Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: March 2016

.

“WHEN A PERSON SHOWS YOU WHO THEY ARE – BELIEVE THEM”

Maya Angelou

.                                 

Pleased to share with you Maya Angelou’s background on Wikipedia:

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Angelou

 

RETIREMENT MYTHS

.

FROM CORPORATE INCOME TO SOCIAL REWARD

.

THERE IS A MYTH ABOUT THE LONGEVITY AND HEALTH THAT AWAIT THOSE WHO RETIRE.

.

FORGET IT.

.

TODAY’S RETIREMENT REWARD IS SOCIAL GRATITUDE

.

THE VEHICLE – SOCIAL MEDIA

.

USE IT

.

THE BOOMERS, MILLENIALS AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE INHERITING A DIGITAL WORLD IN WHICH RETIREMENT ‘INCOME’ INCLUDES  REALTIME  SOCIAL DIALOGUE – IT REQUIRES SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT – THE GRATITUDE FOR WHICH EXTENDS THROUGHOUT A LIFETIME.

.

DAN ZWICKER

TORONTO

 

 

Barbara Kay:

The link between BDS

and Jew hatred on campus

.

Barbara Kay

March 23, 2016

National Post

.

 In a Feb. 25 Facebook post, McGill student Molly Harris recounted her experience in a “Rez (residence) Project” workshop, a (mandatory) three-hour discussion on “oppression, privilege, consent and race” designed to create a “safe space” for fellow dorm students. Molly described an incident when, singled out negatively for being Jewish, she felt unsafe. According to Molly, the facilitator responded that Molly could feel victimized for being female, but “being Jewish didn’t constitute grounds for systematic oppression.”

 

.

 

Molly writes, “Though a little perturbed, I let this go, I didn’t argue with the facilitator, and stayed quiet for the remainder of the workshop.” I sympathize with Molly’s intuition that pressing the issue would not have gone well for her. On campuses with an active anti-Zionist presence, like McGill, hatred of Israel has a trickledown effect into the general “social justice” agenda — feminism, Black Lives Matter, LGBT and others — which has hardened many progressives’ hearts against all Jewish pain, and shamed Jewish students into suppressing or denying it.

 

.

 

And so it has become commonplace even for Jewish students well-versed in their people’s history to accept the mantle of “privilege” rather than insist that 60 years of success in North America isn’t a patch on three thousands years of exclusion, religious persecution, second-class status and wholesale massacre, not to mention ethnic cleansing from 94 countries (with the alleged sins of the only one from which they cannot be expelled the hysterical, single-focus obsession of “human rights” activism). 

 

.

 

Molly’s uncomfortable experience ranks as relatively benign in the scheme of anti-Israel expression on North American campuses, where the always-thin line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has been slowly but surely dissolving. In the U.S. evidence of the merger can be ugly: swastikas on Jews’ dorm doors, rancid graffiti like “Zionists should be sent to the gas chamber” and scurrilous Facebook postings like “F***ing Jews. GTFOH with all your Zionist bullsh*t … Give the Palestinians back their land, go back to Poland or whatever freezer-state you’re from…”

A survey of U.S. Jewish college students by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law reveals that 54 per cent of surveyed students reported experiencing or witnessing instances of anti-Semitism on campus in the first six months of the 2013-14 academic year. Another Brandeis survey found that 75 per cent of North American Jewish college student respondents “had been exposed to anti-Semitic rhetoric,” and one third “harassed because they were Jewish.” Both surveys found active BDS campaigns to be a consistent correlated factor in the anti-Jewish hostility.

 

.

 

A new report by the AMCHA Initiative (Hebrew for “your people”) confirms that BDS promotion creates “a hostile environment for Jewish students.” AMCHA examined 113 U.S. public and private colleges and universities with the largest populations of Jewish students in North America (but not the Canadian campuses that have high Jewish enrollment). Data were gathered from incident reports, media accounts, social media postings and online recordings. Also examined were the presence or absence of active anti-Zionist student groups and the number of faculty who had signed one or more petitions or statements endorsing an academic boycott of Israeli universities and scholars.

