

[This is the transcript of a lecture I am preparing to give around the country. If you are in Las Vegas, contact me and I would be happy to deliver this lecture to your group over the next 60 days.]

downloadThe world is changing faster than ever. What used to take decades, is now taking years or months. And indirectly as a result of these changes, we have two looming crises, the elderly retirement crisis and the college-grad employment crisis.

Rumor has it that corporate America is not a safe place to work anymore. We’ve seen our friends get laid off or maybe we’ve been laid off. Some of those who are still working have had their pay cut. So Americans are overworked and underpaid and they seem to have less time and less freedom.

And there’s something wrong with society when we can measure at a national level, a 35% increase in the chance of a heart attack every Monday morning as people rush off to their jobs.

download (1)

As of April 3, 2015, the Economic Policy Institute reported that,

In a complex economy, conventional measurements fall short. At 14.5 percent, the unemployment rate of workers under age 25 was slightly over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate, 6.7 percent.

 

But in today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of “missing workers”(3.3 million-adds at least 3 points)—potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job.

 

In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate. http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/

Technology is accelerating and job security is rapidly declining. It just doesn’t seem like the 20th century models of making a living are as reliable as they used to be. In nearly every aspect of our lives we are adopting newer and better way to do things, but when it comes to earning a living, we are still stuck in the old ways.

We live in the greatest country on the planet but there are a lot of people sitting around being cynical. I say get a clue, there is a huge difference between “3rd world problems” and  “1st world problems.” People are complaining and whining about the upsets of the old model when the obvious conclusion is to leave it and embrace the new model, the new economy, and that is what we are here to talk about today.

imagesSince so much of our lives revolve around our work and the way we make our living, many people are thinking, there just has to be a better way.

The biggest challenge facing our world today is not making money, but what to do with all of the displaced unemployed people. With all of this transformation around us, people are being forced to make changes in employment and lifestyle, but they are frozen by indecision, afraid of making the wrong new career choice or afraid they don’t have the right skill set.

It’s time to face the truth: the industrial age is dead.

And as a result, going to school to be educated for employment is fast becoming an obsolete idea. A steady paycheck and the security of a single employer is an anemic industrial age idea.

Watch for Part Two

Melt Down To A New Economy

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look At Why The Stock Market Collapsed, The Economy Tanked, And Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.” That is the title to Thomas Woods’ 2009 book. It is so good I am sad that I didn’t read it when it was first published.

download (1)

Please do not turn away in disinterest…I know this may not be your favorite topic, but the key to financial autonomy in knowledge and proper application…here is where it begins.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is an American historian, political analyst, and author.

Woods is a New York Times best-selling author and has published eleven books including the Politically Incorrect Guide To American History, and The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era.

He takes the complicated and contrasting concepts of Keynesian and Austrian economics and simplifies them so even I can understand the differences and proper application of timeless principles.

F.A. Hayek

F.A. Hayek

He walks you through:

  • The basics of Keynesian Economics vs Austrian Economics
  • Historical perspectives regarding numerous so called American economic depressions/recessions and crystalizes the matter for maximum understanding
  • Fractionalization and monetary policy
  • The underground debate of American economic historians
  • How Americans never seem to learn from the past, especially our own past
  • The need for Free Enterprise and an Economic “government-free” mindset

Here are a couple of quotes from his books:

The economist F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize is economics in 1974 for a theory of the business cycle that holds great explanatory power — especially in light of the 2008 financial crisis, which so many economists have been at a loss to explain. Hayek’s work, which builds on a theory developed by economist Ludwig von Mises, finds the root of the boom-bust cycle in the central bank. In our case that’s the Federal Reserve Bank System, the very institution that postures as the protector of the economy and the source of relief from business cycles…the Fed…can expand and contract the money in the economy, and can influence the movement of interest rates upward or downward.

 

Looking at the money supply makes sense when looking for the root of an economy-wide problem. After all, money is the one thing present in all corners of the market, as Lionel Robbins points out in his 1943 book, The Great Depression. “Is it not probable,” he asked, “that disturbances affecting many lines of industry at once will be found to have monetary causes?  

