2 Mental Blocks to Making Money (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

2 Mental Blocks to Making Money

[Mags]

Thanks, Steve, for another great post. It is so obvious when looking at blogs, which are infused with passion and value versus those that are primarily money-making tools!

I've been pondering on something for a little while though (quoted below) and I'd love to hear what you and others think of this and how it relates to creating value and taking action - is it a contradiction of the value-creation mindset (with attendant action) or can it be integrated in somehow?

From "The Law of Attraction" (Abraham-Hicks, 2006, p. 185):
"If you want prosperity and you believe that it requires hard work and you are willing to offer the hard work, there is no contradiction, and you will achieve a level of prosperity.
If you want prosperity and you believe that it requires hard work and you are averse to hard work, there is a contradiction in your thinking, and you will not only have a difficult time offering the action, but any action you offer will not be productive.
If you want prosperity and you believe that you deserve it, and you expect it to come to you just because you want it to, there is no contradiction in your thinking - and the prosperity will flow."

[aaronmp2003]

Good article, and one that expresses a very important point that a lot of people seem to be missing during the "enlightening" stages that many are going through right now.

Yes, focusing on what you want, meditating, etc., are all important, but in the end, it is all done for the creation of something in the physical plane. If you are using all of your "new-age" knowledge to bring changes to your physical existence, then something will have to be done here on the physical plane, not just in your head.

Also, as Steve pointed out, it is all about creating unique value. If your goal is to meditate your way to riches, then you should be looking for the signs that you get as a result of meditating that point you to ways that you can create value for other people.

There is always a way, but at the same time, that "way" will always happen on the physical plane, so physical effort WILL be required. That's not to say that the work will be hard, but there will be something that you need to do, say, or take action on.

[Sam988]

Great post steve. Indeed, the mind alone won't create money. The person has to do something to create value to the society, so the society can pay back, and not expect -no mater how much thinking/visualization they put at it- that money will start flowing in from the window out of nowhere.

[greyman]

The last thing I would like to do is to discourage anyone to follow lofty dreams and high aspirations. By all means, go for it!

But the example from the Mistake #2 just affirms my opinion, that creating value by being entrepreneur in the Steve style is probably not for everyone. You don't only have to work hard, but also some other predispositions must be there, and not everyone is "supposed" to do it. In other words, several conditions, both internal and external must be met to be able to succeed in this kind of lifestyle.

I believe, that for many people, the most natural way of creating value is to just get a job, and through that job you are given a chance to do something useful and earn money for it. Is that something inferior comparing to being solo entrepreneur making money on the internet? I don't think so.

For example, I work for a large corporation and my team is responsible for developing a medicine software, which is used by thousands of hospitals around the world, and by being employed I can contribute to a product used in clinical workflow, helping to save people lives who need surgery. Moreover, by creating a really large piece of software, I can work on a complex problems, which I couldn't work on by coding from home alone.

From the spiritual point of view, I have to interact with many different people, so I can exercise my forbearance and compassion towards them, which helps improving my character. And last but not least, I just get the paycheck every month, so I don't have to worry what to eat the next day, and still have enough time for other things. Isn't that good enough?

Of course, maybe in the future it will be different, since I am not resistant to change, but I believe in following the natural course of things.

greyman

[Mr.Mustache]

To summarize all this in one word: CAPITALISM

[JohnR]

Hey Steve,

It's pretty easy to get incarcerated in the mental world when your mind is bothered about income and your thoughts are focussed on nothing but the need for it. You are right of course that we live in a physical world, and the most powerful tool we have to break free is physical action.

There is just no getting around it. People only pay for something of value. To build that value you have to really care about what you are offering, and you have to act on your vision in a sensible manner. Consistent small actions build empires, or good small businesses, or rewarding creative lifestyles, or ____________?

Support the immediate release of all mental/emotional prisoners.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[fbmfor]

There are ways of making money that do not provide value to other people, or at least provide it very, very indirectly. Or at least people executing them do not view them as value providing methods, but only as money making methods. Take for instance trading. Lots of people have trading as a career or as a main activity. Some are successful and some are not, like with any other money making method. But their success doesn't depend on the value they provide to others.

How do these ways of making money contrast with the first two sentences of Steve's post "The essence of successful income generation is value creation. If you want to earn income, you must provide something that matters enough to someone else that they’ll pay you for it."?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by fbmfor

There are ways of making money that do not provide value to other people, or at least provide it very, very indirectly. Or at least people executing them do not view them as value providing methods, but only as money making methods. Take for instance trading. Lots of people have trading as a career or as a main activity. Some are successful and some are not, like with any other money making method. But their success doesn't depend on the value they provide to others.

