A Bird in the Hand 
My Approach to Building Wealth 

When I think about investing – whether it is investing my time or my money – I begin by asking myself: What sort of thing is it that I’d be investing in?

Is it a business – like Agora Publishing or Microsoft? Or is it a financial asset – like gold or Bitcoin or a work of art?

I make this distinction because it is very fundamental to how I think about wealth building.

There is a big difference between investing in a business and investing in any other sort of financial asset.

A business is more than a financial thing whose value fluctuates based on supply and demand. A business is dynamic and operates with motivation and intent. It functions as a natural organism, like a plant or an animal, because it is a natural organism, composed, as it is, by natural beings.

A business has a purpose – which is to sell its products and services at a profit. It does this through constant change and adaptability to the environment within which it exists. Cash flow is its life blood. Customer satisfaction is its inevitable and evolutionary purpose. And profit is how it measures its health.

Financial assets like gold or cryptocurrencies do not function as natural organisms. They are not conscious. They have no intrinsic purpose. They are not capable of making a profit. Their value depends entirely on how much, at any given time, people are willing to pay for them.

Investments vs. Speculations 

When I buy stocks, I am buying shares in ongoing businesses. When I buy corporate bonds, I am making loans to such businesses. I call these sorts of transactions investments.

When I buy gold (as I have) or cryptocurrencies (as I have) or art (as I do all the time), I am buying an asset whose value I hope will appreciate. The chance of that happening depends not on anything the asset does, but on the buying public’s perception of its value. However clever I think I may be in guessing future demand for the asset, I don’t have any real idea of whether that will happen. I don’t know its revenue history or its P/E ratio because it has none. For that reason, I consider such transactions to be speculations.

Prudent wealth building, in my view, is a matter of giving preference to transactions whose outcomes are relatively predictable. And that means investments that I can understand relatively well and, if at all possible, have some control over.

These two factors – knowledge and control – are how I rate my likelihood of success in making all my financial decisions.

Another way of thinking about this is to look at wealth building opportunities in terms of appreciation and income. When I buy a work of art or a parcel of undeveloped land, I am hoping that its value will appreciate. When I buy a bond, I am counting on the income it will give me over time.

I would much prefer owning a building I can rent out than a parcel of land, because the former provides both income and potential appreciation, while the latter gives me only the possibility of value gain.

My favorite investments are those that offer both income and appreciation and that I fairly well understand and at least partially control.

That doesn’t mean I don’t speculate. I do. But I try to keep the balance between investments and speculations to about 80/20.

Among the speculations I’ve made over the years, some – especially those that have a long history of appreciating – have proven more reliable than others. Gold is such a speculation. It isn’t a business. It doesn’t produce income. But it is considered by the entire world to be a store of value and it has a 2,000-year history of maintaining its value. That makes gold (and other precious metals) a priori safer than cryptocurrencies. I can say the same thing about art.

But between those two, I prefer my art because there is absolutely nothing I can do to affect the price of gold, whereas there is something I can do (promotion and advertising) to increase the value of my art.

If I were to show you my portfolios of financial assets, you would see a direct correlation between the amounts I have invested in each and the four factors of knowledge/control and income/appreciation.

The largest portion of my wealth resides in income-producing businesses. After that is rental real estate. Both portfolios provide me with all four factors.

Below that – in terms of the percentage of my net worth – are my stock portfolios, which provide both income and appreciation, and about which I can know something, but over which I have no control. Then I have my bonds, which are like owning businesses, but without the appreciation.

Below stocks and bonds are all my speculations. My favorite is art, because, as I said, I know a good deal about the art I buy and I can, to some extent, affect the price I get for it. After that, it’s gold. I have no control over its value, and it provides no income. But though it may not skyrocket in value, it’s more than likely to hold its own.

And then, below these assets, are such things as cryptocurrencies and (if I end up investing in any) NFTs. I put these at the bottom because they aren’t businesses, they don’t create profits, they don’t provide income, and the possibility that they will appreciate is entirely out of my hands.

To Be Sure… 

I get why many people like NE are so excited about the rapid advances in technology that are creating new money-making opportunities like cryptocurrencies and NFTs. Huge fortunes have always been made by speculating on future trends.

But it’s not in my nature to use my time and money that way. My wealth-building philosophy is summed up in a very simple phrase: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Mine is not a strategy to get very rich, very quickly. But it does offer the advantage of a great degree of relative safety, where you can pretty much guarantee (engineer) that your wealth will continue to grow, year after year.

I did invest cryptocurrencies – five of them – several years ago. And they have appreciated by more than 600%, which is something my more conservative investments have rarely, if ever, done. And, yes, I sometimes think I wish I had invested more than one-tenth of 1% of my net worth in them. But then I remind myself: My bird-in-the-hand strategy for building wealth has served me well over the years.