John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes

Later Woods talks about the Keynes’s fantasy of a permanent economic boom:

In the short run the result of the central bank’s lowering of the interest rates is the apparent prosperity of the boom period.  Stocks and real estate shoot up. New construction is everywhere, businesses are expanding their capacity, and people are enjoying a high standard of living. But the economy is on a sugar high, and reality inevitably sets in. Some of those investments will prove to be unsustainable and will have to be abandoned, with the resources devoted to them having been partially or completely squandered. 

 

That is one of the reasons the Fed cannot simply pump more credit into the economy and keep the boom going. Yet the economist John Maynard Keynes–who is oddly back in fashion in Washington (even though his system collapsed in the in the early 1970’s when it couldn’t account for “stagflation”)–proposed exactly this: “The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.” 

 

download (1)I highly recommend this book to all who want to understand what is happening around us economically and the proper and not-so-proper role of government vs free enterprise.

The Industrial Age (1850-1990??) was a time of massive upheaval regarding the manufacture and production of goods worldwide.

It widened the gap between capital and labor, owner and laborer.

In many ways the current collision of the Industrial and Information Ages has disrupted the order and balance of things far beyond anything we can imagine and with the advent of 3-D printing and things like nano-technology, stem-cell research, and the new relationship between manufacturing and advertising/distribution, we are most certainly entering a New Economy.

This new economy can be identified by key words and phrases such as “multiple-streams-of-income,” Network Marketing, Entrepreneurship, non-traditional business, and private retirement planning. Like it or not, the world of business is changing–and to survive–to succeed, we will have to embrace that change.

 

download (2)P.S. My wife has taken my constant dialog about Free Enterprise, American Economic Independence, and multi-streams-of-income to heart and has started her own company promoting skin care products.  I share it here only to exemplify the New Economy:

Look Ten Years Younger In 2 Minutes:

Instantly Ageless Demo

Click Here For More Information

Maybe Forrest Gump Was Right


Retirement.

imagesMost Americans are either ignoring this fact of life hoping it will go away, or facing its eventuality with fear and trembling.

Based on a year’s worth of research, I am certain that 9 out of 10 people reading this blog fit that category.

There is plenty of available data showing the hopelessness of the situation.

Economists speculate on the massive Baby Boomer retirement fall-out they say is sure to come over the next decade.

From numerous reports it appears that the typical bread-winner leaves the workforce at age 65 with around $50,000 in assets —a drop in the retirement bucket especially as many are living longer.

download (1)OK fine, we are facing economic challenges, so what?

Our predecessors faced and overcame challenges for centuries. America has a long and illustrious history of standing up to adversity and coming out on top.

For crying out loud—our ancestors carved a civilization out of the wilderness, populated an unknown land, produced most of the world’s food, most of the technology and single-handedly create a new thing called the middle-class while other nations watched in utter amazement.

How did they do this?

Americans are resilient. Americans are resourceful. We dream big and play big. And what of Yankee Ingenuity, the Puritan Work Ethic, common sense, and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps?

images (1)For two centuries, we provided hope for a life with political freedom, economic prosperity, and an increased standard of living for millions around the globe, but now we are being told that we are finished, beyond hope, and helpless to solve our current crisis.

And some are actually falling for it. I refuse to accept that version of reality.

I refuse to acknowledge that the American Dream can no longer become the American Life.

I refuse to give-in, knuckle under, and forfeit my children’s future.

My version of reality is that there is actually more opportunity now for financial success than at any time in the history of America—if we will embrace it!

Please forgive me if what I write here offends you but seriously, how wimpy are we? Humanity has overcome crises and challenges much greater than the American retirement problem.

Don’t get me wrong, at least in terms of impact, this is a pervasive challenge and has serious national implications not unlike the specter of global domination by the Nazis or the challenges of the Great Depression. And if you are in your 50’s or 60’s this is without a doubt scary and imposing.

But when you remove the emotion and analyze it scientifically, it is simply a matter of understanding the causes of the problem and devising solutions. Ok, so maybe we will have to voluntarily reduce our standard of living for a while or stop going into debt for vacations or the latest fashions. Gasp…we might even have to live within our means…are these things really that hard to understand and implement?

