How Long Do You Want to Live? Here’s My Answer… 

Among my wealthy friends and coevals—let’s say, among the top 1% ($6 million+ net worth)—I’ve noticed that the great majority of them are still busy with their lives, eschewing conventional retirement activities for other games of accomplishment.

Interestingly, the most common of these games is accumulating even more wealth than they already have. (Game Objective: He who dies the richest wins.) But logically, it is the least consequential. These are individuals whose current wealth is more than enough to provide for them, their children, their grandchildren, and any other people or organizations they might want to help financially.

From an emotional perspective, continuing with the get-even-richer game is understandable. All the people I’m thinking of began their careers with little or no money. To build the kind of wealth they built would have taken an enormous, almost an excessive, amount of single-minded concentration and sacrifice. When you spend 40 or 50 years working like that, it’s not easy to break the habit. You can’t switch it off like a light bulb.

I know. I’ve tried to retire three times.

The first time, I went back to work because, although I had a significant net worth, the income I could conservatively extract from that each year was not enough to pay for my overgrown yearly expenses.

The second time, I had those expenses covered, but I realized that there were several things I had always wanted to do that I hadn’t done. One of them was writing books. Another was to make a few movies.

Ten years later, having written and published about two dozen books and scripted and produced three movies, I tried to retire for a third time. But I found that I could not get myself to do those things that one is supposed to enjoy in retirement – especially golf.

What I wanted to do, I had to admit, was just keep on working. So, I did. But I changed my manner and purpose. I devoted half of my working hours, about 30% of my income, and more than half of my net worth to three major non-profit projects that, with the help of K and my three sons, I built through a family-directed foundation.

That is how I bowed out of the get-even-richer game and began playing the get-poorer game. But I was, and am, still working crazy hours.

Among my friends that stopped playing the get-rich game when they retired, more than a few replaced the hours they used to spend working with the self-education game – reading books, going to plays and concerts, joining discussion groups, learning new languages, and taking academic courses. I presume it’s because, like I did after my second retirement, they are taking advantage of the time they now have to pursue interests they didn’t have time for during their get-rich years.

And there is another “game” that I notice many of them seem to be playing – one they don’t talk about overtly: the longevity game, the winner of which is he who lives the longest. These guys – whether they are vegans or carnivores or calorie counters – play seriously. They are very strict about their eating habits. They are equally diligent about their exercise, whether it be yoga and meditation, walking 20,000 steps a day, or playing basketball or jumping rope or lifting weights.

I admit to indulging myself, to the degree I can, in playing a similar game. But in my defense, I like to think that I’m not playing the same way. My goal in exercising is not to outlive anyone. My goal is to simply look like I’m going to outlive my fellow players. This is, I admit, a more superficial and less distinguished goal than living to 100. But I learned long ago that if you are 50 and in good health and do everything right in terms of eating well and exercising diligently and taking all the life-extending supplements you can get your hands on, the increase in your lifespan be minimal. The actuarial tables, which are the most reliable of such analytics, conclude unequivocally that it will buy you but a single extra year. Instead of dying at 82, you will die at 83.

So why, one might ask, do I continue to not only keep exercising, but also work like a mad man for 50 to 60 hours a week (and only about 30 hours when I’m “on vacation”)?

The obvious answer is that I can’t help it. But I do have a scientific rationale, which I bring up every time the question is put to me.

Of all the things one can do to increase longevity, the most important, at least according to the studies I’ve read, is having a reason to keep on living. And thanks to my lifelong habit of starting projects that are larger and more time-consuming than they at first appear to be, I have plenty of reasons!

I know that what I should be focused on in the waning years of my life is spending more time with friends and family. And I keep promising myself that I will do that. But somehow in my upbringing, I was infected with two moral commandments that are forever at the base of my conscience. One is to leave the world at least as sorted as you found it. The other is to always finish anything worthwhile that you start. So I also feel obliged to finish the many projects I’ve started over the years but have yet to complete.

So, there it is. And this brings me to a decision I made last weekend…

After Much Internal Debate, I’ve Made a Decision about the Future of MarkFord.Net 

This is the antepenultimate weekly issue of this blog. My plan is to publish two more of these weeklies, then go to a once-a-month schedule with a slightly different format.

I read and watch a ton of material every day to feed the briefs and essays I’ve been writing on current events and topical issues. The new monthly publication will have little to none of that, as I’ll be attempting to restrict my writing to topics that have more universal applications – i.e., topics that will still be worth reading after I’m dead and gone and, thus, will provide me with a way to win the longevity game even if I don’t make it to whatever age the actuarial tables and fate have ascribed to me. As a bonus, I’m hoping it will free up plenty of time for me to focus on the other projects I want to finish.

