On the site I refer to the book as “A Guide to Deep Thought” (That link will take you there), rather than using the actual subtitle of the book. The reason for this is simply that there are more people searching for the term “deep thought” than “deep thinking,” so I hope to get more of that search traffic. Stated either way, the meaning is clear enough.

What is the book going to be about? Well, it started with an idea that I first introduced here. The thousand mile hole, some of you may recall, was an exercise in imagination. A hole is discovered in the woods that is a hundred yards across and thousand miles deep, and someone falls into it. The difference between an ordinary hole - and falling into it - versus this one, is that it would take eight hours to fall a thousand miles. That brings up some interesting questions and insights, which I get into in the book (the first chapter starts with the story of my falling in).

The point of that story is to demonstrate what Einstein called a “thought experiment.” It is one way in which we can look more deeply into things and discover new insights and ideas. Each chapter covers another way to think more deeply. It is a fun book to write, because for the sake of demonstrating the techniques suggested, I have to come up with a lot of new ideas and new ways of looking at everything from spirituality to politics.

If you think you might be interested in reading the book, I will announce its publication in the Brainpower Newsletter. Click that link and subscribe before you forget.

Are You a Mind Slave?

We like to think we control our minds. Beyond Mental Slavery demonstrates just how often our minds are actually controlling us. We are under the influence of ideas that are not really ours, biases we’re not fully aware of, and programs that cause us to react in ways that have nothing to do with our conscious goals or desires - and may even sabotage them. Research, stories and examples that the reader can verify from experience, are used throughout the book to demonstrate just how easy it is to be ordered around and misguided by various thought processes - by the same mind we believe we direct for our own purposes.

Corrective actions or “escape plans” are laid out at the end of each chapter. Thus, after learning about the problems inherent in virtually all thinking and decision making, the reader then learns how to escape many of the limitations these impose, and so how to think more clearly and usefully.

I worked in fast food early in life, and I hated to see those strong cardboard boxes that the cups came in thrown away. They were large, and had a square support piece in the middle. I discovered that four of these empty boxes carefully placed could easily support my queen-size bed. In fact, that was the only bed frame I had for years. A piece of plywood to spread the weight onto the boxes more evenly would help.

What do you do with old hardcover books that aren’t worth reading again? Cut out the center and use them to hide things in. It takes a lot of time with a razor, but the result in my case was a book that I could secretly sell candy out of when I was in grade school. Given the quantity of old books for sale for less than a dollar out there, someone could make a business of creating and selling these hollow books for hiding things. I would buy one for about $7 right now (I remember how long it took to cut out the middle of each page, so somebody needs to find a faster way).

Ever find a few extra copper tubes in your garage? They make nice wind chimes. Just cut four pieces of different lengths, and drill two holes near the end of each. Fish line works well for hanging them. You’ll need some scrap wood to cut into a circle to hang them from, a smaller circle that will strike them, and a wind-catcher below that.

What can you do with a pen when it runs out of ink? My brother use to make blow-dart guns of them. The darts consisted of a pin with material taped to it so it fit snugly in the pen casing. Then a quick breath sent it flying (don’t tell your kids about this one - too dangerous).

Scrap wood has thousands of uses of course. I once took a piece of plywood that was about two-foot square and nailed 25 rows of 25 finish nails into it. All 500 nails projected out about an inch. It was possible to make all sorts of interesting “string paintings” on it by winding various colors of yarn through the nails in various ways. It provided entertainment for years.

Of course, finding new uses for things can be profitable as well. As a young man I converted a shed into a bedroom for about $100, and then rented it out for $50 per week. I even lived in it myself for a while so I could get more rent from the better rooms inside my home.

So if you want to exercise your creativity, start looking for new and interesting uses for things. Even if you don’t care for the tinkering part, you can imagine your ideas in action, and maybe pass the good ones on to someone who can do something with it. What creative uses can you think of for old watches, plastic chairs, fence posts, pencils, paper, car tires, mirrors, rugs, socks, telephone lines, lawnmower blades, address labels or the cardboard rolls paper towels come on?