Maybe Forrest Gump was right, “stupid is as stupid does.” Sorry but our choices over the past 3 decades have put us in this position.

Robert Kiyosaki's Cashflow Quadrants

Robert Kiyosaki’s Cashflow Quadrants

The American retirement problem is nothing more than an issue of perspective.

Look at the Cashflow Quadrants chart—American economic philosophy was founded on the Business and Investor side of the chart or the concept of entrepreneurship.

Americans from the very beginning lived from the perspective and belief that they had to take care of themselves.

They knew their standard of living and financial security rested on their personal ability to plan for the future and to take full responsibility for that future.

But since the Industrial Revolution, our general economic philosophy has shifted to the employee side of the chart. Entrepreneurship is actually shunned by most, or at the very least, misunderstood. We traded common citizen business savvy and investor acumen for the accumulation or “nest egg” mentality, which has morphed over the last 30 years into an existence of life-long debt and dependence on government.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that being an employee alone leads to economic slavery and dependence. Without the basic tenets of business and investing as part of our personal financial strategy, we have no hope of true prosperity and financial security.

So the solution is simple—return to our former philosophy of owning businesses and investing. I know that this might be simple in concept but difficult in application however, this is where our ingenuity, tenacity and hard work come in.

Thousands of Americans have figured this out and you can too if you only have the will and desire to make the necessary changes. If you are serious about changing your situation and are willing to focus and even sacrifice for five to ten years, you can solve the American retirement crisis for yourself and perhaps even share your solutions with friends and family.

While there are undoubtedly dozens of potential fixes to choose from, I have 2 that I recommend as solutions to the American Retirement Crisis.

FF 2.0

 

 

 

AFP-Stacked-Logo

 

 

 

But they will only serve as solutions if you actually act on them, so click on these links and investigate the options they provide. If these are not the right actions for you to take fine, BUT TAKE ACTION some how to change your current situation. You are your best chance at a secure financial future.

Being As Responsible As I Can

sobering-reminder-of-our-own-mortalityI have been thinking a lot about my mortality lately. No, I don’t have any premonitions, but Julia and I just updated our Revocable Living Trust and it always makes me think about my life, my relationships, and whether or not I am doing all I can for my family.

My first job right after discharge from the Navy in 1987 was selling pre-need cemetery plots.

I was in South Carolina and after 6 months I became the top salesman for Memorial Gardens Plantation.

This was an eye-opener for me!

I was 26-years-old and boy did I get an education on death and everything related to it. I believed in my product (the pre-need purchase of burial plots and associated items, a 100% need for every human being) and that I was saving families thousands of dollars by making the purchase before the death of a loved one. But what really cemented it for me was the following experience.

6a00d8341bf67c53ef01a3fc5cd987970bOne evening while I was preparing to make my house calls to pre-arranged appointments, a beautiful young woman came into the cemetery office with a baby in her arms.

She was crying and I suddenly realized something terrible had happened and I was witnessing a young widow making funeral arrangements.

I watched in shock as the cemetery director explained to this distraught woman the typical procedures and costs and need for a vault, a casket, the headstone, etc.

His matter-of-fact explanation is not what bothered me. What infuriated me was the way in which he was leading her to purchase the most expensive items, appealing to her loss and love for her husband.

I was so upset that I determined right there that I would work even harder to persuade people make all of these arrangements pre-need, which translated into thousands of dollars in savings, but also having these kinds of arrangements taken care of before the event of death, the survivors would be saved tremendous agony and heart ache. Since that experience, I have always had life insurance, a will, and later an estate plan.

I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, so my estate is small, but I just feel so much better knowing that Julia and the kids will not have to make a bunch of decisions upon my eventual passing. If they want to be mad about the decisions made, they can be upset with me–the one who is gone, not with each other.

Estate_PlanningDo you have your affairs in order?

Do you have a solid retirement plan in place?

Do you have a current estate plan in place?

Are you willing to take the time and expense to do all of these hard things now while you can for your loved ones, or are you going to leave it to them during their grief?