I will continue to speculate now and then when someone like NE presents a persuasive case. But when I do, I will assume that I’m going to lose all of my money. With that thought in mind to begin with, I can enjoy the ride without needing a positive outcome.

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.

COVID Lockdown Update: America’s Restaurants Are Being Decimated 

DS, a friend, is the CEO of a substantial restaurant chain. We’ve been talking about the extreme challenges that her industry has been facing since the COVID lockdown began.

Between the near-hysterical fear promoted by the uninformed but opportunistic mainstream media and the hyper-zealous “stay at home” response from federal, state, and local governments, the restaurant industry has suffered enormous losses. In 2020 alone, more than 110,000 restaurants had been shuttered (about 80,000 of that number for good), erasing 2.5 million jobs and accounting for $240 billion in lost revenue.

In the last few months, thanks to widespread vaccinations and the fact that tens of millions of Americans have survived COVID and acquired natural immunity, our country is at or close to herd immunity. And that means fewer cases and many fewer deaths.

People – even anti-vax fanatics – grok that, and are returning to restaurants. But many of those restaurants are struggling mightily to find employees to service the returning customers. As DS, says, “despite higher base wages and thousand-dollar signing bonuses, it’s still nearly impossible to find people willing to come into work.”

You might think the larger restaurant chains would be doing better. And in late 2019 and 2020, they did. But this year, the hardest hit segment of the industry is chains with between 51 and 100 units.

I did a bit of research on this and was surprised by how many chains that I am familiar with are filing for bankruptcies and closing units permanently. To wit:

TGI Fridays

The chain closed 34 units in 2019 and predicted it would close another 20% of its 386 units by the end of 2020. Thanks to success with delivery and curbside service, they closed fewer units than anticipated, but still expect to close between 10% and 20% globally.

P.F. Chang’s 

In March 2020, P.F. Chang’s had its credit rating downgraded, largely due to the impact of the coronavirus outbreak. It was, by then, $675 million in debt. A month later, it permanently shuttered a location in New York, laying off more than 100 people, and then in May, did the same to a restaurant in Maryland. In September, the company announced it would be extending temporary layoffs of thousands of employees.

Luby’s

The buffet chain with a legacy that spans more than seven decades announced in 2020 that it was looking to sell off all assets and liquidate the company due to the devastating effect of the pandemic. It planned to shut down officially in August 2021, but 32 of its Texas locations have been saved by a buyout deal with Chicago-based Calvin Gin.

Applebee’s

Applebee’s closed 20 stores in the last quarter of 2019, and another 15 during the final quarter of 2020. And though the company announced plans to open dozens of new locations, it also said that dozens more could close throughout the current fiscal year.

Chuck E. Cheese’s filed for Chapter 11 protection in June 2020. At the time, with more than 600 locations, it was the largest restaurant company to do so in the wake of the pandemic.  It exited bankruptcy after restructuring and paying off more than $750 million in debt.

Rumors of Red Lobster’s demise go back to at least 2013. But what the chain is facing now is more than just speculation. In  August 2020, the chain hired an advisory firm to help explore options moving forward. That same month, Red Lobster admitted that it would need to close some of its more than 700 restaurants.

Finally… Everything You’ll Ever Need to Know About

Roman Architecture, Pt. 1: Ancient vs. Classical 

Rome is my favorite city to indulge my curiosity. During a 15-minute stroll, you can pass the foundation of a temple built prior to the birth of Christ, a massive temple built during the Roman Empire, a medieval cloister, and a 16th century palace.

So how do you know what you’re looking at?

Let’s begin with the two earliest periods:

* Ancient Roman Architecture – built in Rome from the founding of the Roman Republic in 509 BC until the transition to the Roman Empire in 27 BC

* Classical Roman Architecture – built in Rome from 27 BC until the city was sacked by the Vandals and then the Goths in 476 AD and the Empire collapsed

Ancient Roman Architecture (509 BC to 27 BC) 

The first thing to know about Ancient Roman architecture is that it was basically a knockoff of Ancient Greek architecture. (As Horace said: “Captive Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought the arts to rustic Latium.” Or, more eloquently, as my brother Andrew, a Greek and Latin scholar, once put it: “In Conquering Greece, Rome was itself conquered.”)

You can find lots of Ancient Roman temples in the Roman Forum, that vast field of antiquity that sits in the middle of the city. The buildings are only fragments of what they once were. But still…

The above image shows a small slice of the Forum. See all those columns? Do you see how they are holding up those horizontal slabs of marble?

That’s an example of trabeated or post-and-lintel construction. It was the defining feature of both Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman architecture.

Here’s the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens. It gives you a better idea of how these post-and-lintel buildings looked:

And to show you how they looked back in their prime, with the white marble painted in bright colors, here is a digitally enhanced image of the first Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill in Rome:

Now let’s move on to…

Classical Roman Architecture (27 BC to 476 AD) 

There were three technological developments during this period that defined the Classical Roman style: the perfection of concrete, the dome, and the Roman arch.