.

 

Categories for “targeting” of Jewish students included: physical assault, genocidal expression, destruction of Jewish property, discrimination, and intimidation. Language was considered anti-Semitic if it included historical tropes like blood libels or conspiracy theories (Jewish control of media, banks, governments, etc.), conflation of Jews with Nazis, Holocaust denial, and demonization or delegitimization of Israel (derived from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism). They found, for example, that on more than 60 campuses, Israel was vilified for genocide, crimes against humanity, “pinkwashing” (LGBT tolerance as a distraction from Israeli evil) and “faithwashing” (Israel’s religious tolerance for the same reason). A speaker at one school called Israel “the embodiment of evil.” 

 

The report concludes that anti-Zionism is the most prominent face of contemporary anti-Semitism on campuses today, and that the best statistical predictors of overall anti-Semitic activity on a campus are the presence of groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and the number of faculty who have endorsed the academic boycott of Israel. Significantly, they found that the level of BDS activity on campus is the best predictor of anti-Jewish hostility.

.

By their nature boycotts are normally limited, as they either work or they don’t. Only one boycott has failed to succeed, but has continued in various incarnations for 100 years, namely the boycott against the Jews. Like the Arab League Boycott, ongoing since 1948, which is its spiritual father, today’s BDS campaigns are inherently Judeophobic, and denial of “safe spaces” to Jews when they are exposed to identity-based hostility is an inherently anti-Semitic impulse. Let’s finally acknowledge that and deal with it as we would any other offensive manifestation of intolerance.

.

National Post

Issues & Ideas

Barbara Kay

March 23, 2o16

.

 

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

From Wikipedia

SUMMARY COMMENT

.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) is a global campaign attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement: the end of Israel’s occupation and colonization of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees.[1][2][3][4][5]

.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

From Wikipedia

.

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. A link to the article is included below. (March 2016)

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

.

The campaign is organised and coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee.[6][7] The campaign was started on 9 July 2005 by 171 Palestinian non-governmental organizations in support of the Palestinian cause for boycott, divestment and international sanctions against Israel. Citing a body of UN resolutions and specifically echoing the anti-apartheid campaigns against white minority rule in apartheid era South Africa,[8] the BDS campaign called for “various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law“.[9]

.

Protests and conferences in support of the campaign have been held in a number of countries around the world. Supporters of BDS include academics, trade unions, political parties and Israeli citizens.[10]

.

There is considerable debate about the scope, efficacy, and morality of the BDS movement. BDS supporters argue that the movement (and criticism of the movement) are similar to the boycotts of South Africa during its apartheid era,[11][12][13] comparing the situation in Israel to apartheid. Critics argue that the BDS movement disincentivizes the Palestinian leadership from negotiating with Israel at present,[14] is antisemitic,[15][16] and that it is a form of anti-semitic anti-Zionism[17][18] that promotes the delegitimization of Israel.[19][20]

 

.

From Wikipedia

. 

A PERSONAL COMMENT

.

 

IT IS A SAD COMMENTARY ON OUR ‘CIVIL’IZATION THAT IN 2016 WE CANNOT LOOK BEYOND RACE OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

.

WHY?

.

 

WHATEVER THE ANSWER IS IT IS NEITHER FLATTERING NOR COMPLIMENTARY.

.

IT ATTESTS TO THE MOST VILE INSTINCTS IN OUR ‘CULTURE’.

.

JEWISH INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN EVERY FIELD ARE THE RESULT OF THE ONLY ‘SAFE SPACE’ THAT JEWS HAVE HAD FOR SEVERAL MILLENNIA – THE SANCTUARY OF THEIR MIND.

.

THE RESULT HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIETY IN EVERY FIELD OF JEWISH ENDEAVOUR.

.