Estate Planning is an integral part of wealth building.

Without an estate plan, everything you treasure will be left to chance and likely loss.

But these losses are often just the “tip of the iceberg”. The horror stories associated with disagreements over who gets what and when and even how, are what divides families and often destroys relationships for a lifetime.

downloadBy creating an estate plan you control all these decisions, relieving your loved ones of the stress and hardship they would have faced had you not been proactive.

There is one fact of life we all face; death. We know that death is unavoidable, and can happen at anytime and anywhere. Stop and think; you have home owners insurance despite not thinking your home is going to burn down, and car insurance even though you don’t expect to be in an accident.

You insure your home and car in case something does happen. Having a comprehensive estate plan is how you control your estate, and make tough decisions when life’s inevitable events do occur.

In the best selling book “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” Steven Covey emphasizes the importance of planning. Two of Steven’s habits speak directly to the importance of estate planning.

imagesHabit 1 – “Being proactive is about taking responsibility for your life”. Comprehensive estate planning is all about being proactive.

Habit 2 – “Begin with the end in mind.” Estate planning is about you being in control over how you want your life to “play out,” and how critical decisions will be made when it becomes necessary.

Julia and I just updated our estate plan. It may not be the most enjoyable activity, but Julia feels so much more secure and I feel like I am being as responsible as I can.

 How Much Does Estate-planning Cost? 

I did some digging and found a basic range of family estate planning costs from $1,800 to $6,500 per living trust. Also, you should plan needing to update at least every few years, figure about $300-$500 per update. I am sure there are cheaper and more expensive planning options, but this is what I found.

Who Should Do Your Planning?

I also researched a little on this and found anything from do-it-yourself websites to attorneys who are happy to have you in their office during multiple sessions, as long as you don’t mind all of those billable hours.

For those who have little time and want to get it safely done with as little fuss as possible, we suggest taking at look at Strongbrook’s Estate Planning Program.

 

The Sentence That Knocked Down the Berlin Wall (But Almost Didn’t)

This post is a reprint of the November 5 ,2014 article from the Intercollegiate Review.

 

Twenty-five years ago last week, the Berlin Wall fell. 

Twenty-five years ago last week, the Berlin Wall fell.

In retrospect, what event fails to suggest a certain inevitability about itself, conveying the sense that because it happened it had to have happened?

Twenty-five years ago this week, the Berlin Wall finally fell.

Of course it did.

How could it have remained in place a day longer? For that matter, how could the Soviet Union itself have failed to fall?

How could the Cold War have ended any other way than in a victory for the West?

History preserves only the events that took place, permitting the alternatives—the contingencies and near misses—to fade, disappearing completely in the end.

Yet if you’d like proof that history isn’t predetermined—that history contains within itself a multitude of alternative realities, of near misses and might-have-beens—consider the address that President Ronald Reagan delivered at the Brandenburg Gate twenty-nine months before the Berlin Wall came down.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Those words were very nearly dropped from the president’s text.

How do I know? I wrote the address.

The Angry Hausfrau

Über_den_Dächern_von_BerlinIn April 1987 the celebrations for the 750th anniversary of the founding of Berlin were under way.

Queen Elizabeth had already visited the city. Mikhail Gorbachev was due in a matter of days.

Although President Reagan hadn’t been planning to visit Berlin himself, he was going to be in Europe in early June, first visiting Rome, then spending several days in Venice for an economic summit.

At the request of the West German government his schedule was adjusted to permit him to stop in Berlin for a few hours on his way back to the United States from Italy.

I was then serving as a speechwriter to the president and was assigned to write the Berlin address. I was told only that the president would be speaking at the Berlin Wall, that he was likely to draw an audience of about ten thousand, and that, given the setting, he probably ought to talk about foreign policy.

In late April I spent a day and a half in Berlin with the White House advance team, the logistical experts, Secret Service agents, and press officials who went to the site of every presidential visit to make arrangements. All I had to do in Berlin was find material. When I met the ranking American diplomat in Berlin, I assumed he would give me some.