How do these ways of making money contrast with the first two sentences of Steve's post "The essence of successful income generation is value creation. If you want to earn income, you must provide something that matters enough to someone else that they’ll pay you for it."?

My biases up front: I despise what traders do. I believe that it's little more than a legal form of gambling.

That said, they actually do create value (unfortunately). If I invest my money into, say, a mutual fund I want to get a return on that investment. If a trader earns me money by flipping stocks and whatnot, then they actually are creating value because the value of my mutual fund will increase.

(For the record, I long since cashed out of my mutuals and went to ethical-only investments. My returns plummeted, but I sleep better.)

[Savage]

Originally Posted by fbmfor

How do these ways of making money contrast with the first two sentences of Steve's post "The essence of successful income generation is value creation. If you want to earn income, you must provide something that matters enough to someone else that they’ll pay you for it."?

Good question. The answer is that this series is specifically about career fulfillment, not merely making money. Based on the definition of a fulfilling career I stated in a previous post in this series, value creation is essential. You can certainly make money without value creation, but you won't find long-term fulfillment that way. Consequently, we can safely rule out the moocher approach when striving to build a deeply fulfilling career.

For a deeper exploration of the contributor mindset vs. the moocher mindset, see this article from Dec 2006:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...y-consciously/

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by fbmfor

Take for instance trading. Lots of people have trading as a career or as a main activity. Some are successful and some are not, like with any other money making method. But their success doesn't depend on the value they provide to others.

Value to others doesn't necessarily have to be good for society, intended by, or apparent to the person engaged in income generation. A person could be a day-trader and never see the value his activity has to others.

The corporations who's equity he trades in, benefit though, because without active trading it would be difficult for them to raise new money by issuing new shares and such. There are investors who support good corporations by buying and holding their stock for everyone's benefit. Trading or equity investing also benefits the general public because companies not performing well are devalued and motivated to improve, while good performance is rewarded and encouraged. Many investors practice ethical investing, where they invest in companies who's corporate purpose is to improve society.

we should make the distinction though, that income is generated by perceived value. The value doesn't have to be real; it only has to appear to be real. It's morally wrong of course, but it is the basis for all scams and fraud. It's up to us which side of the ethical fence we want to be on, but the same principals work on both.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Andrew Brunelle]

I enjoyed this post. One of your best this month. Keep up the value creation, Steve. I'm still working hard on my blog to create value people will find useful and will pay me for, in some form of another. As an A-list blogger who makes six figures a year, I can trust that your advice is sound.

[qed]

Originally Posted by greyman

I believe, that for many people, the most natural way of creating value is to just get a job, and through that job you are given a chance to do something useful and earn money for it. Is that something inferior comparing to being solo entrepreneur making money on the internet? I don't think so.

What Steve does is certainly not for everyone, and ultimately, humanity couldn't support itself anyway if everyone made money through advertising. Someone has to build those products, right?

Also have a look at the following thread:
10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job (Blog)

[qed]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The corporations who's equity he trades in, benefit though, because without active trading it would be difficult for them to raise new money by issuing new shares and such.

I am sure you are aware of this (doesn't sound like it though), but just to be clear, the money is made when the shares are first offered to public. Any further trading between individuals have no value to the company.

To get more money, the company needs to issue more stock, and if their valuation is high at the time, then they get more money for the same number of shares offered. This is why keeping investors happy is very important. Investors care to see growth because growing companies generate more and more value which makes them desirable, so every company shoots for the stratosphere, trying to grow their sales ever more.

Once you hit major sales figures (hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue), it gets harder and harder to get more sales, investors lose interest when growth slows down, the company tries everything under the sun to keep its valuation up (especially when sales growth is next to impossible)... And you get the mess we have today.

Capitalism has its pluses for sure, but it has some serious drawbacks for certain boundary conditions. It promotes perpetual growth instead of sustainability which is what we really need to solve some of our major problems on this planet.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by qed

I am sure you are aware of this (doesn't sound like it though), but just to be clear, the money is made when the shares are first offered to public. Any further trading between individuals have no value to the company.