Does an SUV driver use more gas than someone driving a smaller more fuel-efficient car? That depends on how much each driver drives. In environmental terms the issue is not miles-per-gallon, but how many gallons are used and how much pollution emitted by each person. Let’s look at an example.

My wife and I have a ten-year-old Chevy van as our only vehicle. It gets about 17 mpg between city and highway miles. We camp in it from time to time, which is one of the reasons we have it. Now, it might seem that we would be using more gasoline and therefore polluting more than the average couple because of our gas-guzzler. But are we?

The rest of the story is that we drove the van a total of 7,000 miles last year. Now let’s compare that to the average couple who own a newer (we’ll say 2008) Toyota Corolla, which gets 32 mpg (combined city and highway). In this country the average for miles driven in a year is 15,000. That means our typical Corolla owner will use about 469 gallons per year, while we will use about 412 for our 7,000 miles. Thus, by this measure, our impact on the environment is 12% LESS than that of the average Toyota Corolla owner.

Now consider that most couples own two cars and drive each of them 15,000 miles annually. A couple like that uses 938 gallons of gas compared to our gas-guzzling van-loving lifestyle that uses just 412 gallons each year. In this case our impact on the environment is 56% LESS than this typical couple. Should we then be punished - or even criticized - for having our van.

By the way, when higher mileage is mandated, it does not typically reduce gas usage. In fact, in the years after mpg standards were first imposed by the United States government, the number of miles driven went up enough that more gas was used. It seems that when people’s cars use less gas they drive more - not a big surprise to any halfway intelligent economist.

A better way to lower gasoline usage is to forget about trying to tell people what they should or should not buy or do, and just make them pay the real costs. When we pay the true costs of things we adjust our behavior accordingly. In this case, a good start would be to raise the gasoline taxes to fully fund the construction, maintenance and repair of our roads. We hide this costs from drivers by paying much of these costs through general income tax collections. Higher gas taxes would make gas costs more, and people would drive less.

If using gasoline is one of the major sources of pollution, we could add even more taxes to drive down usage to a reasonable level results in a level of pollution which is safe (pollution is a part of even caveman life, so let’s not pretend it is bad in itself - only the level makes it bad). Pollution is a real cost, and one we don’t have the right to pass onto others. We need to do what we can to control it, but it makes more sense to me to just make people pay the real cost of controlling it, rather than limiting their freedom.

If total air pollution from vehicles is at a reasonable level, why should we care if a rich man uses 4,000 gallons of gas compared to our 400? He will pay a much higher price, after all, through the cost of the gas and the taxes on it. Let’s solve our problems in ways that don’t involve meddling in people’s lives and making hypocritical judgments of who is good or bad according to the level of consumption they choose for this or that activity.

Of course, few people are actually unconcerned about financial matters regardless of how much income they have. Some even get more worried about their finances as they get wealthier. And few people get to do everything they would like to do no matter how much money they make. Time and health can limit us as much as a lack of money.

Nonetheless, if used properly money certainly can buy more security and more freedom, to the extent that those things are possible in this world. So lets look at how we can actually use money more effectively.
How do we actually achieve financial freedom?

This article is not about the “making money” part of the equation. That’s covered in a thousand good books. Money does not bring the freedom automatically though, so this is about some of the problems we run into once we start making more, and what to do about them.

Freedom From Financial Worries?

First, if you want greater security you want it for the obvious reasons as well as to “feel” more secure. Setting up streams of investment income helps with the physical needs. Once you have enough income from enough sources you are free from needing a job. Of course that only happens if your lifestyle remains within the means of your income.

We often grow our lifestyles along with our rising incomes. This makes sense if you were eating cheap noodles and driving rusty old cars before. It resolves itself in time if income rises faster than the new expenses. But it’s a lot easier to escape the “rat race” and relax with your investment income if your expenses are lower, so watch your changing habits.

