Bits and Pieces 

The Orient Express: Then and Now 

Several summers ago, K and I took a train ride from Paris to Vienna. The goal was not to get to Vienna, but rather to experience the train ride itself. We were travelling, you see, on the Orient Express.

The Orient Express was the creation of a Belgian entrepreneur by the name of Georges Nagelmackers. In 1865, after seeing Pullman sleeping cars in the US, he got to work developing a luxury train that could travel from one end of Europe to the other. His dream was realized in 1889 when his Orient Express line (inaugurated in 1883) left the Gare de l’Est station in Paris on its first 1,700-mile journey all the way to Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul).

The opulent train became a commonplace feature of spy novels, vampiric tales, crime thrillers, and dozens of films and TV shows. In 1977, it was officially shut down, but it has reappeared several times. Today, you can take the Orient Express from Paris to Vienna, which is what we did.

The current version offers an elegant dining car, along with personal compartments equipped with upholstered seats, fold-out antique washbasins, and comfortable couchettes with fine linens.  Another vintage touch: little fans instead of air conditioning.

This last authentic detail turned out to be an unpleasant lesson in historical reality. On our second day on the train, when the temperature rose to 90+ degrees and all the passengers had to remove their formal clothes – sometimes down to T-shirts – we were sweating like the common people! No, like wealthy people before AC!

Zoom Is Great… Until It Isn’t 

I love Zoom. It allows me to communicate with colleagues all over the world and have face-to-face discussions at the spur of the moment. It also allows me to attend my regular twice-weekly group meetings with the principals of my main biz without the cost and inconvenience of flying.

In May, I dusted off my crystal ball and predicted which pandemic-propelled technologies would flourish after lockdowns ended. Zoom was one of them. Since then, the company has grown and grown. It will certainly slow down at some point, but I don’t see it losing market share. Unless…

There are two things Zoom needs to do to ensure its position as the leader in its field.

The first is the audio. Currently, the Zoom app doesn’t allow two people to speak at the same time. One or another gets cut off. This is NOT how in-person group conversations work. When two people speak at the same time in Zoom, there is that moment when they both realize what’s happened… and then an awkward few seconds until one says, “Go ahead. Speak.”

I’m sure Zoom will improve this small glitch, as hard as it is to imagine how they’ll do it. If they don’t, I suppose we’ll all have to get better at timing our interruptions.

The second gripe I have about Zoom is a personal one. It is not a threat to the company’s future growth… still, it bothers me. I’m talking of course about the fact that I am always disappointed in how I look on the screen. I mean, I don’t look as handsome as I believe myself to be. This is partly due to certain undeniable psychological issues, but it’s also due to the fact that the camera and the lighting in my office are not conducive to good photography.

I just found an article by Seth Goodwin, the productivity expert, that explains how he solved this problem. You can read it here.

A Good Bet: Self-Driving Cars 

We are beyond the tipping point with self-driving vehicles. They are a current fact, and an inevitable future reality. I don’t mean some self-driving cars and trucks. I mean nothing but… and in the next 10 years.

Just recently, California signed SB570 into law. It says that cars no longer need to have mirrors, windshield wipers, and speedometers. GM is planning to invest another $27B through 2025 in self-driving vehicles… BMW, $35B… and Audi, $16B.

One analyst I know is projecting this will grow into a $7 trillion market by 2031, a growth rate of 63,000%.

I believe it.

Thanks, but No Thanks 

In 1996, Murder Ballads, the Bad Seeds’ ninth album, was released. It garnered widespread critical praise, and its lead singer, Nick Cave, was nominated for an MTV award as Best Male Artist.

In response, Cave sent  MTV the following letter:

21 OCT 96

To all those at MTV,

I would like to start by thanking you all for the support you have given me over recent years and I am both grateful and flattered by the nominations that I have received for best male artist. The air play given to both the Kylie Minogue and P. J. Harvey duets from my latest album Murder Ballads has not gone unnoticed and has been greatly appreciated. So again my sincere thanks.

Having said that, I feel that it’s necessary for me to request that my nomination for best male artist be withdrawn and furthermore any awards or nominations for such awards that may arise in later years be presented to those who feel more comfortable with the competitive nature of these award ceremonies.

I, myself, do not. I have always been of the opinion that my music is unique and individual and exists beyond the realms inhabited by those who would reduce things to mere measuring. I am in competition with no-one.

My relationship with my muse is a delicate one at the best of times and I feel that it is my duty to protect her from influences that may offend her fragile nature.

She comes to me with the gift of song and in return I treat her with the respect I feel she deserves – in this case this means not subjecting her to the indignities of judgement and competition. My muse is not a horse and I am in no horse race and if indeed she was, still I would not harness her to this tumbrel – this bloody cart of severed heads and glittering prizes. My muse may spook! May bolt! May abandon me completely!