THE ATTACKS ON JEWS REFLECT A BASE PREJUDICE THAT SIMPLY NULLIFIES THE CULTURAL LEGITIMACY OF ALL THOSE WHO ARE OBSESSED WITH A NEED TO ATTACK.

.

IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN CONVENTIONAL ENVY.

.

Dan Zwicker

Toronto

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sp

A COMPETITIVE EDGE

 

P.ENG.

 

½ OF 1 % OF ALL ONTARIANS ARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

 

TOO LOW

THE COMPETITION IS OUTNUMBERING US

 

SO IS THEIR GROWTH

 

 

 

AMERICA’S GOT WALLS FOR US?, (CANADA)? TOO?

.

FP COMMENT

JACK MINTZ

.

With the votes in for the “Super Tuesday 2″ pri­maries, we are closer than ever than narrowing which candidates will be competing in Novem­ber to make life worse for Canadians. Because, regardless of who is ultimately elected, the current trend in the U.S. is for a much different coalition of interests in both parties each one threatening to make our lives here less comfortable than the past.

 

 .

Post-election, expect the U.S. to be more protectionist, in­ward looking and disquieted by global developments. Both parties now have a majority in their respective primaries supporting politicians who argue in favour of “wall building” trade barriers and border security. Even though the U.S. econ­omy is healing, with even are bound in manufacturing, Amer­ican politicians play to lingering memories of job losses an stagnant middle-class incomes.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is dead set against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, arguing that the deal is a Wall Street plot to take advantage of low wages in countries like Vietnam, where labourers earn a minimum US $0.56 an hour. During the Michigan primary, he ar d that Detroit’s death has been due to disastrous trade policies (translation: NAFTA).

.

Hillary Clinton has pirouetted from a pro-TPP position to now being against “ObamaTrade,” as a Donald Trump      ad­viser has slyly dubbed it. This week, Clinton made clear that she wants the “rules of origin” terms of the TPP made stricter because American autoworker jobs are unprotected by rules that eliminate tariffs on cars made with just 45 per cent of their value from a member country (meaning the rest could be made in China). This sticking point could effectively kill the agreement.

.

Neither are the two leading Republican candidates strong supporters of free trade. Arguing that the American worker is being crushed, Donald Trump has made it clear he wants no part of the TPP. He has also lamented job losses Mexico under NAFTA and criticizes China’s most-favoured nation status, and demands a renegotiation of both. Although Ted Cruz says he generally supports free trade, he wrote an article for the conservative Breitbart magazine, opposing the TPP as a backroom deal by politicians that should be stopped.    

“·-. – .

So, with majorities in both the Democrat and Republican primaries opposed to the TPP, consider the deal as good as  dead in the U.S.  And if Americans now see trade through the dim lens of lost jobs, rather than income gains and lower con­sumer prices, imagine how they will look at other trade issues in the future such as foreign currency devaluations, anti­ dumping actions and U.S. non-tariff barriers erected in the name of ”fair trade:’

  • .

Other protectionist policies are in the making. During the Florida debate, Donald Trump was asked why he proposed  building a wall along Mexico but not Canada. While he grant­ed that security issues with Canada are not a ”big problem” (for now), his bigger point was that the northern border’s too big, not that it was unwise in principle. At least that’s progress over the position of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker who, be­fore dropping his bid for the Republican candidacy, supported building a Canadian wall because 16 years ago, an Algerian from Montreal tried driving to the U.S. to blow up the Los Angeles airport. So don’t think that Canada is home-free in reassuring Americans about maintaining a thin border. Both parties’ leading candidates argue in favour of tougher border security (mostly the Mexican, but not exclusively) including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, despite their support for helping illegal immigrants gain American citizenship.

..

After Sept. 11, 2001, Canada made some progress on NAFTA-related issues as a quid pro quo for stronger North American border-security arrangements. Since President Obama’s election in 2008, Canada’s been caught up in  vari­ous border-wall policies: The “Buy American” procurement plan, country-of-origin meat labelling, foot-dragging on a new Windsor – Detroit Bridge, and the prohibition of Keystone XL, which now apparently applies to all future Canadian pipe­ lines, judging by comments from John Kerry last week.