If you notice that there seems to be no natural level of comfort where you are content, and that you just continue to “need” more as you make more, the problem might be one that requires some self-reflection and self-work rather than more money. Even millionaires go broke feeding their habits, tastes, and the needs of the ego.

Also, be aware that you can feel insecure no matter what your level of income. Often with more money you will feel more afraid of losing that money. The resolution to this is again not in money itself, which only buys the little bit of physical security available to us. To feel free of worry over money, you have to look beyond money to whatever psychological and spiritual practices help you.

Freedom To Do What You Want?

Money can buy a lot of freedom of choice in this world. With enough you can live how you choose, go where you like to, help who you want, and buy what you desire. But it only accomplishes these things if used properly.

Often people get so caught up in the process of making money that they forget why they wanted to make it in the first place. Meanwhile, they adopt a new lifestyle that eats up all the income which could have paid for their goals if they happened to remember them at some point. Some people really do want that big home and several new cars, but others just fall into that life as a consolation prize for a dream life they just couldn’t figure out how to achieve.

If you want to travel the world, and for you that’s what financial freedom means, you have to plan for that. You may even have to quit your job at some point if it gets in the way. And why not? If it is supposed to help you towards your goal, it better not do the opposite, right?

Whatever the term financial freedom means to you, think about it more specifically. Then start making plans. Money alone can come and go by the millions without offering freedom of any sort. You have to learn how to use it wisely rather than just chase it blindly.

Copyright Steve Gillman. Learn more about Financial Freedom, and get the free Money Matters Newsletter at: http://www.TheMeaningOfMoney.com

1. Not wanting to think about money.

If you didn’t pay attention or think about where you were going when driving you would probably get lost and have accidents more often. The same is true of money. Many people just don’t like to pay attention to it or think about it. Perhaps something from their past has caused them to think it isn’t right to think about it, but the results are continual problems. Give it some thought.

2. Blaming situations and other people.

Sometimes a person is partly right about whose fault it is that they are broke or in financial trouble. But even then focusing on blaming outside forces it is the absolute worst approach to solving the problem. When you blame you give away power. Always look at what your role in the problem is and what you can do to correct or improve the situation.

3. Wanting appearances over reality.

If you want to look wealthier, go get a loan and buy that new car today. If you want to be wealthier, that’s the worse thing you can do. Did you know that 40% of millionaires buy used cars? But this isn’t about cars. It’s about building wealth and using your money wisely. You probably can’t guess who around you is a millionaire. Give up trying to create the illusion and start working on the reality.

4. Not knowing where it goes.

One big reason many people have money trouble is that they have no idea where the money goes. I had a friend who had pizza delivered three times per week for about $20 each time. I’ll bet he didn’t know he was spending over $3,000 per year on that one habit. Write down everything you spend and what you spent it on for a month or two and see what’s really going on.

5. Not calculating real costs.

Once people decide they want something, they often play games with their own minds. They say “It only costs…” and ignore all the ongoing costs. When you buy a boat, for example, you have to consider not just the payments, but the cost to operate it, the insurance, the annual license and registration costs, repairs and maintenance, and so on. I can assure you that some people are paying $200 for each use of their small boats without ever knowing it. Do the math.

6. Thinking debt buys more things.

It is true that you can have more things right now by putting them on your credit cards. The part people forget is that this makes everything more expensive, and if you pay more for everything you buy, doesn’t it make sense that over the course of your life you can’t buy as much?  You get better prices for cash, and you save the interest charges as well. Debt is for homes, business and investments. Pay cash for everything else.

7. Not controlling fixed expenses.

There are expenses you can easily stop at any time, like going out to eat or buying music. Then there are your more or less fixed expenses, like rent, electricity, gasoline for the car, insurance and so on. If your fixed expenses are too high you are in trouble every time your income dips or is interrupted, or something expensive happens. Rent a smaller place if necessary, get a high-mileage (used) car, and try to keep all the fixed costs in your life to half of your income.