So once again, to the people at MTV, I appreciate the zeal and energy that was put behind my last record, I truly do and say thank you and again I say thank you but no… no thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Cave

(Source: Letters of Note)

Worth Quoting: Thoughts on the Danger of Indifference 

* “All it takes for evil to flourish is for a few good men to be a little wrong and have a great deal of power, and for the vast majority of their fellow citizens to remain indifferent.” –  William Sloane Coffin

* “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference.” – Henry David Thoreau

* “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference.” – Elie Wiesel

Fun Fact 

The town of Boring, Oregon (named after former resident William Boring) became the sister city of Dull, Scotland in 2012.

 3 Words I’m Trying to Work Into My Conversations 

* Treacle is a kind of molasses. It is thick, sticky, and sweet – which is why it has come to be used as a slang term for cloying sentimentality. Example: The book was ruined by all the treacle about his childhood.

* Cacoethes – from the Greek for “ill-disposed” – is an irresistible urge, especially for something harmful. Example: He quit years ago, but never overcame his cacoethes for smoking.

* Glabrous refers to a surface – e.g., skin or the leaves of plants – that is smooth and hairless. It was derived from the Latin for “bald.” Example: She lovingly caressed her grandfather’s glabrous scalp.”

How the Vanderbilts Lost Their Fortune 

There are three things one can do about wealth: Build it. Preserve it. Or destroy it.

Financial planners will often remind you that most great family fortunes are entirely dissipated in three generations. The history of the Vanderbilts is a classic example Cornelius built it. His son Billy preserved it. And Billy’s children and grandchildren destroyed it.  My friend JS recently sent me a clip on this. You can watch it here.

Readers Write… 

 Kudos for the November 8 issue:

“You Say You’re Proud to Be a Liberal, but You Don’t Act Like It!” 

Mark,

Love your post today. It crystallized a few critical points that I forgot about amid all the other turmoil! – DS

Mark,

Everything you said in that piece today was put beautifully so even a child would understand it. I of course agree wholeheartedly and in fact (although it has not been as true as it was in the past) it is ONE Of the main reasons I quit my former socialist ideology…. Your readers may be interested to know that it was Newt Gingrich’s Republican majority House that passed the only balanced budget amendment in 1995 by a margin of 300-132. And when it went to the Senate it only missed by one vote… to get the 2/3 majority needed…. Imagine, if that had passed in 1995, where we would be as a TRUE great economic powerhouse. – CF

Mark,

Every time I read one of these uncommonly sensible columns, I want to send you a big, stinging High Five. I’d really like to share them with my colleagues…. However, I know I’m going to get pushback from [those at the top] because it conflicts with [their] progressive ideology…. – TJ

Any ideas about how I might go about this diplomatically?

My answer: 

When I wrote Early to Rise from 2000 to 2010, my audience was mostly young entrepreneurs that trusted my experience and happily accepted my advice without question. When I wrote Creating Wealth from 2010 to 2020, my audience was mostly 30- and 40-year-olds that were happy to incorporate my wealth building strategies uncritically. So, for 20 years, I gave my advice much like a winning sports coach or martial arts master would speak to his students.

In writing my current blog (MarkFord.Net), my audience is composed mostly of people my own age – successful businesspeople and professionals that have as much life experience as I do, but whose political and social views differ from mine. And so I’ve tried to take a more considerate, respectful, and thoughtful approach to asserting my views. My desire is to encourage them to understand my perspective by staying away from the easy barbs and clichés I might use if I were preaching to the choir. My goal is to disrupt some of their assumptions without being condescending or demeaning. I’d rather nudge and budge than rake and break.

You Say You’re Proud to Be a Liberal, but You Don’t Act Like It! 

You believe in equality. You believe in helping those that can’t help themselves. You believe in universal health coverage, free university education, a $20 minimum wage, and mandatory employee benefits like cost-of-living increases, paid maternity/paternity leave, and…

You believe that in America, the world’s wealthiest country, there should be no homelessness or poverty or “food insecurity.”

And that we should be leading the world in getting to net zero carbon emissions.

So, it’s understandable that you are angry at those two Democrats for decimating Biden’s $3.8 trillion deal.

But here’s the thing. You know, deep down, that you know next to nothing about macroeconomics, monetary policy, or the machinations of the Federal Reserve. You have memorized a few phrases like “fiscal stimulus” and “trickle-down economics,” and you use them whenever you get into a discussion about the budget, but you don’t really get what they mean.

Don’t feel bad.

Listen, I know you.

I know how hard you work to earn the money you make. I know you got a good education, and since then you’ve continued learning and refining your professional skills to advance your prospects and increase your income. You’ve done that because you don’t expect your boss to give you more simply because you want more or because you’ve been on the payroll for so long. You’re making more now because you are smarter and more efficient and more productive than you were when you began. You contribute more to your job. You deserve more because you’ve earned it.