.

The now deepened inward-looking nature of American exceptionalism does not spell good news for Canada. When our prime minister opined recently that he wanted the U.S. to understand Canada more, he may forget that there are bene­ fits to staying under the radar. Out of mind, we have not be­come a target, like Mexico and China are.

.

If Americans did understand us more, it might not help our case. Canada has plenty of its own “wall-building” poli­cies that any populist U.S. politician could easily point to as proof of our trade hypocrisy. For example, as we head into renegotiating the softwood lumber agreement, Americans might notice our own trade restrictions on log exports to the U.S. that, by forcing down prices here, effectively subsidize Canadian producers of lumber, pulp and paper. Our market­ing boards in dairy, poultry and eggs, not only put a virtual excise tax on Canadian consumers but also restrict U.S.  ex­ports to Canada. We restrict foreign investment in banking and telecommunications. Our provinces strictly control beer and wine imports. The list goes on.

.

The prime minister’s visit to Washington last week surely helped contribute to a better relationship with the outgoing administration. But as far as putting us on course to tear down walls between the two countries, little was accomplished. Given the currently jaded view among American voters of the world outside their borders, there is little reason to expect things will get any better for us with a new president and Con­gress.

,

Financial Post

 

 

 

How Donald Trump became Adam Smith’s street-fighting man

.

Reuven Brenner,

Special to Financial Post

March 15, 2016

.

Despite being an icon of economic liberty, Smith did not think that government intervention was always bad: it depended on the circumstances

.

Furious attacks on Donald Trump’s economic policies from self-declared conservative pundits, think tanks, business leaders and fellow politicians have blasted the Republican frontrunner’s support for government intervention and trade barriers as betraying the principles of capitalism supposedly enunciated 240 years ago by Adam Smith. The free-market philosopher “would be alarmed” by Trump’s trade policies, argued one writer in the conservative American Thinker last week. Greg Sargent (who is no conservative) wrote recently on his Washington Post blog, The Plum Line, that Trump “is not committed to the idea that free markets and limited government are the solution to people’s economic ills.” The Club for Growth has called him “the worst Republican candidate on economic issues.” At MarketWatch, reporter Jeffry Bartash calls Trump “more liberal than Bernie Sanders.”

.

They should all perhaps calm down and re-read Adam Smith. Despite being an icon of economic liberty, Smith did not think that government intervention was always bad: it depended on the circumstances. And he favoured restrictions on foreign trade for a number of different reasons, including “when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defense of the country” — an endorsement, among other things, of Britain’s Navigation Act to protect the domestic merchant marine at the time. And Smith wrote that in some circumstances “it will be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign (products) for the encouragement of domestic industry” — tariffs, in other words, as a way of creating negotiating powers. Economic orthodoxies have yet to come up with better ideas to create such powers. (There is a robust debate over whether Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” defence program gave the U.S. a negotiating power that accelerated the Soviet empire’s demise.)

.

Trump’s plan to build a border wall appalls economic libertarians, who argue that free markets require unfettered labour and capital mobility. But Smith also believed that it was government’s role to punish and take steps to prevent violence. Obviously he does not mention by name the corrupting, murderous impact of the US$19 to US$39 billion Mexico-U.S. drug trade, but who, if not government, can solve this problem? Every policy until now has failed. Will a US$10 billion wall do the trick? Maybe. Will Mexico pay for it? Mexico’s population would benefit as much as America’s — probably more — from an end to the drug trade flowing through their territory. But until now, the Mexican government has lacked the political will to stop it. A wall, or perhaps even the demand that it pay for one, could force the Mexican government into better policies.

How America’s Obsession With Money Deadens Us

In a society that worships “one market under God,” we are forced to be somewhat money-centric in order to survive.

At what cost?