8. Thinking financial surprises are unpredictable.

If unexpected car repairs or other surprises that cost less than a thousand dollars are the source of your financial problems, you need to start thinking about this differently. You don’t know when the washing machine will die or when your insurance rates will rise, but you do know that these “surprises” will happen at some time, so you can plan for them. Set aside money every week for sudden expenses and it will be there when you need it.

9. Helping friends and family too much.

I have seen many people get into money trouble because of their generosity. Every time they have a bit of money saved a friend or family member has a need for it, and they help - or so they think. Money rarely changes people’s situation if they don’t know how to use it. And never quite getting your own financial situation right makes you less able to help others. Set your own house in order first, and then give wisely.

Learn more about avoiding Money Trouble, and get the free Money Matters Newsletter at: http://www.TheMeaningOfMoney.com

First we start with the obvious - at least what is obvious to those who understand what happens at the intersection of politics and business. It is that the big push for states to mandate insurance came from… wait, it’s coming… insurance companies! Surprised? Not in the least? No, it should be at all surprising that large companies want to use governments to force people to buy more of their products (small companies probably love the idea too, but they don’t have the political clout to make it happen).

Of course, whatever the original impetus for was for laws requiring all drivers to buy liability insurance, reasonable arguments had to be made on some basis of “public good.” The usual argument goes like this: A car can do a lot of damage to property and harm to others, and drivers may not be able to pay for that, so it is reasonable to make them responsible by way of insurance that will cover those costs. We could make the same argument about children, yet amazingly we don’t require parents to buy liability insurance for them.

Now let’s look at how the law really functions. To start with, we ask a simple question: If the local brain surgeon or owner of a pizzeria chain runs his or her car into a mobile home, what would the resident do? Most likely he would ask for payment for the damages, and sue the driver if he didn’t pay. Fortunately a surgeon or a successful business owner is likely to have either the income or assets necessary to pay for their mistakes. Furthermore, many people at their income level would have purchased liability insurance whether or not it was required, because they have assets to protect and can afford the cost, which is small relative to their incomes.

On the other hand, what if the guy who lives in the rented mobile home and works at the gas station drives his car into the front window of the pizzeria, and has no insurance? Ah… there’s the problem. You see, the wealthier people can be made to pay, but the poor won’t have the money to cover their mistakes, which is very inconvenient to the middle class and wealthy people. Simple solution? Force the poor to pay for insurance. Of course this means that a responsible driver who never has an accident is forced to pay hundreds of dollars annually to help enrich the insurance companies and cover the costs of those who do get into accidents, but this is no concern for the rest of us. We just want a way to recover damages when our property our ourselves are hurt, and if we can make the poor pay for that all the better!

It does seem reasonable to hold people responsible for their actions, and yes, a car is dangerous and can do great damage. But does that justify forcing a large expense onto people? Obviously, the $500 it costs for insurance is a much bigger proportion of a $16,000 income than of a $80,000 income, so this disproportionately affects the poor. Does that seem fair?

If it is fair, where might such logic lead to? Should we require liability insurance for children, since they clearly can do more damage than a poor person could pay for (my friend burnt a house down when he was a child)? For that matter, what about liability in general? Anyone could leave their bicycle where a person might trip on it, get severely injured and face $100,000 in reconstructive surgery. And then, apart from specific liability to an individual, a poor person can run up a hospital bill of hundreds of thousands (homeless people do it all the time), and leave the rest of us paying more to cover these losses when they can’t.

Traveling is dangerous too, come to think of it. If you go to a foreign land and need the help of the embassy, that costs money you might not have. If you climb a mountain in Colorado and get injured, you may leave a hospital and rescue workers with unpaid bills that the locals have to pay through taxes or higher future prices. Should we then require insurance for all who want to do more than go to work and go home?