Meanwhile, before moving on to the new format, I want to thank all those who have helped and supported me on this latest writing adventure. On top of my list are Judith Strauss, my editor of 30 years, and Giovanna Koo, who runs the business side of my life and has been responsible for getting all these hundreds of issues out. I want to thank Sean MacIntyre for his contributions on investing. And, of course, I want to thank all my readers, especially those that have taken the time to affirm or challenge my ideas along the way.

The Greatness and Difficulty of English 

English is spoken in the big cities of just about any country an American tourist might visit. Do anything touristy, like check in to a hotel or go to a restaurant or go shopping, and you will find people that can speak to you in English – and it’s not only because it helps them relieve you of your American dollars.

One reason English is so widely spoken is, of course, because the US dollar is the world’s go-to currency and American tourists spend more dollars while traveling overseas than any other nationality.

But there is another reason that language experts say is equally or more important. Among the major languages of the world, English is one of the easiest to learn. Its grammar is simpler than that of the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian). And its diction is easier than German.

If you’ve ever compared the length of books written in English to versions translated into other languages, you may also have noticed that the English versions are usually considerably more compact. This is because English has a comparatively huge vocabulary due to its long history of readily incorporating words from other languages, including languages as diverse as Chinese, Japanese, Farsi, Hindi, and Native American dialects.

The worldwide acceptance of English is a benefit that English speakers that don’t travel abroad don’t have the opportunity to appreciate. If you want to say something and be understood in distant parts of the globe, English is always your best bet.

But there is a problem with English as a lingua franca that is seldom discussed. I’m talking about communication between English speakers with different accents. I’ve been to most of the world’s countries where English is at least one of its official languages. And I can tell you that communicating in some of those countries is not easy.

For example, I have great difficulty understanding the English spoken in northern England, Ireland, and Scotland. In parts of the Caribbean – I’m thinking of Grand Cayman, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the British Virgin Islands – I have considerably fewer problems than I have in northern England, Ireland, and Scotland. But I have more difficulty in Jamaica, Trinidad, and Tobago, as well as the Turks and Caicos. It may surprise you to know that, for me, the easiest English-speaking countries are in Africa, e.g., Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Kenya.

I’m thinking about this because of a short email exchange I had yesterday with CF, one of my three brothers. At the end of our discussion about his son’s birthday, he signed off, saying: “I am about to go into a meeting with my Indian programmers.”

I replied: “Have a good meeting… Hope you understand everything they say!”

He picked up on that and wrote, “Well, of course they speak English, and probably better than I do. But their accent is so strong that my most common response is: ‘Mahesh, you have a beautiful voice and I’m sure it’s just my aged hearing, but can you repeat that and say it a bit slower.’”

“I know that very well from my visits to our Indian office in Mumbai,” I wrote back. “My partners and I would be meeting with six or eight people – all smart, college educated, etc. But there was always one whose accent was so thick that I could not understand a word. Like you do, I would politely ask him to repeat what he had just said. And he would… exactly the way he had said it the first time. Because everyone else in the room had seemed to understand him perfectly, he had no reason to think my problem was his accent. He probably thought my mind had drifted. So I’d say something like, ‘I sort of see what you mean, but I’m not sure. Can you please say it again?’ He would look at me oddly, then repeat what he had just said – and again, I would comprehend nothing. At that point, thoroughly embarrassed, I would just smile appreciatively, nod, and say, ‘Ahah.’”

I am no longer directly involved in that business. But sometimes, when I think back on those conversations and the important issues we were discussing, I wonder what my embarrassment cost our business in profits. How many bad projects were approved by my “Ahahs,” and how many good projects were aborted?

“It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree.” – Charles Baudelaire

“It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree.” – Charles Baudelaire

An Impressive Speech by RFK Jr. 

Watch Time: 50 minutes

Whatever your political preferences, I urge you to watch RFK Jr.’s speech on why he left the Democratic party and took his name off the ballots in the “battleground” states.

First, use your emotional brain to listen to his story and then ask yourself whether you trust him.

Second, use your neocortical brain to register the claims he is making and make a rational judgement about whether his logic is sound.

I’m 100% sure that you will be faced with facts that are new, and possibly disturbing, to you – facts that bear on some of the most important political issues being debated today, including freedom of speech in America, the war in Ukraine, having a sensible immigration policy, the importance to America of maintaining the dollar’s supremacy, the danger of politicizing US intelligence agencies (for Republicans and Democrats), and the hardly talked about global crisis of chronic disease.

Click here.

Monkeypox and the Monkeypox Vaccine: A Brief History 

In the Aug. 19 issue, I wrote briefly about Monkeypox, a virus that some health officials are predicting might spread as fast as COVID-19 but with a lethality rate 10 times as high.

There was a time – and not terribly long ago – when I would have considered such a news item to be a scary fact. But now, after researching so many of the early “facts” we were given about COVID, I’ve become suspicious of any sort of news or analysis that comes from the world’s major health organizations, and especially the WHO, the NIH, and the CDC.