A stocky man with thick glasses, the diplomat projected an anxious, distracted air throughout our conversation, as if the very prospect of a visit from Ronald Reagan made him nervous. The diplomat gave me quite specific instructions. Almost all of it was in the negative. He was full of ideas about what the president shouldn’t say.

The most left-leaning of all West Germans, the diplomat informed me, West Berliners were intellectually and politically sophisticated. The president would therefore have to watch himself. No chest thumping. No Soviet bashing. And no inflammatory statements about the Berlin Wall. West Berliners, the diplomat explained, had long ago gotten used to the structure that encircled them.

After I left the diplomat, several members of the advance team and I were given a flight over the city in a U.S. Air Force helicopter. Although all that remains of the wall these days are paving stones that show where it stood, in 1987 the structure dominated Berlin. From the air, the wall seemed less to cut one city in two than to separate two different modes of existence.

On one side lay movement, color, modern architecture, crowded sidewalks, traffic. On the other lay a kind of void. Buildings still exhibited pockmarks from shelling during the war. Cars appeared few and decrepit, pedestrians badly dressed.

The wall itself, which from West Berlin had seemed a simple concrete structure, was revealed from the air as an intricate complex, the East Berlin side lined with guard posts, dog runs, and row upon row of barbed wire. The pilot drew our attention to pits of raked gravel. If an East German guard ever let anybody slip past him to escape to West Berlin, the pilot told us, the guard would find himself forced to explain the footprints to his commanding officer.

That evening, I broke away from the advance team to join a dozen Berliners for dinner. Our hosts were Dieter and Ingeborg Elz. Germans themselves, the Elzes had retired to Berlin after Dieter completed his career at the World Bank in Washington. Although we had never met, we had friends in common, and the Elzes offered to put on this dinner party to give me a feel for their city. They had invited Berliners of different walks of life and political outlooks—businessmen, academics, students, homemakers.

BerlinermauerWe chatted for a while about the weather, German wine, and the cost of housing in Berlin.

Then I related what the diplomat told me, explaining that after my flight over the city I found it difficult to believe.

“Is it true?” I asked. “Have you gotten used to the wall?”

The Elzes and their guests glanced at one another uneasily.

I thought I had proven myself just the sort of brash, tactless American the diplomat was afraid the president might seem.

Then one man raised an arm and pointed. “My sister lives twenty miles in that direction,” he said. “I haven’t seen her in more than two decades. Do you think I can get used to that?”

Another man spoke. Each morning on his way to work, he explained, he walked past a guard tower. Each morning, the same soldier gazed down at him through binoculars. “That soldier and I speak the same language. We share the same history. But one of us is a zookeeper and the other is an animal, and I am never certain which is which.”

Our hostess broke in. A gracious woman, she had suddenly grown angry. Her face was red. She made a fist with one hand and pounded it into the palm of the other. “If this man Gorbachev is serious with his talk ofglasnost and perestroika,” she said, “he can prove it. He can get rid of this wall.”

“That’s What I’d Like to Say”

Back at the White House I told Tony Dolan, then director of presidential speechwriting, that I intended to adapt Ingeborg Elz’s comment, making a call to tear down the Berlin Wall the central passage in the speech. Tony took me across the street from the Old Executive Office Building to the West Wing to sell the idea to the director of communications, Tom Griscom.

“The two of you thought you’d have to work real hard to keep me from saying no,” Griscom now says. “But when you told me about the trip, particularly this point of learning from some Germans just how much they hated the wall, I thought to myself, ‘You know, calling for the wall to be torn down—it might just work.’ ”

The following week I produced an acceptable draft. It needed work, but it set out the main elements of the address, including the challenge to tear down the wall. On Friday, May 15, the speeches for the president’s trip to Rome, Venice, and Berlin, including my draft, were forwarded to the president, and on Monday, May 18, the speechwriters joined him in the Oval Office. My speech was the last we discussed. Tom Griscom asked the president for his comments on my draft. The president replied simply that he liked it.

