$3,040 Today!

Don,

Thanks for clarifying.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your POV, I would have Still jumped in if you had said Big money or Little money because they are Blanket Statements which are factually Incorrect.

If you want to make Big money you need someone with Big money to spend it with you - or several smaller monied people, or Many little money people. Notice how, in each case, the money is still other people's.

But more important than that is...

Their Desire To Spend it.

In this regard I am Also against Dan Kennedy saying, "if you can't make money without money, you can't make money with money" because it is also Factually Incorrect.

For example: Imagine a place. A Kingdom. The King has ALL the money. The peasants have None. NOw here's the rub...

The single thing that the peasants have to offer, in exchange for some of the King's money, is their Labor. But, if they do not want the King's money, then it doesn't matter how much money the King has, because he cannot get anything done with it.

So for a Transaction to take place, the King must desire something to be done and to pay for it with his money - and - the peasants must desire to have some of that money. A peasant with a desire for money but a King with no desire for building or buying, ends in nothing. Just like a King with a Desire for building but peasants with No desire for his money.

Factually, it DOES take money to make money. It also takes a desire for someone to Spend that money and for someone else to want the money they want to spend.

Kennedy would be more accurate if he said, "If you cannot make money without your own money, you will not be able to make money With your own money." Because the simplest money I can make, even if I have no money, is to sell my labor.

It would be more accurate to say, "It doesn't take your Own money to make money" and a slight twist, "It doesn't need to take a Lot of your own money to make money."

The other versions - Keenedy's and what you posted - are just plain wrong. A result of Laziness to express the Correct meaning. No different than saying the Sun "Rises" or "Sets" or goes "Behind a Cloud". And similar to when people say, "Oh, I forgot..." - they did Not forget did they, as they are saying it right now (they actually remembered, just not When they wanted to).

To relay a Quote which Victor Schlosser once said, "I've seen hell. It's a place where no-one says what they mean, or means what they say. I live that hell everyday of my life."

Michael Ross

[Ankesh]

2 + 2 = 4.

Who says thats true? How do you know? Why is 2 + 2 not 5 or 6 or 7?

We come upon the symbolic meaning behind words and alphabets. 2 + 2 = 4 because everyone says so. Everyone agrees to it.

Its the same with gold or paper money. Gold has value because everyone agrees that it has value.

(Most people have become insanely rich not by trading their labour - but because they took advantage of the difference between value different people assign to the same thing - arbitrage / trade / chattling. But thats another discussion.)

Anyways, my point is: "if you can't make money without money, you can't make money with money" maybe factually incorrect. But its symbolically correct. Everyone who reads that knows that Dan Kennedy is talking about the person's own money. Not the community money. "If you can't make money without community money, you can't make money with community money" - doesn't make much sense. So people don't take it into account.

"I've seen hell. It's a place where no-one says what they mean, or means what they say. I live that hell everyday of my life."

That statement is factually incorrect too. How can you live a place?

To communicate, you have to forget such factual incorrectness and jump for the symbolic correctness. Yes there will be communication errors this way - but its the best we've got. Because if you try to be 100% factually correct, you'll be writing 20 pages of footnotes for every one sentence (and you'll need 20 pages of footnote for each sentence in the footnote too... and 20 pages of ----).

Just like this:
http://fair-use.org/mind/1895/04/wha...id-to-achilles

The best you can hope for is try being as clear as possible without sounding silly.

Ankesh,

I'm confused.

Do you think Michael understood what Don thought he was saying, or did Don say what Michael thought he understood him to say????? : )

I think you're 100% right . . . it's the understanding imparted by the symbols (words) that's important . . . not the particular symbols themselves.

If you can get your concept across, with understanding by the other party, you have communicated. Regardless of the words used.

Getting stuck in the "proper" use of words is like viewing a painting with a microscope. It may be interesting, but it is not necessary to get the viewpoint the artist intended to convey.

Anyway, that's one man's opinion . . .

---- Hugh

[Ankesh]

Originally Posted by Hugh Gaugler

Ankesh,

I'm confused.

Do you think Michael understood what Don thought he was saying, or did Don say what Michael thought he understood him to say????? : )

Thanks for asking Hugh

My post was in response to Michael's post. Not Dons.

I have a very high opinion of Michael - he usually understands not only what is written - but things that are unwritten too. He gets the complete picture.

I'm not sure about the reason behind Michael's post to Don (you'll have to ask him). But I thought I had to reply to his post - and so I did.

Why is it when "I" post stuff up here about "Marketing & Sales" things that "I" do (that could be beneficial to some viewers here) someone has to take something I said....which has NOTHING to do with the "Topic" of the post...and "work it and work it and work it"?

MY use of the word "Money" has little or NOTHING to do with the MAIN POINT of the post!

Unless I'm missing something...."here"!

Don Alm

P.S. My use of the word "work" above, in MY humble opinion, means "BELABOR". (It's in Webster's)

Don,

Thanks for asking.

*I* jumped in and Corrected the phrase because It Was Wrong.

I have seen others jump in and not correct Phraes but Your Numbers because They Were Wrong.

The simple solution, instead of crying hard done by, is to stop posting wrong stuff.

For instance, you just wrote "MY use of the word "Money" has little or NOTHING to do with the MAIN POINT of the post" and yet it wasn't your use of the word Money I Corrected. It was your phrase "it does NOT take "money to make money"". So even in this simple post of yours you Got It Wrong. See it?

Michael Ross

My good friend Stan who's a "far leftie". Whenever a discussion comes up about our President....if he can't whack George W for the "topic" of his speech or interview...he whacks him for his "pronunciation"...especially of the definitive article "the".