To get more money, the company needs to issue more stock

Which is what I said "to raise new money by issuing new shares" so yes I understand how that works. I am sure you are aware of this (doesn't sound like it though), but just to be clear, corporations issue private placements (new shares issued to large investors and banks--not the public) all the time after the IPO (initial public offering). They get real dollars for the shares purchased through the private placements. it is cash straight into the bank account. And that can be one heck of a benefit to spur further growth.

You said:

"Capitalism has its pluses for sure, but it has some serious drawbacks for certain boundary conditions. It promotes perpetual growth instead of sustainability which is what we really need to solve some of our major problems on this planet."

All I can say to that is, I am all for the perpetual growth of industry with a social conscience. I am all for the unrestrained growth of medical science, space exploration, green industry, computer science, and the arts. If it weren't for some of the major corporations we wouldn't have the philanthropy that we now have to help deal with those problems you speak of. Think Gates and Buffett as examples. The list is endless. Taking the good with the bad, on balance I think capitalism is working. Don't confuse capitalism with politics.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by qed

Once you hit major sales figures (hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue), it gets harder and harder to get more sales, investors lose interest when growth slows down, the company tries everything under the sun to keep its valuation up (especially when sales growth is next to impossible)... And you get the mess we have today.

When large companies stop growing they start buying smaller companies that have growth potential. This is an important part of the business cycle for many companies (to get bought). Often they can't grow any more without additional injection of money, and can't get enough revenue on their own.

Of course that creates ever bigger conglomerates and that's ultimately not good for consumers. Huge corporations on average tend to have much worse customer service and products/services than smaller companies, much more bureaucracy, much more wasted money, and so on. Uncontrolled acquisitions and mergers between large corporations can also be bad for consumers which is why regulation is necessary. However, despite these issues regulated capitalism is still the best value generation system in history.

[qed]

Originally Posted by JohnR

All I can say to that is, I am all for the perpetual growth of industry with a social conscience. I am all for the unrestrained growth of medical science, space exploration, green industry, computer science, and the arts.

That's not what capitalism is about.. Well, not for most people. As Mistake #2 points out, people are waaay to focused on money! Ask investors if they care about any of the stuff you just mentioned. Company valuations have absolutely nothing to do with such things.

In fact, some of the greatest achievements in our history were terrible investments (airlines, automobiles,...)! Best investments are the ones that stall growth for everyone except for the company in the lead. Why do you think we have the patent system? Isn't that an offspring of capitalism? Last I checked, nature doesn't stifle growth like that.

Originally Posted by JohnR

If it weren't for some of the major corporations we wouldn't have the philanthropy that we now have to help deal with those problems you speak of.

And now you are sounding too desperate! Philanthropy is a human activity. It would exist whether corporations exist or not.

Originally Posted by JohnR

Think Gates and Buffett as examples. The list is endless. Taking the good with the bad, on balance I think capitalism is working. Don't confuse capitalism with politics.

I am not talking about individuals who have no investors to report to regarding what they do with their own money. I am talking about corporations. Corporations and investors measure success with one metric: revenue (or profits if you prefer to look at the bottom line). Everything else happens despite this metric.

Growing revenue perpetually is a different activity than growing the value output of a company. Of course, they are tied to each other until companies start commiting Mistake #2 which happens all too often.

Btw, if you think capitalism is working, I urge you to try to start a company to do good in the world. See how many VCs, banks or other individuals who might be capable of funding your project are interested in the philanthropic aspect of your business plan..

[Goyis]

Steve & Erin,
I am grateful for you in my life and the valuable lessons you have taught me.
Peace & blessings,

[codefreeze]

Good article and a bit of a wakeup call to many.

The fact is it is darn hard to make money...and even harder to set up a successful, profitable business. I have to agree with greyman - not everyone is suited to it - they are better off getting a job.

There are far too many people who go out, set up a Wordpress blog, write a few crummy articles and then say - "can I earn $40k a month now please?". They seem almost shocked that they suddenly didn't make a million bucks overnight. Get real people - there is no easy way to make money!

I would have to blame Steve P a little for this - because to a certain extent - and not intentionally - he has given a lot of people false hope, as they believed they could just "manifest" a million bucks from the comfort of their TV room armchair - I think in this article he corrects that misconception and I think quite a lot of people are going to be shocked by this article - it is going to be a slap in the face for them. After all this IS supposed to be PD for "smart" people.

On the other hand it's always good to try things and even fail at them - you can learn a lot from your mistakes and you can always move on and try something else. I hope people will get a grip and realize that there is no easy way to become a millionaire - you need a lot of hard work, intelligence and some luck to do it.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by codefreeze

Good article and a bit of a wakeup call to many.