By Bruce E. Levine / AlterNet

March 18, 2012

 

.

A preoccupation with money is nothing new in our culture, but have Americans become even more “money-centric,” and does this deaden us, making us incapable of resisting injustices?

.

A money-centric society is one in which money is at the center of virtually all thoughts, decisions and activities. While capitalism certainly gives rise to money-centrism, any society in which individuals have little know-how and lack supportive community—and are thus totally dependent on money for their survival—will create a money-centric society. Such a society coerces even the non-greedy to focus on money at the expense of damn near everything else in order to survive.

.

Have We Become More Money-Centric?

.

Sociologist Robert Putnam reported in Bowling Alone (2000) that when American adults were asked in 1975 to identify the elements of “the good life,” 38 percent chose “a lot of money,” compared to 63 percent who chose “a lot of money” in 1996. Since then, from my experience, this focus on money has only increased. Both greed and fear make one more money-centric, and in recent years, it has become more socially acceptable to be greedy and increasingly commonplace to be financially insecure.

.

When I began my clinical psychology private practice nearly three decades ago, my clients who worked for major Cincinnati corporations such as Procter and Gamble felt secure in their employment, but that security began disappearing two decades ago. Nowadays, nearly everybody, even teachers and postal workers, lacks job security. Today, I see money worries, more than anything else, triggering panic attacks, depression, and alcohol abuse. Money discussions have even come to dominate family counseling sessions, where high school students increasingly talk about their fear of becoming financial losers, and parents fear their children will ruin their lives by accumulating student-loan debt while pursuing fields where there are few decent-paying jobs. Between my clients and my own money preoccupations, the dead shit of money routinely deadens me, especially when I lose my sense of humor about it.

.

It is difficult to maintain a sense of humor about all of this, so for most of us, having a stash of money feels increasingly important—and money accumulation has increasingly become the center of our lives.

.

In 1900, only 1 percent of Americans was in the stock market; by 1950, this had increased to only 4 percent; but by 2000, more than 50 percent of Americans were in the stock market. While some of these people merely have pensions that own shares on their behalf, many Americans have in fact chosen to invest in the stock market. How many of those people are investing their money in companies whose products they believe in? Almost none.

.

For those Americans not in the stock market and who are living from paycheck to paycheck or on public assistance, they also are assured by the state that it is quite okay to gamble where the odds are more stacked against them than in the stock market. Many state governments not only offer lotteries but advertise them heavily on television, radio, billboards, and with mass mailing coupons—and this today is socially acceptable.

.

. Younger generations are increasingly told they won’t have job security in their working years or Social Security later on. So, while many young people would rather be gaining life experiences, they feel pressure early on to accumulate a large pile of cash.

.

When Did Greed Become Respectable?

.

Money has always been a big deal in America, but through much of history, the money-centrism of the greedy has not had the social acceptability that it has recently gained. For the non-elite, greed was seen as the practice of villains such as Charles Dickens’ money-obsessed Scrooge, a psychologically and spiritually sick man in need of conversion. As late as 1936, a sitting president of the United States running for reelection knew that that it was quite popular to blast the greedy, selfish elite:

.

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

.

 

That was Franklin D. Roosevelt on Oct. 31, 1936. Contrast FDR’s speech with President Barack Obama’s response in an interview excerpted by Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal in February 2010. When asked about Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s $9 million bonus and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s $17 million bonus,

.

Obama responded:

 

.

First of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance…Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either.

.

How did greed come to be so respectable? What Paul of Tarsus, in the first century after the death of Jesus, was to the dissemination and legitimization of Christianity, Ayn Rand, in the last half of the 20th century, was to the dissemination and legitimization of money-centrism and greed. Rand ends her novel Atlas Shrugged with this image of its hero John Galt: “He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar.” Rand exhorted her followers to believe in what she called “radical capitalism,” and she lived—and even died—in radical money-centrism. At Rand’s funeral, in accordance with her specified arrangements, a six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.