Roman Concrete 

 The Romans didn’t invent concrete.(It had been used in Mesopotamia. But they improved it.

Roman concrete was a mixture of lime mortar, ash, water, and stones of various sizes. It was strong and durable – stronger and more durable than much of the concrete that is used today. And that is why so many Classical Roman buildings – as opposed to Ancient Roman buildings – are still standing, all over Rome and throughout the parts of Europe that had been conquered by the Roman Empire.

Roman concrete was so solid and strong that, unlike post-and-lintel, it could be used for structurally complex forms. And that paved the way for a second technological breakthrough: the dome.

The Dome 

The dome made it possible for the Romans to construct buildings with wide open interior spaces. The best example of this is the Pantheon.

This is what the Pantheon looks like if you approach it at ground level:

The front is a Greek-style portico, with columns topped by a triangular pediment. But that is just a very small part of the building, as you can see in this aerial shot:

Because it allowed for an immense interior space, it is the dome that makes the Pantheon so spectacular.

The Roman Arch 

Post-and-lintel construction is very simple. The weight above the lintel is entirely supported by the posts. And the span of the opening between the posts is determined by the strength of the lintel. Posts and lintels were typically made from hardwood timbers or hard stone. Thus, the size of a post-and-lintel building (both in height and length) was limited to what those materials could support.

But the Roman arch supports the weight above it very differently. Through the keystone (at the top), the weight is distributed downwards (onto the foundation) and outwards (towards the walls) at the same time.

As a result, you didn’t need huge amounts of marble and timber to build big. You could do it with brick walls and arches.

And since ordinary stone and bricks are more readily available than hardwood timbers and marble, the construction of buildings became much easier and cheaper, and possible to do anywhere. You didn’t need to be near a hardwood forest or a marble quarry.

Thus, the Romans were able to build miles of aqueducts to carry water to their cities. Here’s an example:

(Yes, that’s the Colosseum you are looking at.)

The main things to remember about this period of Roman architecture: 

* Post-and-lintel construction is the defining technology of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman architecture. It is what gives the buildings their shape (mostly rectangular) and style (lots of columns).

* Three architectural innovations separate Ancient Roman architecture from Classical Roman architecture: the perfection of concrete, the dome, and the Roman arch. The Romans used these technologies to build an empire of thousands of public, military, and religious buildings, from Italy to France, Germany, and England, and all the way to Turkey. The used them to build aqueducts, bridges, and dams; amphitheaters, temples, and palaces.

* When you see rectangular buildings with post-and-lintel construction (columns and overhead slabs of marble), you’re looking at Ancient Greek or Ancient Roman architecture. When you see domes and arches, its Classical Roman.

Are You Ready to Make Your Big Career Move? 

He had just graduated from college with a Liberal Arts degree and a few journalism courses under his belt. Having decided in his senior year that he wanted to be a writer, he reached out to me on social media and asked for a job.

“What moxie!” I thought. “I’ll bet the only things you’ve ever written were classroom assignments!”

I was right about that. But as it turned out, he had caught me at exactly the right time. I had about two dozen writing projects that were lost in Tomorrowland, and I needed help. So, even though I wasn’t sure what he could be bringing to the table skill-wise, I offered him a part-time, paid apprenticeship.

Alas, he turned out to be very much a beginner. He was smart and eager to learn. But I could see that it was going to take a year or two before he would be able to save me more time than he would be costing me.

I pushed forward anyway. I gave him small research and writing assignments that I felt he could handle. And though I could tell that he was struggling, he worked diligently. And punctually.

We were making progress. It was slow-going, but it was going – and that was good enough for me. I would adjust myself to the pace. In a year or two, he would have the skills to really ease my workload.

And then one day, out of the blue, he told me that he was applying for a full-time writing position… and could I give him a recommendation?

What moxie!

I was shocked. Shocked that he was looking for a full-time job while he was working with me. And shocked that he felt ready to compete in a much more challenging arena.

I told him that I couldn’t recommend him for the job because I didn’t think he was ready for it. (This was more than speculation. I knew both the company he was applying to and the job he was applying for.)

I think that’s the only time I’ve refused to give someone a letter of recommendation. It would have been easy to write one that mentioned only his positive qualities, of which there were many. But I didn’t think that would do him any good. Had he gotten the job, I was certain he couldn’t hack it.

But I did not discourage him from going forward with his application. There are some things in life you have to learn on your own.

As it turned out, he didn’t get that writing job… but he did get another one. And after a few more weeks of working with me, he was gone.

The ingredients of success include intelligence, a strong work ethic, and ambition. He certainly has all three. If he has the self-esteem to endure the challenges he will be experiencing in his new job, and if his employer is willing to be patient, he may succeed.