I can imagine a world where the “free” poor don’t feel very free, because we make doing anything too expensive. Let’s face it, whether we like it or not, if such laws were passed we could pay an extra $8,000 annually in government mandated costs if we make $80,000. And yes, with all that protection we would be much safer financially - if we are middle class or higher. But what about the poor guy making $16,000? It sure seems like mandated auto insurance is an attack on the poor, whether intended as such or not.

“I think it will make it more difficult for me, since most of those registered will probably vote for my opponent.”

“But in any case, isn’t it better for the country if more people participate?”

“Not if they vote for my opponent.”

The reporter laughs nervously, but isn’t sure if this is a joke. Candidates are not usually this blunt nor do they often contradict the cultural assumption that more people should participate regardless of how they vote. He says, “Well, it may not help your campaign, but don’t you at least think it is good for our country to have more people voting?”

“In what way?”

At this point the reporter really doesn’t know what to say. Like most people he has been conditioned to believe in the value of more voter participation, but without ever asking why it is automatically good for the country. He hesitates and then suggests, “Ah… a democracy is only strong if enough people participate.”

“And that helps a country how?”

“Um… are you saying you are against democracy?”

“No.”

“I think I’m missing something here. Can you explain what you do believe about democracy.”

“It’s a way to elect those who serve in government.”

“So it’s important.”

“Yes. It makes governments acceptable to the people. It doesn’t mean the right people will be elected or the right ideas will prevail in those governments.”

“You don’t have a very high opinion of democracy, do you?”

“It works better than other ways of determining who will serve. On the other hand it also executed Socrates for teaching young people to think and put Hitler in power, so it certainly doesn’t have a great record.”

“Okay… um… well… to get back to the original question then, you think it unfortunate that there are more people voting because they aren’t voting for you?”

“Of course. Why would I or anyone else want more people voting for candidates who will bring bad ideas and policies to the office?”

“And the good policies and ideas are…?”

“Now you’re asking the right question. Too often government is perceived as and acts as a parent of sorts, but citizens are not children. A government should be more like an umpire, enforcing the rules of the game, or a servant doing what need to be done, or a security guard that protects the lives and property of those who hire him. Above all my policies will revolve around the idea of protecting people’s rights and doing so in an efficient manner.”

“Including the right to vote?”

“Look, this focus on democracy ignores the fact that it is just a means to put people in office. It’s like making a train or plane more important than the destination. What’s important is what elected officials actually do or don’t do. This is why we have limitations on governments in the form of constitutions and related documents. The mob might otherwise vote for all sorts of nonsense.”

“So the voters are a mob?”

“Not necessarily, although they become one when we encourage more and more people to vote without regard to whether they have educated themselves on the issues. An opinion doesn’t have automatic value, and neither does a vote. Consider the generations of voters who elected a government that permitted slavery and institutionalized racism and sexism. That looks like mob rule more than wise governance to me.”

“But you want this ‘mob’ to vote for you?”

“Sure, that’s how we get into office, right?”

“Yet you seem to have no respect for the voters.”

“Certainly I respect them as human beings, but do I respect their votes? That depends. Should I respect a vote cast just because the voter liked the name or race of a candidate, or because he hates my opponent? Voting isn’t some sacred event that confers automatic nobility on a person. My dog can express his opinion about who he likes, but he doesn’t get to vote.”

I don’t know what the reporter would have to say at this point. This is as far as I imagined the conversation. Obviously I do not feel the same way as most people do about democracy. For now it is better than the alternatives, just like toilets are better than their alternatives. But neither is toilets nor democracy are sacred or irreplaceable given time and imagination.

In fact, after neglecting the massive highway system we have built in this country for decades, it would now cost well over two trillion dollars to catch up on maintenance and repairs. That’s according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives U.S. infrastructure a grade of “D.” The U.S. Department of transportation acknowledges that a large proportion of our bridges are structurally deficient. Li himself came from Hong Kong and wondered why the roads and bridges here were in such poor shape compared to those in his homeland.