Now, you might suppose that after hearing the president say he liked his draft, a speechwriter would feel so delighted he’d leave it at that. Somehow, it didn’t work that way. As a speechwriter you spent your working life watching Reagan, talking about Reagan, reading about Reagan, attempting to inhabit the very mind of Reagan. When you joined him in the Oval Office, you didn’t want to hear him say simply that he liked your work. You wanted to get him talking, revealing himself. So you’d go into each meeting with a question or two you hoped would intrigue him.

at-desk“Mr. President,” I said, “I learned on the advance trip that your speech will be heard not only in West Berlin but throughout East Germany.”

Depending on weather conditions, I explained, radios would be able to pick up the speech as far east as Moscow itself.

“Is there anything you’d like to say to people on the other side of the Berlin Wall?”

The president cocked his head and thought. “Well,” he replied, “there’s that passage about tearing down the wall. That wall has to come down. That’s what I’d like to say to them.”

Squelchfest

With three weeks to go before it was delivered, the speech was circulated to the State Department and the National Security Council (NSC). Both attempted to squelch it. The assistant secretary of state for Eastern European affairs challenged the speech by telephone.

A senior member of the NSC staff protested the speech in memoranda. The ranking American diplomat in Berlin objected to the speech by cable. The draft was naive. It would raise false hopes. It was clumsy. It was needlessly provocative. State and the NSC submitted their own alternate drafts—my journal records that there were no fewer than seven, including one written by the diplomat in Berlin. In each, the call to tear down the wall was missing.

Now, in principle, State and the NSC had no objection to a call for the destruction of the wall. The draft the diplomat in Berlin submitted, for example, contained the line, “One day, this ugly wall will disappear.” If the diplomat’s line was acceptable, I wondered at first, what was wrong with mine?

Then I looked at the diplomat’s line once again. “One day”? One day the lion would lie with the lamb, too, but you wouldn’t want to hold your breath. “This ugly wall will disappear”? What did that mean? That the wall would just get up and slink off of its own accord? The wall would disappear only when the Soviets knocked it down or let somebody else knock it down for them, but “this ugly wall will disappear” ignored the question of human agency altogether.

What State and the NSC were saying, in effect, was that the president could go right ahead and issue a call for the destruction of the wall—but only if he employed language so vague and euphemistic that everybody could see right away he didn’t mean it.

The week the president left for Europe, Tom Griscom began summoning me to his office each time State or the NSC submitted a new objection. Each time, Griscom had me tell him why I believed State and the NSC were wrong and the speech, as I’d written it, was right. When I reached Griscom’s office on one occasion, I found Colin Powell, then deputy national security adviser, waiting for me. I was a thirty-year-old who had never held a full-time job outside speechwriting.

Powell was a decorated general. After listening to Powell recite all the arguments against the speech in his accustomed forceful manner, however, I heard myself reciting all the arguments in favor of the speech in an equally forceful manner. I could scarcely believe my own tone of voice. Powell looked a little taken aback himself.

President Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate June 12, 1987

President Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate June 12, 1987

A few days before the president was to leave for Europe, Tom Griscom received a call from the White House chief of staff, Howard Baker, asking Griscom to step down the hall to his office.

“I walked in and it was Senator Baker [Baker had served in the Senate before becoming chief of staff] and the secretary of state—just the two of them.”

Secretary of State George Shultz now objected to the speech.

“He said, ‘I really think that line about tearing down the wall is going to be an affront to Mr. Gorbachev,’ ” Griscom recalls.

“I told him the speech would put a marker out there. ‘Mr. Secretary,’ I said, ‘the president has commented on this particular line and he’s comfortable with it. And I can promise you that this line will reverberate.’ The secretary of state clearly was not happy, but he accepted it. I think that closed the subject.”

It didn’t.

When the traveling party reached Italy (I remained in Washington), the secretary of state objected to the speech once again, this time to deputy chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein. “Shultz thought the line was too tough on Gorbachev,” Duberstein says.

On June 5, Duberstein sat the president down in the garden of the estate in which he was staying, briefed him on the objections to the speech, then handed him a copy of the speech, asking him to reread the central passage.