Here is Meryl Nass, the astonishingly prolific scientist/researcher on viruses and vaccines, tracing the 20+ year history of the Monkeypox virus and the vaccine developed to combat it, and explaining why she calls it Monkeypok$.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger Are Recalibrating the Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio… Shouldn’t We Be Paying Attention? 

For several years, Warren Buffett has been warning investors that there are fundamental weaknesses in the economy generally and in the banking industry in particular that concern him. Now he is moving big chunks of the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio from stocks and into presumably safer assets like cash and debt instruments.

Click here and here for two perspectives on that.

Five Quick Bites 

* Interesting. Smartphone-free schools? A thought-provoking proposal. What do you think? Click here.

* Interesting. Elon Musk on commercial space flights. Click here.

* Interesting. Bill Maher and Ben Shapiro talk about fat shaming. Click here.

* Interesting. Scans suggest many people with severe brain injuries are more aware than originally thought. Click here.

* Fun and Interesting. I’ve watched this three times and I still have no idea how he does it!

Another Finalist in This Year’s Smithsonian Magazine Photo Contest… 

According to the photographer (Irina Denisova), this photograph was influenced by paintings from Pablo Picasso’s Blue Period. Textures developed using artificial intelligence were used in processing.

From RM re “My Plot for a Science Fiction Movie” in the Aug. 19  issue: 

“Your plot is interesting….

“All it takes is one! One corporate behemoth to slip by the concerned masses and become too big and too powerful. A genie whose authority eclipses the authority of the authorities… and who cannot be placed back in any bottle. So, the land of Meta will have its capital at its corporate HQ but will have territories or colonies around the world.

“We are already seeing some of these corporations create schools and towns for workers….”

My Response: After I published that piece, I realized that there were other parts of my plot that I hadn’t mentioned. For example…

I believe the digital nation-states never wanted to be integrated into the physical nations because their form of government gave them all the benefits that physical nations could offer but with better payoffs and fewer hassles. They had all the money they needed (through their form of voluntary taxation – i.e. subscription revenues) and much greater power than the physical nations in terms of influencing the thoughts and even controlling the behavior of their citizens.

Instead of using a range of forceful penalties for bad behavior that ultimately necessitates guns and prisons, the digital nation-states get their citizens to obey their laws (laws they can make up without the cost and hassle of a legislature) by the non-violent, non-force-based mechanism of issuing temporary to permanent ostracization.

And leaders of the digital nation-states can get a lot richer a lot faster than leaders of physical nations because they own their states and can take from the collective treasury whatever they want in terms of personal compensation, without answering to anybody.

Even if political leaders of physical nations are willing to enrich themselves unethically or illegally by trading on private financial information, taking bribes for “consulting” work, and making promises to their citizens that they can’t keep, they can’t get as rich as Bezos or Musk.

That’s why I believe the US-based digital nation-states were more than happy to simply pay their taxes and be left alone.

 

From SL re my advice to The Donald in the Aug. 23  issue:

“Enjoying your engaging, witty writing, as usual.

“But do you think Trump understands what ad hominem attacks are? Even if he does, they are his stock-in-trade. Asking him to desist from personal insults is like asking a rooster not to crow at sunrise.

“Will the winner be the contestant who does a better job of staying on script? If so, it looks like Kamala to me.”

My Response: Kamala could certainly win if she stays on script. She did a great job in her closing speech at the DNC. She was confident and, dare I say, presidential. Most impressive of all was how she made her six major misleading and outright false statements sound believable.

She won’t do as well if she debates Trump. He can think on his feet. She cannot. If Trump does what I “told” him to do – avoids the ad hominem attacks and hammers away with the facts – he has a better-than-even chance to win.

Dems are feeling a lot of joy and strength now. (Interesting aside: Did you know that Kraft durch Freude – “Strength Through Joy” – was a Nazi slogan in the 1930s?) But the race, as we know, will be decided by the undecided voters in the swing states, and we will see how that looks as the next few weeks pass.

Obviously, I believe a Harris presidency would be a disaster for the US. (Her proposal to levy a 25% wealth tax would destroy our economy all by itself.) However, although a Trump win would be net positive for the US economy in the short-term, his demonstrated commitment to trillion-dollar deficits will lead to a deep recession or hyperinflation, either of which will make the productive population of the US poorer. Possibly much poorer.

In offering my advice to Harris and Trump, I haven’t been thinking of what will be best for the US during what remains of my lifetime, but what will be better for my children and grandchildren. And when I think honestly about that, I have to accept the fact that my DNA gifts to the future of the US and the world will suffer regardless of who wins in November. The insane spending of both candidates and both parties will doom them equally. The only important difference being that Harris is more likely to get us into WWIII.