The weather here is worse, but the more important factor seems to be that we built more than we can afford to maintain. In fact, in almost any scenario, by the time we spent the over two trillion necessary to catch up, there would be hundreds of billions more to do. It may just be too much to afford, and Victor Li suggests that new technology is the only solution.

Although new technology can always help, I want to suggest another solution. Let’s stop building and building without regard to the future expenses we create.

Imagine a family that wins two hundred thousand dollars in a lottery, and spends it all on a new car, a boat, a cabin, three large dogs and motorcycles for all the kids. Though they didn’t go into debt, now that the money is gone they are in worse financial shape than ever. Why? Because they are back to living from paycheck to paycheck, but with the added costs of feeding the dogs, repairing boats and motorcycles, paying taxes and insurance on a cabin, paying fees and insurance on the car, boat and motorcycles, and veterinary bills for the new pets as well.

This is easy to see on the level of a family. Even “smart” shoppers who for example, buy a used recreational vehicle for a sixth of what a new one would cost, don’t always think about the future expenses the ownership of this toy will impose. But we make this mistake as a society as well. A new park, for example, can be a wonderful addition to a city, but don’t believe the price tag is the one quoted in the papers. That’s just the up-front price. Forever more the city will also have the cost of maintaining that park. It may well be worth it, but how do we honestly make such a decision as voters if we don’t consider those ongoing expenses?

I think we built too many roads and too many bridges in the United States. Would life be so different if we had fewer places to cross rivers in the first place, or three routes to our destination instead of five? Probably not. We may have to seriously consider removing some bridges and closing some roads, but the more important lesson is to stop making the same mistake going forward. Stop creating a heavier and heavier burden for future taxpayers (which include ourselves).

Interestingly, the new concrete invented by Victor Li (still a few years from being used) will cut the cost of maintenance in half, but be much more expensive up front. This is the kind of thing we need to look at - paying more now to reduce future expenses, and if we can’t afford to do that we should probably wait - just as a family should wait until they are ready for the initial cost and ongoing expense of a new pet or boat.

The example that reminded me of this is a recent government-ordered recall of over five million window blinds or shades. They happen to have the two strings that are use to pull them open connected as one. The resulting loop at the bottom has been responsible for several deaths of children by strangulation.

Given the number of these string loops out there on blinds and shades this is a rare event, but nonetheless serious. It seems reasonable to do something about it. Here’s a solution: Cut the loop at the bottom so there are two strings, just like the two strings on my own blinds and most others (they work just fine that way).

I guess it is assumed that citizen consumers are not quite capable of doing something that simple, or that some of them won’t go to the trouble to buy scissors or a knife. Otherwise the Consumer Product Safety Commission could just notify all buyers of the danger and what to do about it. Instead, they force the recall of millions of perfectly good blinds that have one easily corrected problem.

Now I know that some who read this will think, “but not all parents will do it, and we need to protect the kids.” They are right that we need to protect the kids. On the other hand, does it seem a safe assumption that if they are not willing to take a minute to cut a few string loops they will probably not be the type of parent to pay attention to recall notices and spend hours uninstalling their blinds to send them back to the manufacturer? I think you get the point.

The government agency (the CPSC) could have notified all buyers to cut the cords to make them safe. They could have simultaneously ordered companies to no longer have loops that can strangle kids. There was no real need to impose millions in costs on the companies to take all those otherwise functional blinds back and refund or replace them. Those costs, by the way, are passed on to all of us who buy things such as these.

As a society we like to go through the motions of enforcing rules that are supposed to protect us, even if they are without much real value. We have come to the point where most people want a government that acts like a parent, on the assumption that we are all children. But actions like this that costs millions of dollars and probably save no lives show that we who want protection are the same people we think can protect us.

Big brother, mother and father will inevitably be all the same kids you went to school with. Do you really want them deciding so many things for you?