One Thing & Another

Delray Beach, FL

Notes From My Journal: #SUCKIT

Recently on there was an appeal to sign a petition demanding the maker of an appetite-suppressing lollipop – Flat Tummy Co. – to take down its billboard “immediately” from Times Square.

“Telling young women and girls to ignore or suppress their hunger is dangerous,” says TH, the person behind the petition. “Hunger is your body’s way of communicating when it needs food, which gives us energy, without which we cannot survive.”

TH feels it is “deeply wrong when marketers tell women that their appearance (based on sexist body standards) is more important than their health and survival.”

“Messaging like this,” she says, “makes us more likely to start restrictive diets which too often lead to eating disorders. Diet culture is making us sick – and Flat Tummy Co. is profiting off it by selling us candy that’s not even FDA-approved.”

I’m shaking my head. I don’t even know if I should say anything… but I sometimes wonder: Is this how all young women think? So here goes…

TH expresses herself like an educated woman. But the motivation for her campaign is based on four popular but somewhat idiotic notions:

  1. Hunger doesn’t mean you need to eat. It means that you are hungry.
  2. You don’t die from controlling your appetite. You die from submitting to it. Eating disorders are addictions. Addictions, by definition, are submissions.
  3. I’m betting these lollipops are not made with drugs.  The FDA, thank goodness, does not yet have the power to “approve” natural products.
  4. A petition – no matter how many people you get to sign it – has no legal standing. So does TH really think it will have any effect on the way Flat Tummy Co. continues to market its lollipops?

Also, TH shouldn’t knock marketers. The four ideas she draws upon to make her case are inventions by marketers – writers that conjure up politically appealing ideas.


Today’s Word: mantic (adjective)

Mantic (MAN-tik) means of or relating to divination; prophetic. As used by Robert Silverberg in King of Dreams, the conclusion of his fantasy/sci-fi “Prestimion Trilogy”: “I am grateful, then, for my lack of belief in the mantic arts.”

Fun Fact

Only female mosquitos bite.

From My “Work-in-Progress” Basket

Are you really “the average of the five people you spend time with”?

I read this on recently in an article about why one should be selective as to the people one associates with.

Maarten van Doorn, a PhD student in philosophy and the author of the article, repeats the widely repeated hypothesis of Jim Rohn:

 “You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.”

My friend James Altucher is a big believer in this. And he’s not just smart but a pretty deep thinker as well. [See the essay by him, below.] So when he first mentioned it to me, I took it to mean one thing. But that’s not the thing that Mr. van Doorn or, I’ve come to discover, most self-appointed gurus mean when they repeat this mantra.

What I believe James takes from it is that the person you are is sometimes not the person you think you are. And if you want to find out who you are, you should look at the five people you spend the most time with.

So if you think of yourself as intellectual but you spend almost all your time hanging out with people that talk about nothing but sports, you are probably not the intellectual you’d like to think you are.

But now that I’m writing about it, I don’t even think that is true.

I don’t have any idea what Rohn actually meant to say. But I’ve noticed that when people quote him they mean either…

If you are not happy and/or successful, it may be that you are hanging around people that don’t love and support you. It’s their negative vibes that are bringing you down. Get them out of your life.


If you want to achieve something – wealth or fame, for example – hang out with people that are wealthy or famous.

I think Mr. van Doorn means both, because he goes on to say…

 “According to research by social psychologist Dr. David McClelland of Harvard, [the people you habitually associate with] determine as much as 95 percent of your success or failure in life.”

Think about that for a minute. No, a second will do. It’s obviously idiotic. The “research” is clearly bullshit. The 95% is either made from whole cloth or is the outcome of some rigged college study.

The person most of us spend the most time with is the person we sit next to when we are at work. Next in line — possibly – is our spouse (if you count meal times and sleeping). After that, it’s the idiots that are married to your spouse’s friends.

Some spouses of successful people are loving and supportive. But plenty are not. And although it may be true that rich folks tend to have rich friends, that’s usually an outcome of becoming rich, not the cause.

I’m not opposed to the idea of “firing” friends and even family members that bum you out. And I understand why the thought is so appealing. But I’m quite sure that at least 50% (probably 90%) of an individual’s failure to be rich or successful or happy (especially happy) lies within that person, not in those around him or her.

I do acknowledge that one’s selection of friends is at least partly the result of one’s deeply seeded psychological issues. Self-defeating personalities are likely to select people that will “help” them fail, just as they select behaviors that will make it impossible to achieve their goals.

But if you are looking for a rule for figuring out why you haven’t made progress in becoming the person you want to be, I’d offer this:

The person you are has little or nothing to do with the person you want to be, but it has a great deal to do with what you spend your time doing. Determine what you spend most of your time actually doing and you will have a pretty good idea about who you are.

You may think of yourself as a philanthropist because you give 50% of your income to charity. But if all you do is write a check, you’re not a philanthropist. If most of your actual time is spent golfing, you are a golfer. And a crappy one at that.