Money-centrism, of course, has been caused by many other forces and perpetuated by many other people.

.

. How Money-Centrism Deadens Us and Makes Us Incapable of Resistance

.

When one cares only about money, one neglects everything else necessary to build and maintain self-respect. Neglecting other aspects of our humanity results in destroying our integrity, and integrity is necessary for strength. And when one is willing to do whatever it takes to make money, one assumes others are acting similarly, which destroys trust and makes it impossible to create the solidarity necessary to successfully challenge illegitimate authorities.

.

Money-centrism is especially malevolent when it attacks societal forces that are potentially liberating. Much has been written about how spiritual revolts (such as those begun by Jesus and other rebels) eventually morph into organized religions, which are then driven by money and used by the elite as an “opiate of the masses.” The elite in religious hierarchies have routinely commercialized spirituality, and by so doing have reduced the power of spirituality as a potent force to take down the ruling elite.

.

But spirituality is not the only potentially rebellious force that has been destroyed by money-centrism. Commercializing any powerful idea, belief or emotion deadens its power. Even the rebellion of folk/protest music and rock-and-roll has been increasingly commercialized, resulting in a dissipation of actual rebellious energy.

.

In 1998, Bob Dylan and his son Jakob were paid $1 million to play for 15,000 employees of the Silicon Valley semiconductor company Applied Materials, and that’s not the only “corporate gig” on Dylan’s résumé. Next time you hear Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind,” how energizing will that be for you? And for quite some time, the aim of many rock-and-roll bands has been to exploit and commercialize the idea of rebellion. So, it should surprise no one that the Rolling Stones do corporate gigs, including one a decade ago in which they took in $2 million to entertain Pepsi bottlers in Hawaii.

.

Equally widespread and probably even more responsible for dissipating rebellious energy is when songs of perceived rebellious artists are used as background music in commercials used to propagandize listeners into associating their rebellious urges with consumer products. Dylan’s “Times They Are a-Changin’” has been used by accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand and by the Bank of Montreal; and the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up” has been used by Microsoft. Of course it is unfair to pick on only Dylan and the Rolling Stones, but it’s simply too depressing for me to go through the entire list.

.

To defeat the elite, the rest of us need energy. Rebellion is a powerful idea, but when rebellion is used merely to attract an audience for financial profit, the idea itself becomes less powerful.

.

So, whether it is spirituality, folk/protest music, or rock-and-roll, when rebellious energy is commercialized, that energy dissipates.

.

Spirituality, music, theater, cinema, and other arts can be revolutionary forces, but the gross commercialization of these has deadened their capacity to energize rebellion. So now damn near everything—not just organized religion—has become an “opiate of the masses.”

.

In a radically capitalist society that worships “one market under God” (as Thomas Frank called it), we are all forced to be somewhat money-centric in order to survive. No shame here. But since money is not alive, to the extent that we become radically money-centric and money is at the center of all of our thoughts, decisions, and activities, we are dead and incapable of any resistance to injustices.

.

 

TIME TO RAISE THE PROFESSIONAL BAR

(IN CANADA)

.

ADVOCIS LEADS IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE –

BY RAISING THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR REGULATORY BAR

.

https://beyondrisk.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/advocis-leads-in-professional-practice-by-raising-the-regulatory-bar-for-financial-advisors/

U.S.  POLITICAL CULTURE DYSFUNCTIONAL? WHY?

 .

THE AMERICAN THINKER

.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/the_great_trump_pc_jailbreak.html

.http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/trump_storm_troopers_mob_sanders_rally_force_cancellation.html

 

DON’T LIVE LIKE THE

.

‘I – WISH – I – WERE WEALTHY PEOPLE’

.

Gail Vaz-Oxlade

Toronto Star

March 8, 2016

.

                 Spending beyond your means,

 .

                 Without savings or safety net,

.

                to buy things that impress

 .                       

               is an illusion of wealth

.

I have met a lot of people who spend as if they’re wealthy.