I hope he does.

Listen Up, Tyros! 

Moxie is a gift. The challenge for young people entering into any competitive field is to have the guts to go for more, but to make their move when they are ready.

My motto is Ready, Fire, Aim. Not Ready, Aim, Fire… but not Fire, Ready, Aim, either.

What that means in this context is that I believe in ambitiously pursuing your career.  So kudos to this young man for having the moxie to reach out to me when he did.

But when you discover that you don’t have the knowledge and skills to thrive at the level you are at, you have to direct your efforts towards acquiring them – not to taking on another, more challenging job. (And that’s to say nothing of the message you send when you quickly jump from one job to another.)

I don’t know. There are no definite “rules” for success. But here are a few suggestions for any young person out there looking to move up quickly:

1. Don’t be timid about applying for a beginner-level apprenticeship program. There is absolutely nothing better you can do for yourself than get mentored by an expert – and especially an expert that has a reputation in the industry.
2. If you do land an apprenticeship, understand that you will be judged on your intelligence, your competence, and your agreeableness the moment you show up on your first day. Your intelligence is fixed. So don’t worry about that. Get ready by learning as much as you can, as fast as you can, about the industry, the company, and the job. Read everything you can. Talk to everyone you can. Get ready for that first day.
3. If you’ve done your homework, you will probably be ready in terms of your knowledge. In fact, you’ll probably surprise people by how much you know. But you won’t necessarily be ready in terms of your skillset. You may have skills – but if it’s your first job employing them, it’s highly likely that your performance will be less than amazing.
4. Don’t fret about that. You may not be perfect, but you are ready. You have the smarts. You know the basics. And you have the drive. That’s all any employer can possibly want from you at that point. And it’s all you can possibly expect from yourself.
5. But there is one thing you can do to offset your lack of experience. You can show yourself to be someone who is willing – no, eager – to learn. And someone who is open to critical feedback. Having this attitude – these attitudes (because they are different) – is a skill in itself. It can get you past innumerable initial obstacles and errors.

Oh, there’s one more thing: Expect to put in long hours. LONG hours.

As a beginner, you must be willing to work 10 to 12 hours a day and 4 to 6 hours a day on weekends. Not all of that work has to be in the office. Much of it can be done at home. But the work of being a freshman in any work environment goes beyond the work that is assigned to you. It’s much more about preparing yourself to be able to do the work that will be assigned to you after you get promoted.

Ready, Fire, Aim in Action 

My book Ready, Fire, Aim, which was published in 2008, made it to the Wall Street Journal and Business Week bestseller lists. John Wiley, the publisher, sold out several editions. It was successful, I think, because it explained, in the simplest terms, my beliefs about how to start and grow a successful business. The title expressed my idea: If you want to start a business, don’t waste time trying to get everything right. There are only a few things that really matter. Get those things “Ready” as soon as you can. Then pull the trigger. Once the cash starts flowing, you’ll be able to make the adjustments you need to make. For every business idea that fails because of poor planning, nine never get started because of too much planning.

That’s my entrepreneurial philosophy. There are others, I’m sure, that work as well. But for me – for my skillset and personality – Ready, Fire, Aim is not just the best way but the only way to go.

I’m revising Ready, Fire, Aim now for a second, 15-year anniversary edition. Much of it is the same, but I’ve added lots more that I’ve learned since 2008. One chapter, which I’m excerpting here, is about how I use the same Ready, Fire, Aim approach in other areas of my life. Today, I want to tell you about three of them: making a movie, producing a record album, and developing a botanical garden.

My First Ready, Fire, Aim Attempts at Filmmaking 

I always wanted to make movies. For many years, I did nothing but talk about that dream. But soon after I started writing articles for Early to Rise in 2000, I decided to start practicing what I was preaching in them.

For openers, I wanted to make a 30-minute documentary related to my involvement with Jiu Jitsu. I also had an idea in the back of my head for a feature-length film.

So I was Ready. And I Fired.

For the documentary, I partnered with a friend who, like me, was a Jiu Jitsu enthusiast and also had a desire to make movies. Paul had more free time, so the deal was that he would do the groundwork – setting up casting calls, arranging for equipment, and figuring out (very roughly) what our needs would be in terms of people and money – and we’d hire a professional production company to do the actual shooting.

The project officially began with a Saturday morning casting call for the three actors we needed. When I got there, 150 people were waiting to be interviewed. It took us most of the day to make our selections, and by Monday, Paul was working with our production company, following a quick-and-dirty storyline I had written on Sunday.

For two weeks, I spent every evening with Paul, reviewing the footage that had been shot and tweaking our plans as we went. At the end of that time, we had a documentary in the can. It wasn’t great, but it was done.

About a year later, Paul and I got together to turn my more ambitious dream – a feature-length film – into reality.