Think about it.


Recommended Reading

The End of America (from an optimist’s perspective)

By James Altucher

I’m usually accused of being too much of an optimist.

When someone tells me “global warming” I immediately think, “Good thing people are working on alt-energy solutions.”

When someone tells me “automation will crush jobs” I think, “Well, look at what happened when ATMs supposedly were going to replace bank tellers. Nothing. The cost savings created a bank on every corner.”

When someone tells me I’m ugly, I think, “Ok, you’re right. But I have a sense of humor.”

If someone says, “What about American debt rising so much?” I go through the basic math:

– The US is $19 TRILLION in debt.

– BUT the US just has to pay $225 billion a year to service that debt. That’s only 7% of GDP, down from 17% in the mid ’90s. So we’re actually financially healthier than 20 years ago.

– And if you subtract out what the US owes the US (yes, we owe money to ourselves), then the national debt is just $13 trillion and our debt obligations go down to about 3 or 4%.

If your salary was $100,000 and you had to pay just $4,000 a year to service all of your debt, you would say, “no problem”.

Let’s take on more debt.

And yet… I think America is DOOMED. And I think there’s no solution for the country.

And people should be aware of how we are doomed so they know what to do.

There are only so many flowers you can plant over s**t. Eventually the whole thing smells like s**t.

Let me outline the problem that is going to bring down the United States:



This started with “The Higher Education Act of 1965”.

It has a seemingly fine and generous idea: Let’s help the less fortunate get a higher education so they can be more competitive.

I love this idea. The feeling is correct.

But unfortunately it failed due to corruption, lousy economics, lack of understanding of basic finance, and a ton of other reasons I’ll get to.

I have a solution which I’ll describe in a bit.



Since 1965, the price of tuition has gone up HIGHER THAN INFLATION every single year (EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR) by an average of 9%.

By comparison, medical care costs have gone up faster than inflation by an average of 5% every year.

Corruption #1: Since the government is backing it, college presidents are simply charging more without thinking about the future consequences of the country OR OF THE STUDENTS who take on these loans.



In 2003 it was $250 billion. But 9% a year faster than inflation compounds quickly and it’s not stopping.

Here’s the problem: Everyone is brainwashed into thinking they need college to 1) have a satisfying social experience from the ages of 18-22 and 2) they won’t get jobs if they don’t go to college.

So an 18 year old, whose brain is inclined toward taking more risk (as 18 year olds have been for a million years) is being offered $250,000 in loans, which they accept.

Meanwhile, they are not even allowed to drink a glass of beer.



The rich can afford to send their kids to college.

The lower class gets financial aid and has to take on less debt. OR they take on blue collar jobs, some of which pay higher than many white collar jobs (show me a poor plumber).

The middle class can only afford higher education by taking out $100,000s in student loans. Average student loan debt is about $50,000, but my guess is the middle class, which doesn’t benefit from financial aid, has a debt figure much higher.

Anecdotally, when I survey my younger friends, debt ranged from $100,000 to half a million dollars. The latter was with a doctor but, sadly, he hates being a doctor and is now trapped.

If the middle class is the victim that means eventually the middle class dies out.



Why did the government do this? Because 18 year olds are not qualified to make financial decisions about their lives.

So the government had to enforce that they can’t borrow millions and then just say, “Whoops! Bankruptcy”.

You can get rid of mortgage debt, credit card debt, any other debt with bankruptcy. But not the student loan debt you owe the government.

The government will follow you forever, garnishing your wages, until you pay them back when you are 90 years old, keeping you in near-poverty your entire life.

So much for the government trying to help kids get a higher education.



This current generation of young people will not be able to graduate and take risks, like being an entrepreneur, an inventor, an innovator, even an artist.

Instead, they will have to take sales jobs at eyeglass stores to start paying down that debt. The government gives six months after graduation before you have to start paying down that debt.

“Don’t take risks!”, the government is telling our kids – the exact people who will need to take risks to continue American innovation the way it’s always been throughout US history.

Why do I say “sales jobs in eyeglass stores”?

I once went to the NYU campus and interviewed about a dozen people I saw. Two of the kids had majored in economics, couldn’t get jobs, and now were unhappy working for some eyeglass store so they could pay back debt.

I know that’s only an anecdote. But they did not seem like happy, young people to me, despite their degrees.



The rise in automation will force many people who work in automated industries to strike out on their own as entrepreneurs.

But since this involves risk that student loan holders can’t take, these debt holders are screwed.

The rich young people will become entrepreneurs and get richer. The student loan holders will drive Ubers for minimum wage just to keep up with basic payments.

The jobs to pay down student loan debt will disappear.

By the way, it’s not just shelf-stacking at Walmart that is getting automated.

Legal and even medical services – high end professional jobs – are being quickly automated. JP Morgan recently announced they did about 300,000 hours of billable legal work in just a weekend using AI.

This is not an anti-AI post. This is reality.