When you are managing your personal expenses, you begin with 2 key considerations:

* How much money you have (your net worth)

* How much you earn (your income)

To pay for your family’s lifestyle, you follow a very fundamental rule: You don’t spend more than you make. And to pay for future expenses, such as your kids’ education and your retirement, you save money every month, which means you must spend less than you make.

To accomplish that goal, you are frugal in your spending. When it comes to buying a car, you shop smartly. You buy a good car, a reliable car that gets good gas mileage. It may be less than your dream car, but it’s what you can reasonably afford.

You do the same when it comes to every other purchasing decision – from buying a home to taking vacations to buying gifts for family and friends.

And the reason you make these decisions is because you recognize that to support yourself and your family for the rest of your life, you must increase your net worth, however gradually, until you have enough money socked away in your retirement account so that you can pay all your expenses through the interest that account provides.

Above all, you never, ever want to end up with a negative net worth because you know that you could lose everything you’ve worked for and destroy the financial stability of your family.

That’s why, if a friend or acquaintance gets into financial trouble, you will lend or even give him money. But you won’t give him all your money. And that’s because you know that your first obligation – and this is a moral obligation – is to take care of your family.

In other words, when it comes to your personal finances, there is a limit to how generous you are willing to be.

Magical Thinking 

Economics is not like physics. The rules are very different than the Newtonian laws that govern the physical world.

The common-sense logic you apply to your daily decisions about spending and saving and investing and giving are subject to the same economic principles that apply to government spending.

But for some reason, when you talk about government spending, you don’t apply those principles to your argument.

There is a form of fiction called Magical Realism. If you know Gabriel García Márquez, you know what I’m talking about. A story that is otherwise realistic is made exciting and almost wonderful by elements in it that are unreal – arid landscapes bursting into fire, long-dead relatives coming back to life.

The equivalent in economics is based on a fundamental illusion: that the economic behavior of governments is subject to different rules than what we know to be true in our own lives. This leads to the following magical thinking:

* Governments are like big businesses that make and spend money for the public good.

* The USA is a very rich country that can afford to take good care of all its denizens, eliminate carbon emissions, and fix social problems with social spending.

* The rich are very rich, but they don’t pay their fair share of taxes because they take advantage of loopholes. To get America right, we just need to make those rich people pay more taxes.

As I will explain in some detail in an upcoming blog post, none of those things are true. In fact, they are far from true. They are delusional.

To be brief…

* Governments are nothing like businesses. They are fundamentally different in a way that makes them always and forever subject to corruption and malfeasance.

* The USA is not a rich country. It is an extremely broke country that is surviving by borrowing money it can’t pay back from countries and financial institutions that don’t care if it goes broke.

* By any reasonable standard, the rich are paying more than their fair share of taxes. And even if they paid more, it would do nothing to fix the skyrocketing federal debt.

So, let me ask you a few questions:

* Why do you think it’s not okay for you to spend more than you make, but it’s okay for a government to do so?

* Why do you believe in personal budgets, but not in federal budgets?

* Why do you understand that there must be a limit to your personal largesse, but think there should be no limit to government spending?

Why Do We Have 9 Supreme Court Judges?

You probably know that the current US Supreme Court has a conservative bias. Thanks to RBG’S death and Trump’s appointments, 6 of the 9 justices are considered conservative.

This, the Democrats don’t like. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the oval office. But they don’t control the Supreme Court. And so, there is talk of “packing” the court – i.e., appointing additional liberal-leaning judges to the court so that it tilts left.

Reading about this made me wonder: How did it come about that the founders settled on 9 judges? And how important is that number?

It turns out that the founders decided on 6 justices. And since then, the number has ranged from 5 to as many as 10.

The first Supreme Court – with 6 justices – was established under George Washington by the Judiciary Act of 1789. At the end of John Adams’ term in office, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which brought the number down to 5. Under the incoming president, Thomas Jefferson, Congress repealed that act, putting the number back to 6. And in 1807, they added a seventh.

In order to keep pace with the additional federal court districts that were popping up in the expanding West, Andrew Jackson was able to expand the Supreme Court to 9 in 1837. And in 1863, during the Civil War, a 10th justice was added. But in 1866, when the war was over, Congress brought the number back to 7 to limit the power of Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor. Then in 1869, after Ulysses Grant was elected, the number went back to 9.

In the 1930s, FDR, concerned about opposition to his New Deal spending, unsuccessfully tried to increase the number to 15. (This gave us the term “packing” the court.) But aside from that attempt, the number of Supreme Court justices has remained stable at 9 for more than 150 years.

Bottom line: There is nothing sacred or even historically significant about the number 9. The population of the Supreme Court has accordioned over the years as a result of partisan politicking, which is just what we’re seeing today.