We had learned something about filmmaking from our documentary, but this time we were going to do the production work ourselves. Again, Paul did all the preliminary stuff, and I got to work on the script.

Paul and I took turns directing the actors. One of my sons did the camera work. Another son did the lighting. Two other young people – Ben, a friend of one of my sons, and Annabelle, the daughter of one of my friends – took care of such things such as sets, costumes, and charting continuity.

We shot half of the movie outdoors and the other half in a friend’s apartment, cleaning up at the end of every day so the place wouldn’t be in shambles when she got home from work.

The truth was that none of us – except for some of the actors – knew what the hell we were doing. But that didn’t stop us from doing it. Paul got us Ready, and we Fired. Had we not been willing to do that, I am 100 percent sure the movie would never have been made.

When the rough cut was done, I held a very private screening – just my youngest son, Michael, and two of his cousins. They watched it intently. And when it was over, I got the following three pithy critiques…

Michael: “On a scale of 1 to 10, Dad, I’d have to give that a zero.”

Eamon: “Let me put it to you this way, Uncle Mark… You will never be able to call another movie bad.”

Justin: “That’s not true. You will be able to say other films are bad. You’ll just have to say that yours was worse.”

“Oh well,” I thought, “who cares? I made a movie. And that’s something only one out of a thousand people who have that dream can say.”

Several years after that, I was inspired to make a documentary about an acquaintance of mine, Herschel Gordon Lewis. Herschel was a copywriter, but he had also been a filmmaker. And not just any filmmaker, but a legend in a certain genre that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. He was known as The Godfather of Gore.

He agreed to do my documentary, but only if I helped him make a feature film that he had in mind. Three months later, we were shooting both movies.

The quality of the feature was classic Herschel Gordon Lewis – i.e., kitschy bad. The quality of the documentary was not bad. They both toured the horror-and-gore film festivals and even won some awards.

Several years after that, I made another feature film. It was a coming-of-age story about three young men that open a bar in a bad neighborhood. It was, as you probably guessed, semi-autobiographical. It was in several ways more important to me than my first two movies, and was a considerably larger endeavor. At one time, we had 100 people on the set. But we got it done on time and on budget. And six months later, it was making its way through the film festival circuit. It actually debuted in Liverpool and won best picture there!

I don’t consider myself to be a filmmaker. Nor do I believe that any of the films I’ve made is very good. But because of Ready, Fire, Aim, I was able to make half a dozen movies in a 10-year period, each a bit better than the previous one, and do it while I was still busy with my main career.

Using Ready, Fire, Aim to Produce a Record Album 

I applied Ready, Fire, Aim to another “artistic” project, too: producing a record album. I got this idea after meeting Joselito, a guitarist and singer who entertains people at Rancho Santana, our resort development in Nicaragua. (In my untutored opinion, Joselito sings Spanish ballads better than anybody on the planet.) After having a few too many margaritas at the bar one night, I promised to bring him to New York and make a recording of his music. When I came back a few days later, sober and preoccupied with property-development issues, he reminded me of my promise.

It took six months to secure a visa for Joselito to come to New York, but finding a partner for the project was easy. My son was starting his career in New York as a music producer and composer.

I blocked out four days on my calendar, and flew Joselito from Managua to the Big Apple. He had never been on an airplane before, had never been in a high-rise hotel, had never been outside his country, and had never made a recording. Spending those four days with him and my son was an extraordinary experience. And because my son actually knew how to make a good recording, we succeeded in producing an album I’m proud of.

That’s the great thing about using Ready, Fire, Aim to go after personal goals. You don’t have to worry about making a profit on your projects, as you do in business. You don’t even have to try to achieve some level of quality if you don’t want to. My goal in making my movies and that one album was simply to make them.

Using Ready, Fire, Aim to Create a Botanical Garden 

Sometime during the 40+ years that I’ve lived in Florida, I developed an interest in palm trees. One of the first things I learned, which surprised me, was that there are more than 2,500 species of palm trees, yet only 13 of them are indigenous to Florida.

That bit of data germinated in my mind. And then one day I mentioned to a real estate broker I work with that I had developed a fantasy of having my own palm tree botanical garden.

She jumped on it. And within a few months, she had found a 5-acre parcel of land with a small lake about a half-hour west of my house in Delray Beach.

The property was in such bad shape that it was selling for only $100,000 an acre, well below the going rate for the area.

I was Ready, and I Fired.

I started the acquisition process. And while that was going on, I was at the property every day, meeting with consultants, talking about my ideas, asking advice. By the time we closed on the property a month later, I had figured out the layout, including the principal planting areas, the walking paths, and where on the lake I’d locate a weekend cottage for my family.

The day after we closed, I had a dozen workers hauling away junk, clearing debris, deracinating invasive plants, and installing an irrigation system. A week later, I had a team dredging the lake.