The fact is it is darn hard to make money...and even harder to set up a successful, profitable business. I have to agree with greyman - not everyone is suited to it - they are better off getting a job.

That's the very mindset that many job holders have. Unless, of course, they chose to work for someone else, knowing they're capable of going out on their own as well. To quote Richard Bach's Illusions "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." Although, I would think that, we're all a servant to something in the end. The difference being that the further up you ascend, the fewer you have to answer to.

Originally Posted by codefreeze

There are far too many people who go out, set up a Wordpress blog, write a few crummy articles and then say - "can I earn $40k a month now please?". They seem almost shocked that they suddenly didn't make a million bucks overnight. Get real people - there is no easy way to make money!

It all depends if you make money generation into a chore. If you enjoy what you're doing, be it money and/or value creation, could it honestly be considered 'hard', in the usual sense?

Originally Posted by codefreeze

I would have to blame Steve P a little for this - because to a certain extent - and not intentionally - he has given a lot of people false hope, as they believed they could just "manifest" a million bucks from the comfort of their TV room armchair - I think in this article he corrects that misconception and I think quite a lot of people are going to be shocked by this article - it is going to be a slap in the face for them. After all this IS supposed to be PD for "smart" people.

I question how many of Steve's posts you've read. From memory, Steve hasn't implied that you don't have to do 'anything' to have a million dollars, unless you just happen to fall into a large sum of money by, what humans like to call, 'coincidence'. If there was any chance of misconception, Steve cleared it up far earlier than this particular post- many times.

Originally Posted by codefreeze

On the other hand it's always good to try things and even fail at them - you can learn a lot from your mistakes and you can always move on and try something else. I hope people will get a grip and realize that there is no easy way to become a millionaire - you need a lot of hard work, intelligence and some luck to do it.

As well as being authentic. Luck can be created (that's where the trusty Subjective reality mindset can be of great use).

---------

That was a great article Steve. It has helped me further refine my understanding of this reality's nature.

Thank you.

[qed]

Originally Posted by codefreeze

I would have to blame Steve P a little for this - because to a certain extent - and not intentionally - he has given a lot of people false hope, as they believed they could just "manifest" a million bucks from the comfort of their TV room armchair.

Yup! It's called the Million Dollar Experiment! MDE suggested people should not take any "physical" action (unless they got a very clear(?) sign that they should act) to make the extra bucks. The money was supposed to "manifest" itself naturally and effortlessly. And for some people it did. And guess who those were: the ones who already had implemented ways that money could reach them. The rest found nickles and dimes on the street...

Originally Posted by codefreeze

I hope people will get a grip and realize that there is no easy way to become a millionaire - you need a lot of hard work, intelligence and some luck to do it.

I do agree that the "luck" part has a lot to do with mental activity, belief, visualizing and finding opportunity where others miss it. On the other hand, it is not magic. It is called "the right brain".. The part of the brain that does not work incrementally or linearly. It takes discontinuous leaps and does other seemingly miraculous things. I am glad concepts like LoA and IM are introducing people to this aspect of their brains. However, it is not magic. It never was, it never will be.

[smartile]

Steve - good post.

plain and simple - you must give more value than you receive in money value.

It's stated very clearly in the 1910 classic, 'The Science of Getting Rich' by Wallace Wattles.

For anyone who is interested to learn more about this book, see these links:

The Science of Getting Rich: Principles 1-3
The Science of Getting Rich: Principles 4-7


Enjoy,

Stephen Martile — Personal Development Made Simple

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by qed

Btw, if you think capitalism is working, I urge you to try to start a company to do good in the world. See how many VCs, banks or other individuals who might be capable of funding your project are interested in the philanthropic aspect of your business plan..

qed,

You are missing my point. The philanthropy I was referencing is the direct result of corporate profit. Gates and Buffett would not have been able to do what they are doing without corporate growth. You said, "Philanthropy is a human activity. It would exist whether corporations exist or not." But where would the money come from? I hope that we can continue to help one another on an individual level, but billions of dollars directed to global issues by heads of corporations is much more powerful and sorely needed.

I'm quite aware of corporate greed and disregard for society, but I am also aware that there are a growing list of corporations who genuinely care about their impact on the world. I am pointing out the good for a reason. Those corporations should be focussed on because we want more of them.