The upper classes will continue to pay for their kids to go to Harvard. Where they will marry other Harvard grads. And then have Harvard kids.

The middle class, which is moving toward the lower class, will be forced to send their kids to lower ranked and cheaper schools (while they continue to pay down their own debt), increasing the disparity between the classes as the middle class quietly shuts down their doors.



I’m not saying anything good or bad about either of those two people. But their policies (as evidenced by Trump’s recent tariffs) are strikingly similar on paper.

Obama, Clinton, even Bush (Sr.), and Reagan, were centrist compared to Trump and Sanders.

I don’t care if one person makes more than another based on merit.

It’s when government policies over decades have created enough income inequality to make it impossible for a meritocracy to exist that income inequality creates a real political and cultural problem.

The entrepreneurs and artists have disappeared and we are left with just angry people making angry social media posts all day long from their air-conditioned suburban homes.



We’re the leaders right now in biotech, alternative energy, internet tech, etc. But that’s changing more every single year.



As the classes get angrier at each other, and the political candidates get more extreme (think Germany in 1933), when will the ramifications have real costs other than angry articles in the media?



With chaos starting to emerge, the innovators and entrepreneurs (the ones that would normally move from middle class to upper class but will now just be upper class for generations) will start investing their money (or even move) outside of the country.

The US is the richest country because outside money from other countries comes in here because of our innovation and technology.

When money flees, America becomes dependent on the kindness of its neighbors.

How friendly are Canada, Mexico, Europe, and China going to be to our declining middle class?



There will be no real leadership. No foreign allies. And what happens to countries like this? Eventual violence in the streets. German, Argentina, Russia, Arab Spring, Asia are all examples.

How long will this take?

I don’t know. 10 years? 15? But it will happen and the solutions are hard or impossible.



Maybe there’s a way out! I’m still an optimist. At least, I think you and I can do well.

– Force tuitions to go down: This will never happen.

– Stop backing student loans: This will never happen since the basic argument is: everybody deserves a higher education. Which is untrue and a myth but people believe it strongly.

You can say, “Adjust tuition based on major”, but the reality is this will never happen.

Even Google no longer requires you to have a college degree, but I think the myth of higher education is so baked into society that it’s a hard argument to tell an 18 year old to not take out a quarter million in loans to pay for a useless degree.

– End corruption: There’s evidence states give kickbacks to companies that facilitate the college loans. Many college presidents make millions in salary. Etc.

Corruption has a tendency to get bigger, not smaller, so I don’t expect this to stop.



The only two things I can think of are:



Price is always a function of supply and demand.

If you reduce the demand for college, price will be forced to go down.

And supply is already increasing. There’s a ton of online schools out there. Even many colleges offer their courses online (although without the degree).

I did a podcast once with a kid who finished an MIT Computer Science degree in a year using its online courses.

He didn’t get the degree but he got the skills.

Unfortunately, so many kids see their peers going to college and have a fear of missing out that they will insist on the standard college experience.

Meanwhile, they will have no ability to determine if the debt is a good thing for them or not. 18 year old brains are not equipped to assess risk.

So even though changing the supply / demand equation should affect tuition price, I don’t see it realistically happening.

Heck, I WROTE THE BOOK, “40 Alternatives to College” (which was #1 in Amazon under “College” for a long time) and my 19 year old still insisted on going to college.



Here’s an idea which I bet can make some money.

What if I graduate college and then say, “I will sell off 10% of all of my future earnings”.

This creates an exchange where I can invest in kids that look like they have bright futures (or some organizations can do it for charitable reasons) and then I get a piece of all the earnings of the kids I invest in.

This could be a great source of income for older people in a low-interest rate environment.

And it can also help kids monetize their future income (the way a company does every single day) to help pay down their student loan debt.

It doesn’t even have to be kids who just graduated.

Maybe when the person reaches age 30 and has demonstrated some success, people will want to invest in 10% of their future earnings.

This will help the person at age 30 pay off the remainder of their debt and move it more into the private sector.

This is exactly similar to the “Bowie Bonds” that David Bowie used in the ’90s to sell off in the present future royalties for his music.

Sure some of these “investments” will not work out but some will, creating a source of income for older generations and removing the debt of younger generations, allowing them to be the entrepreneurs and innovators they were meant to be.

Will this happen? I don’t know.

The corruption of the college tuition system has ruined the country.

This generation of kids will not be able to be entrepreneurs or innovators, which has been the driving force of US growth throughout its history.

This will lead to the death of the middle class, further income inequality, and eventual recession, depression, and violence.

There are solutions, but they are unlikely to be implemented.

SO… the best way is for people to find opportunities right now before the s**t hits the fan (even though it’s already starting to hit the fan). There are still plenty of opportunities.

And, if I were 18, I’d start making money right now instead of spending an enormous amount on a wasted four year social experience.

And, yeah, I’m still an optimist.

I want to be in love, have more kids, take care of myself, and die a peaceful death with high quality of life until old age.

I want to choose my future.