Before the end of that first year, I had a 1,500-square-foot cottage on a lake that was clean and pretty, and about four acres of land with about 80 species of newly planted palm trees.

My little garden was looking pretty good. And then I met Paul Craft.

I’d been reading every book on palm trees I could get my hands on – and Paul was not only the author of several of them, he was cited as an expert in many of the others. I looked him up and discovered that he lived and worked in Florida, about 90 minutes north of my garden. I contacted him and invited him to see what I was doing.

I expected him to be impressed. Instead, he walked me around the garden, pointing out all of the amateurish mistakes I had made. But that didn’t turn me off. On the contrary, I knew that I had found the man who could help me with the Aiming.

A key element to making Ready, Fire, Aim work is that you have to know beforehand that, during the Aiming stage, you will be revising and sometimes even negating things you’ve already done. I was used to that. In fact, I was looking forward to it. Because for me, that is the best part of any project. It’s the time when you can go from kinda good to quite good and sometimes even to amazing.

So Paul began consulting for us. And in the years that have transpired since then, my little 5-acre startup fantasy grew to a 20-acre botanical garden that has more species of palm trees than any other botanical garden in the continental US.

And, as I write, this, we are just getting started. We’ve purchased an additional 5 acres, and we are bidding on another 5. If we can get those two this year, we’ll go for a final 10 acres next year.

If You Have a Personal Goal…

If you want to become something like a filmmaker or a writer or a painter, you should begin filming or writing or painting the moment you feel Ready. You don’t want to wait until you know a lot about how to film or write or paint. Because if you do, chances are you will never be what you want to be.

Do this now. Make a list of everything you have ever wanted to do or become. Arrange that list according to what is most important to you. Narrow your choices to three. Then pick one of the three.

Promise yourself that that goal, and only that goal, will be your top priority for the next 365 days. Acknowledge that everything else will be secondary.

Then make an outline of exactly what you have to do to become what you want to become. Don’t worry about being good at it. Don’t worry about being recognized. Do it because you have always wanted to do it… and because time is running out.

China vs. the USA 

During his tenure as president, Donald Trump started a trade war with China. He had an argument. China was subsidizing some of its exports to gain market share. We do that, too. But China did it more. So, he imposed duties and sanctions. And China responded with more of its own.

It was good for several US industries. Bad for others. On the whole, it didn’t work. It resulted in widespread shortages of all sorts of essential US needs – from steel to sheet rock to washing machines and microchips. American businesses and consumers began to experience significant cost increases in manufactured goods. At the end of Trump’s term in office, the US economy had gotten smaller, while the Chinese economy had gotten bigger.

The Biden administration isn’t officially continuing the trade war, because it won’t officially continue any policy that Trump initiated. But they are “standing up” to China by leaving some of the worst parts of the trade war in place and picking fights with the Chinese in other areas of exchange. Possibly the worst – and most dangerous – is a promise to stand against China’s claim on Taiwan. Some analysts have suggested that we are on the verge of new Cold War.

Why would Biden’s international decision-makers do that?

Here’s what I think:

Any good marketer will tell you that, next to making great products and providing excellent customer service, the most effective way to build a base of loyal customers – and get them to spend lots of money – is to identify a fear, personify it as a scary monster, and then promote your business or product as the hero they need to defeat it. (Margarine vs. Animal Fat. Apple vs. Complicated. Tesla vs. Fossil Fuels.)

Political parties were playing this game long before Madison Avenue perfected it. But they have taken it to a new level in the digital information age with the ability to instantly test plots and characters for “stickiness,” hire skilled copywriters to compose narratives around the winners, and then flush them out to millions with the click of a send button.

Trump got into the White House by telling the immigration invasion story better than anyone before him. Shocked by his success, Democrats, Moderate Republicans, Big Tech, and the Liberal Media went to work full time trying to oust him, exhuming the decaying corpse of Ravaging, Radical Russia as America’s Adversary #1.

For two years, they did their best to sell the Russian Collusion story, but failed for lack of hard evidence. They continued characterizing Trump as a racist and xenophobe – but that image only enraged the Trump haters. The rest of the voting public didn’t buy it. The BLM/Antifa rioting and looting that tore up virtually every large Democratic-run city last year didn’t win them any converts. Things were looking good for Trump going into the election. But then – like a deus exmachina from a Greek drama – COVID-19 struck and Trump’s response to it gave them a really scary monster that saved the day. Trump was out. Bidden/Harris were in. Democracy was saved.

Or was it?

Trump left the White House with a social mandate every bit as big and powerful as the Biden team had coming in. The interim elections were in doubt. But then the Fates intervened a second time with the pathetic Trump-loving, self-styled patriots’ storming of the Capital with an intensity that seemed naïve. The true believer bought into it, hook, line, and sinker. But the rest of the country gave it short shrift.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters and other conservatives were working their own marketing game, showing nightly clips of the surge of violent, Black-on Black crime that was accelerating in the big cities and the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that were pouring across the southern border, being processed and released, and then shipped out to destinations undisclosed all over America. A million have crossed already and a million more will be here, at this rate, by the end of the year.