 .

Without savings, an emergency fund or a debt-free balance sheet, they drive fancy cars, eat out three nights a week and have all the newest toys. These are people who spend money creating an illusion to fool...who? Themselves? Their friends? People they dont even really know?

 .

Folks drop big bucks on kitchen renovations. It’s a very pretty kitchen. And when friends come over they comment on the beautiful cabinets, gorgeous appliances and granite countertops. Then the I­ Wish-I-Were-Wealthy people bask in all that admiration.

 .

The thing their visitors don’t know is that at night they toss and turn trying to figure out which minimum payment they’ll make this week.

.

People dress UP. People drive UP. People live UP.

 .

It’s not really their own standards they’re living or driving or dressing up to, it’s the new standards that have been created by living in a world where we can look in at the rich and famous and want what they have.

.

If you aren’t satisfied with the life you can afford -if you aren’t living within your own means -ask yourself what it is this illusion of wealth you’re striving for gives you. Are you striving for oohs and ahhs? Are you trying to make others jealous? If you are compromising your financial well being- building your illusion of wealth on sand that will eventually shift -how will you feel when people come to know your truth?

I’ve heard people say things like, ‘I’d never buy anything off-brand,” or ”I have to take a cruise every year for my sanity,” or ”Kill me dead if you ever see me in those shoes!”

.

Seriously?

.

I have expensive tastes. But never, ever in my life have I let my wants come before my needs. And I’m not just talking about present needs; I wont let my wants come before my future needs either. And I certainly won’t let the wants other people have drive me to spend money on stuff.

.

It may be that the illusion of wealth is most important to those who have a sense they are always beings judged. It’s sad that people feel this way.

.

But folks, it’s a thought! You THINK you’re being judged. You have the ability to replace that thought with this one: I dont need the illusion of wealth because I am wealthy. I dont mean Rockefeller wealthy, I mean rock – solid – foundation wealthy.

 .

Most of the things that make us happy with our lives don’t cost money. And many of the things in our lives that do cost money don’t carry really big price tags.

 .

It is not until we inflate our sense of entitlement, or seek to create the illusion of wealth to impress, that we get into trouble spending more than we have.

 .

Today, move from the idea of illusion to a commitment to reality. Make your life purposeful and worthwhile. Stop spending money you don’t have to buy things you don’t need to impress people who don’t matter.

.

A PERSONAL COMMENT

.

CONFIDENCE

.

MOVING FROM ‘ME’ TO ‘WE’

.

THE MOST EFFECTIVE VALIDATION IS

SELF – VALIDATION

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/education-moving-from-me-we-dan-zwicker

.

Dan Zwicker

A MONEY ECONOMY DEMANDS?

.

AN OPEN AND DIRECT VIEW

.

 IT’S ALL ABOUT CULTURE

.
In our money economy there are 2 essential disciplines:

.

  #1 personal health

.

    #2 financial health.

.

The quality of our life and lifestyle flows from each if we are willing to pay the price. To assure that lifetime financial certainty underpins all our hopes and dreams we must take care of both – on time.

.

 
The ability to execute flawlessly is the essence of high performance. In a wired world the key ingredient in Olympic ‘Best in Class’ performance is the capacity for disciplined, integrative collaborative teamwork and real time communication.

.
RESULTS COUNT – in the world of commerce we are measured equally by what we bring to the genuine meaning of family. Family requires a characteristic I refer to as that of a ‘net giver’.

.

Simple logic suggests that if among a group of individuals each member is a ‘net taker’ there simply will not be enough to go around. This site reflects my belief in the core value of collaborative behaviour in both areas of our life.

.

Family is the purest form of ‘giving’ – there is no financial premise included in its execution.

.

I have enjoyed a partnership with such an individual for almost 50 years.

.

For a contemporary view of ‘Family’ visit:

.

http://dan-zwicker.blogspot.com/2011/03/family-in-west-in-life-in-death-oedipal.html