Reagan asked Duberstein’s advice. Duberstein replied that he thought the line about tearing down the wall sounded good. “But I told him, ‘You’re president, so you get to decide.’ And then,” Duberstein recalls, “he got that wonderful, knowing smile on his face, and he said, ‘Let’s leave it in.’ ”

The day the president arrived in Berlin, State and the NSC submitted yet another alternate draft. “They were still at it on the very morning of the speech,” says Tony Dolan. “I’ll never forget it.” Yet in the limousine on the way to the Berlin Wall, the president told Duberstein he was determined to deliver the controversial line. Reagan smiled. “The boys at State are going to kill me,” he said, “but it’s the right thing to do.”

The Lessons of History

No matter how it may seem in retrospect, there was nothing inevitable about the event that took place twenty-five years ago this week. The fall of the Berlin Wall took place because certain men and women—people including Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Ronald Reagan—took certain specific actions, demonstrating their capacity for reason and courage. And that, really, is why we study history: to remind ourselves that if those who went before us could do the right thing, then we can do no less ourselves.

 

Peter Robinson is editor in chief of Ricochet.com, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and host of the interview program Uncommon Knowledge. He is the author of several books, including How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life, from which parts of this essay are adapted.

The Failing American Dream: There Is A Cure

abc_stossel_090910_mainIn April of this year, John Stossel wrote a thought provoking article about the ability of never quitting as being the reason America has been successful.

I quote him here:

In the USA, it’s OK to fail and fail and try again. In most of Europe and much of the world, the attitude is: You had your shot, you failed, and now you should just go work for someone else.

 

But this limits the possibilities. And some of America’s biggest successes came from people who failed often.

 

We know that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but few people know that Edison filed 1,000 patents for ideas that went nowhere. He was fired by the telegraph office. He lost money investing in a cement company and an iron business.

 

Henry Ford’s first company failed completely.

 

Dr. Seuss’s first book was rejected by 27 publishers.

 

Oprah was fired from her first job as a reporter. A TV station called her “unfit for TV.”

 

But they all kept striving — and succeeded. They were lucky to live in America, where investors and your neighbors encourage you to try and try again. We are lucky to benefit from their persistence.

 

But those happy experiments are less likely to happen today. Now there are many more rules, and regulators add hundreds of pages of new ones every week.

 

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban left school with no money and no job prospects. He managed to become a billionaire by creating several businesses from scratch. I asked him if he could do it again today, and he said, “No … now there’s so much paperwork and regulation, so many things that you have to sign up for that you have a better chance of getting in trouble than you do of being successful.”

 

That’s tragic.

 

It’s not just big corporations that get hassled by regulators, the way progressives might like to imagine.

lemonade-stand

Kids’ lemonade stands — and one I tried to open in New York City — are sometimes shut down for not having proper business licenses.

 

When Chloe Stirling was 11-years-old, health officials shut down her home cupcake-making business.

 

The more government “protects” us, the more it puts obstacles in the way of trying new things. It does that every time it taxes, regulates and standardizes the way things are done. Simultaneously, government offers “compassion” — welfare and unemployment benefits.

 

Faced with the choice of collecting unemployment or putting your own money at risk and hiring an army of lawyers to deal with business regulations, I understand why people don’t bother trying. When that attitude is pervasive, the American dream dies.

 

On my TV show this week, economist David Goldman says, “The U.S. government has done everything possible to make it hard for people to take a new idea from inception to startup to expansion.” He says that when he told a former CEO that he was going to be on my show, the ex-CEO said: “Just tell them to shut Washington down. That’s all they need to do!”

 

Washington won’t shut down. But couldn’t regulators just chill out for a while?

 

Big government doesn’t send us the message that we can make it on our own and that great things may happen if we dare to try. Government mostly hinders us, and then brags that it is waiting to take charge when we fail.

I believe that the American Dream can still become the American REALITY!

But it requires a singular mindset. We have to be willing to work hard and do things that we are not used to. It demands personal responsibility for our own outcomes and doing some double duty (working at more than one thing at a time). And we will have to spend less time watching “American Idol” and more time developing our ideas and taking educated risks.

170 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville stated that, “[Americans] are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. . . “

Tocqueville was very clear, it is impossible to reach our potential without taking complete responsibility for  our actions and owning our current conditions.