The conservative story was getting scarier by the actual facts. But the liberal story was losing steam by the actual facts, too. Police killings of unarmed African-Americans was being seen for what it is – a small problem compared to the 1000-times larger problem of Blacks killing Blacks. Not that liberals ever cared about that anyway.

The threat of Russia was being understood for what it was – an absurdity compared to the threat of Islamic terrorism. Putin’s Scary Meter was in decline. Even the Dems’ most loyal legions could not quite believe that Putin’s main goal was to destroy US democracy.

On top of that, the entire US population – Red and Blue – was growing tired of the Scary COVID Monster and the lockdown that was being pushed by Democratic leaders and hailed by the NYT and CNN.

Looking back at it now, liberal political analysts could see that although their big goal – dethroning the Orange-Topped Ogre – had been achieved, they had done little to offset the threat of losing badly in 2022. In accomplishing Trump’s defeat, they had also, inadvertently, desensitized the entire population to living in fear generally, and especially to government- and media-hyped fear mongering.

And that, for a new administration hoping to push the largest social spending agenda in the history of the world, was a Big Problem.

I’m sure there were all sorts of internal debates about how to accomplish that. But in the end, whoever it is that makes political decisions for Biden persuaded him that a bigger Scary Monster was needed. Bigger than Putin. Bigger than Russia. And certainly bigger than domestic terrorism, which was, for all intents and purposes, DOA.

Rather than invent something entirely new, they opted for a Hollywood solution. They would continue to push on the domestic terrorism story, but more as a distraction while they patched together a new Scariest-Ever Monster. It had to be huge – much bigger than little old Russia. And what could be bigger than the biggest country in the world… China?

Yes, China was Trump’s Monster. But for Trump and his followers, it was a relatively little monster. It was all about unfair trade practices, The new monster was to be a Frankenstein creation of the little head of Rabid, Rapacious Russia on the colossally big body of Cheerless, Cheating China.

And as an added bonus, China came with a Big, Scary Monster Dog. As the least cooperative, most rabid consumer of fossil fuels on the globe, a Cold War on China would appeal to proponents of the Green New Deal.

It was an unlikely invention. But it had the advantage of pandering to the fan base of Trump haters (by attacking Russia), Trump lovers (by attacking China), and eco-friendly voters to boot. And as H.L. Mencken famously said, “No one in this world, as far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

So it could work. If promoted skillfully, it could succeed in getting the votes the Dems need to pass all or at least some of the multitrillion-dollar spending bills they had already written before the election. And maintain or even increase their control of both houses of Congress.

And that is why, IMHO, the Biden/Harris team is starting to push against China. You can disagree with it, but what you can’t do is ignore the question of how smart it would be for the US to get into a coldish economic and political war with China.

Could we afford it? Could we win it? Could we even come close?

Putting aside the fact that the US has not won a single war in the past 50 years – including the Vietnam War, the War Against Terrorism, the War Against Drugs, and the War Against Poverty – could we actually win a Cold War against China and Russia at the same time?

Let’s look at some facts as they relate to China:

10 Ways China Is Beating the US Economically 

1. China is no longer the minor economy it was 30 years ago that can be ignored or pushed around. In fact, it is theworld’s second-largest economy when measured by nominal GDP, and the world’s largest economywhen measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), which, according to some, is a more accurate measure of an economy’s size.
2. In the past 10 years, China has made huge capital investments in its economy and has seen rapid productivity growth. Click here.
3. The US economy depends on Chinese products. We are its biggest customer. Click here.
4. China is increasingly dominating the global technology industry. Click here.
5. China’s infrastructure is far ahead of the US. Click here.
6. China knows how to make and sell things more cheaply than the US can. Click here.
7. China knows how to build things faster than we can in the US. Example: A 57-story skyscraper was built in 19 days, and the San Yuan Bridge in Beijing was taken down and rebuilt in 43 hours. In contrast, the US has a major problem with gridlock. Click here.
8. Chinese millennials are incredibly entrepreneurial. Click here.
9. In terms of day-to-day quality of life, there are some things that are world-class in China – possibly better than they are in the US. Harrison Jacobs recently spent 6 weeks in China and identified 5 things that he says the Chinese do “infinitely better” than we do. Click here.
10. And if all this were not enough, China has the second-largest military in the world and is leading the world on electronic surveillance of its citizens.

When I look at my crystal ball, the picture is pretty clear. The US, the world’s economic and political heavyweight for the last 100 years, is in political and social disarray. Its economy is bankrupt. It hasn’t had a positive balance of trade in decades. It’s $40 trillion in debt and yet is spending money faster now than ever in its history.