When da Pres is giving a speech..."the" comes out as "tha". And when he's being interviewed or holding a press conference..."the" comes out as "ta".

So...Stan...instead of commenting about the MAIN issues the Pres was talking about...ol' Stan brings up George W's use of "ta".

Same difference.

We all look at Stan, shrug our shoulders, roll out eyes back, pause a minute to take a deep breath and go onto a more serious topic.

Don Alm

Making an Incorrect statment about making money, and the way someone pronounces the word The are completely different. Surely even you can see this.

Michael Ross

Originally Posted by James Anthony

I think your friend Stan is simply trying to point out that our Commander in chief is a blundering idiot and that if he can't even pronounce simple words correctly that it's safe to assume that there is not an ounce of logic in the man's head.

Therefore, we can easily discount pretty much anything that comes out of his mouth.

Jim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMu3EHDsts

LOL...The only argument liberals seem to know is (BUSH IS AN IDIOT) the words of a wise man who once said it always takes one to know one comes to mind...

Ankesh,

Thanks for jumping in.

2 + 2 = 4.

Who says thats true? How do you know? Why is 2 + 2 not 5 or 6 or 7?

Because if we take the physical representation of the numbers - such as Two peas or Two marbles - and place them next to another two, we will See we have Four Marbles not Five. It is inconvenient to carry around a bag of marbles so we can count them as needed. And inconvenient to carry around an abacus for the same purpose. So we use Figures to represent the factual. Those figures are a Part of the Written language. In maths, that language is across the board. In the written version of the spoken word - and even the spoken word - things are not the same.

In the USA the word is spelt "Color" in Australia it is "Colour".

In the USA the word Fanny means your Bottom, in Australia it is a woman's "Groin" - to keep it Polite.

The reason numbers do not suffer the same fate is because there are only ten of them, in different arrangements. Plus, as the word now revolves around Money, the world of Global Commerce and their Constant interaction with each other, dictates the usage stays the same.

Gold has value because everyone agrees that it has value

YES!!! Now you are getting it. Those who cry out that we have No Security of our Paper Money because it is Not backed by Gold and is only Backed by our Belief in it, miss the point that Gold Only has Value also because of our Belief in it.

Let me jump in here and go on a side tangent with regards to the Everyone Believes thing. *I*, personally, do Not believe Gold has Value, nor our paper Fiat money. Yet I still desire it because I need it as a Tool of Trade because Other People also desire it and will not do business with me Unless I have it. Thus, I suppose, you Could say that money, as we know it to be currently, is the result of the greatest Network Effect there is.

Onward.

"I've seen hell. It's a place where no-one says what they mean, or means what they say. I live that hell everyday of my life."

That statement is factually incorrect too. How can you live a place?

Ah... for the sake of an "In". I live IN that hell...

When I was in high school there was a kid that would call people names. The odd thing was, he would call them a name which was a Verb. I used to tell him that's like calling someone a Run or a Jump.

With Kennedy's thing, I realise I need to change it to...

If you cannot make money without your own money, you won't be able to make money with your own money or larger amounts of other people's money.

To communicate, you have to forget such factual incorrectness and jump for the symbolic correctness.

First, let me say, if the Meaning is conveyed - I Understand what you mean - than Effective Communication has taken place regardless of the words, gestures or terminology used. However, that is a darn Big IF - IF the meaning is conveyed.

Also, I don't HAVE to do anything. If YOU choose to try to get by with Symbolic Correctness, that is your Choice. I choose not to.

The sad fact is, people use words without knowing Why they use those words. In fact, people do a Lot of things without knowing Why. I know why... it's because it's been a Tradition to use those words and people never question their traditions. (Before we knew better, we thought the sun Did rise and set. Now that we know better, tradition sees us use those old language patterns even though they are incorrect.)

Now in the case of Don's word choice and Dan's, both were related to Money and appeal to the Greed Gland and reek of Hype. And it's Prevalent in the Make Money arena.

For intance, you wrote...

Most people have become insanely rich not by trading their labour - but because they took advantage of the difference between value different people assign to the same thing - arbitrage / trade / chattling

There are Two things to note of the above...

Thing # 1: The fist word "Most" is often ignored - as is Almost, Virtually and other similar words - so the Apparent meaning is that Everyone got rich that way. I call these words, Covering Words because they allow the writer a way out if someone jumps up and says, not everyone got rich that way.

Thing # 2: You said "they took advantage of..." instead of implying that they didn't Work for it. Because we ALL work for money - even those who tell you the rich don't work for money - it's just that what one person means by the word Work and what another person means are different, and When this work took place is Left out.

To expand on the When... if I work a Job I will be paid either daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly. If I work for myself in a trade I will be paid daily, monthly, or even three monthly - depending on what arrangements I have with my clients and whether they are citizens or small or large companies. Either way, I work now and get paid later.

If I put money in the bank and earn interest it could be said I did not work for the money - as in, trade my labour for the money made, as you pointed out. However, I DID do work, in selecting the account in the first place, opening the account and then putting money into it.

So again, I did the work now and get paid later.

The main difference being, my Rate of pay and What I did to make it. No matter what, though, I Still did work.

Now it just so happens that, "making money without money" and "not working for money" are usually used by people who have something to sell you. These aren't phrases used in normal everyday conversation.

Oh, and to be even more Nit Picky... there is Only One Way To Make Money. It goes by many different names but it is still the same one way. Understand this - and associated incorrect word usage - is often the difference between those with large amounts of money and those without. Know what that one way is?

And to quote the Merlvingian...

Why is the only real source of power. Without it you are powerless.

Michael Ross