I have spent the entirety of 2014 to this point, speaking anywhere people would listen regarding this very issue and then offering solutions that the average American could engage to turn the situation around.

My main message has been that there is no political liberty without financial liberty and to engage in financial liberty or FREE ENTERPRISE, there must exist a certain level of political liberty.

cleon-skousen-speakingOne of my mentors, Cleon Skousen, always taught that the magic of America was that the citizens, free from government intervention, had the right to try, buy, sell and fail. And if you tried enough times, you would most likely succeed.

Today that philosophy has been replaced with that of avoiding risk at all cost and being safe and working for the government or a big multi-national corporation.

This sounds more like a personal wealth death sentence.

To have the kind of financial health that will allow a citizen to engage in liberty of all kinds requires enough residual income to meet all day-to-day living expenses plus 30% to provide citizenship activity flexibility (donations to or promotion of liberty causes or time spent at the state or federal legislature or local political service or speaking and writing, etc)

[Residual income, is income that continues to be generated after the initial effort or cost has been expended. Royalties or rent income for example, are types of residual income.]

For example, if your living expenses are $4,000 per month, you will need a minimum of $6,300 of monthly residual income or $76,000 per year (approximately 20% for taxation and $1,200 for liberty flexibility) to be economically independent and able to engage in liberty.

There is no longer any question, America faces a multiple front crisis; a serious retirement crisis along with a potentially disastrous national and personal debt crisis.

Most Americans recall the devastation caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. We sat in utter horror and even screamed at our computer screens as we helplessly watched people being swept away by the unrelenting waters.

The financial crisis we face today is no less menacing. The current financial tsunami is acting very much like the event of 2004. As the economic tide recedes, we watch not in horror but in curiosity or even total oblivion. The entire nation appears to be suffering from Normalcy Bias,* denying or ignoring that a crisis exists at all. All the while, the water has reversed and is now up around our ankles.

What needs to happen is that real men and women need to face their fears, be responsible and be willing to determinedly taking control of their own destinies.

If we yearn for our children and grandchildren to enjoy the freedoms that we do today, developing this level of Financial Freedom Health is a moral and familial imperative.

Take the Financial Freedom Health/Education Assessment and see how prepared you are to perpetuate financial and political freedom.

Financial Freedom Health/Education Assessment

  1. Do you have an adequate retirement plan? (Based on the $76,000 residual annual income discussed above, this means a $1,750,000 nest egg with a 4% annual dividend. Using the accumulation method at 7.9% earned interest annually, this will require retirement plan installment payments of $1,215 each month for 30 years. A business or a properly acquired real estate portfolio can accomplish the same residual income in a much shorter time and in a safer manner).
  1. If your current retirement plan is not adequate, do you have the skills and resources to correct it?
  1. Have you done sufficient research to really know if your retirement plan is crisis proof? 
  1. Do you review your retirement plan semi-annually? Are staying up-to-date on all law and policy changes that could impact your retirement plan and investments?
  1. Do you have enough knowledge to trust your retirement providers or are you “blindly”trusting them?
  1. Do you have a will or living will or a revocable trust in place? Why? Have you explored all options?
  1. Do you have your investments protected as much as law will allow? Are you sure?

If any of these questions are troubling to you, click here to begin a free course on financial freedom.

Col Sanders

In the USA, it used to be OK to fail and fail and try again.

Before Harland Sanders became world-famous Colonel Sanders, he was a sixth-grade dropout, a farmhand, an army mule-tender, a locomotive fireman, a railroad worker, an aspiring lawyer, an insurance salesman, a ferryboat entrepreneur, a tire salesman, an amateur obstetrician, an (unsuccessful) political candidate, a gas station operator, a motel operator and finally, a restaurateur.

At the age of 65, a new interstate highway snatched the traffic away from his Corbin, Ky., restaurant and Sanders was left with nothing but a Social Security check and a secret recipe for fried chicken.

As it turned out, that was all he needed.

If you, like Colonel Sanders, refuse to give up on the American Dream, click here to start your American Dream education.

 

* Normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.