Its sense of identity has been balkanized into dozens of warring cultures, while its governing classes, from both sides of the aisle, have lost any interest in working towards the common good.

Meanwhile, China has a massive military and a part-centralized, part-free-market economy that, for the moment, is outpacing the US in almost every economic category.

Based on the above, I can’t see how getting into a cold-war-like shit-throwing contest with China makes any sense for the US. What do you think?

The Washington Post Makes Sense… Twice! 

The Washington Post, which competes neck and neck with the NYT for Financially Dumbest Major Newspaper in the US, recently published two opinion pieces that actually made sense.

The first was about taxes. In particular, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s renewed call for a wealth tax to, as she put it, “make the ultra-rich finally pay their fair share.”

This was in response to a report from ProPublica, the do-not-think tank, that stated that the 25 wealthiest people in the US “pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars by which their fortunes grow each year.”

Here’s what the Post said:

ProPublica muddied a basic distinction, which, properly understood, actually fortifies the case against a wealth tax. The story likened on-paper asset price appreciation with actual cash income, then lamented that the two aren’t taxed at the same rate.

However, the income tax system never required people to pay taxes on the appreciation of their assets, until they sold them and “realized” capital gains. For good reason: ProPublica’s logic implies that, when the stock market goes down, Elon Musk, whose billions are tied up in shares of Tesla, should get a tax cut.

Sen. Warren is calling for a 2% annual tax on net wealth above $50 million; 3% above $1 billion. But that could mean that such people would face large tax bills even when they had little or negative net income, forcing them to sell assets to pay their taxes.

From the Post:

That could set off a downward spiral in the markets, affecting people of more modest means. Though prices of marketable securities are easy to track, the huge chunks of private wealth tied up in real estate, rare art, and closely held businesses are more difficult – sometimes impossible – to assess consistently.

The Post also pointed out that in 1995 11 European countries levied such wealth taxes. But they yielded only modest additional revenue and lots of wasted money on audits and red tape. Most of those taxes have been repealed.

The second Post opinion piece that made sense was about job qualifications. The proposition: The majority of Americans lack a college degree. Why do so many employers require one?

Okay, on the face of it, that sounds like a really dumb question. And I cannot deny that the logic behind it is about as dumb as it gets.

The paper’s editorial team laid out a set of facts that I found astonishing: 80% of Latinos, almost 70% of African-Americans, and more than 70% of rural men and women in the US workforce do not have a college degree.

I didn’t realize the percentages were that high. My reaction was, “Wow! No wonder these three groups are always at the bottom of every social and economic indicator!”

But that is not the way the editors of The Washington Post saw it. They saw it as another kind of systemic oppression. This is “degree discrimination,” they argued. “It’s a bias that’s blinding companies to talent they need and reinforcing existing economic inequalities.”

College-degree discrimination has become so widespread that many take it for granted. Almost 75% of new jobs from 2007 to 2016 were roles in which most employers typically “require” bachelor’s degrees – but fewer than 4 in 10 American workers have that credential. Going to war against arithmetic is a bad idea, and our post-pandemic skilled-worker shortage is a wake-up call.

The logic here is fundamentally flawed:

* Inequality is bad.

* Discrimination results in inequality.

* Therefore, all inequality is caused by discrimination.

This is a classic syllogistic error. But we can pick that up another day.

The Post went on to make the following distinction:

Requiring a medical degree to treat patients or a civil engineering degree to design a bridge is common sense. By contrast, requiring a generic college degree to be considered for jobs such as office manager, sales representative, digital marketer, or data-center technician may be common, but it makes no sense.

I disagree with the first sentence. But, again, let’s not argue that here. The second sentence makes complete sense.

I’ve been owning and running businesses for more than 50 years. During that time, I’ve had, directly or indirectly, thousands of employees. I’ve personally hired, fired, and managed hundreds. And for the past 20 years, I’ve been writing about business and entrepreneurship, which has obliged me to think about what makes for a good or bad employee.

And one thing I have come to believe: A college degree doesn’t mean shit.

If it means anything, it means nothing more than, “I hung around a college campus for four or five years at one time.”

It doesn’t mean competence. It doesn’t mean knowledge. It doesn’t mean anything that is truly useful to an employer. Not intelligence, nor curiosity, nor tenacity, nor the capacity for hard work.

What matters in an employee can only be discovered through purposeful interactions with job candidates. Conversations, correspondence, testing, and try-outs.

I have lots more to say on this subject (including why I think a college degree shouldn’t be required for medical or engineering jobs either), but I’ll get to that another time.

Most of the companies in which I’m involved these days still require a college degree for most jobs. But the best ones – the ones that are growing the fastest – don’t care about credentials. They look for talent, energy, ambition, and skill.