Corporations are made up of people, and people are a mixed bag. As a species we are still pretty undeveloped compared to the potential we have. To reach that potential we have go down the time line. Capitalism is a more abundant and freer expression of human nature than any other system I can think of. We will reach our potential if we are free to build, develop, interact globally, and learn as we go. Naive? perhaps, but I think my optimism is justified.

A major point of Steve's article is to encourage creating real value for the right reasons in the quest for income. That happens on a large corporate scale as well as on the individual level. It's easy to see what's going wrong and get caught in negative thinking. I feel it's more important to empower what is going right.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

I have been doing a lot of work on this subject area, and I'll have to disagree with Steve here, even though I realize that his post is aimed at people at a certain point in their lives.

Yes you have to provide value in order to make money if your beliefs are centered around that, however, it is possible to transcend that path and make money without "providing value" as most of you would define it.

Before all of you jump down my throat for saying that it's not only possible but fulfilling to be able to experience financial abundance without "doing anything for it", why not consider it as a possibility for a while first.

Meaning...ask yourselves "How COULD I make money and feel fulfilled even if I don't 'do' anything for it in the traditional value sense?" and sit with that for a while.

Just to spice things up a bit, for die hard "value for money" advocates, I have some questions.

Who exactly is it that determines how much "value" you're offering? For example, who decides that Steve's blog articles are worth ~$40k/month?

Why does Steve make more than the President of the United States? Ok, Bush might be a no-brainer, but pick someone else who was a president. Does a blogger really have more responsibility and provide more value than the job of a president? How do you incorporate the fact that a president's life is always in danger into the "value" equation?

If StevePavlina.com was renamed to JUE79JDUWYNJDKEI83772KJJDFH.COM tomorrow, with NO difference in value of the blog, just that the link changed and Steve was not allowed to advertise the new domain name, would his revenues continue to be $40k/m? I doubt it. What happened? Did the value of the content on the blog diminish? No, but now it's not as visible on the Internet because nobody can find it. But then if the value of the blog is $40k/m worth, then why would it diminish just because the name changed?

Is it because it's less visible on the search engines? But then that would mean that the content isn't really the value, it's the visibility in the search engines that's the value? What would happen if instead of doing that we left the domain as is, except now we replaced all the articles with REWRITTEN articles by someone else here. Meaning, we leave all the links and the titles to the posts, but we replace the content within the articles to say something different on the same topic. Would the site generate less money? More?

When a person in one country gets paid $200/month to be an English teacher and $4,000/month in a different country to be an English teacher, how does value work there? You can't attribute everything to standard of living being cheaper because if either of them want to buy an iPhone for $500 one teacher has to save 2.5 months salary to afford one while the other one can afford it in a week or so.

How does Coke sell water for money? Where is the value? Is it really different from tap water? Or is it really just the belief that it's different that they are selling.

Anyway... All I'm saying is that the whole world is trying to sell us that you MUST provide value to make money. It's on TV, it's in books, it's in the newspapers, etc. However... if you really start looking at people who make a lot of money out there. Like multi-millionaires and billionaires, you might discover some strange things. It might not be as clear cut as you think.

I do, however, believe that as long as you believe you must provide value, you WILL have to provide value. So sitting around doing nothing when that belief is still installed in your mind's "operating system" will leave you homeless.

However, I'm somewhat surprised that Steve hasn't experimented with the possibility of upgrading his operating system to remove the "I have to provide value to make money" or "I have to provide value to feel fulfilled" beliefs.

I kind of see it as:

Steve Writes Blog Posts > Steve feels he provided value > Other People Visit His Site > Steve Sees Traffic > Steve feels deserving of making lots of money > Steve Feels Fulfilled > Steve Makes Money

What if Steve just DECIDED to feel fulfilled without all the things in between first?

[Savage]

@Paul: This post is part of the larger series on career fulfillment -- your comments seem to be taking it out of context and addressing the money-value issue in isolation. See comment #10 above for details.

[JohnR]

Impaul99,

As I said in a previous post, to make money (earn--not steal), the value Steve referred to only has to be perceived value. Steve didn't mention that, but I think we all know it anyway. The value doesn't have to be real to get money in return for offering it.

We must also consider the often convoluted paths that the value for offer, and the value received or perceived, travel before they come full circle. The value receiver or perceiver may be twice removed from the obvious exchange. Steve offers value to us readers, but we don't pay Steve. The advertisers who pay Google for the adsense ads on Steve's site perceive value in the click-trips we take on the ads. Google perceives value in placing the ads on Steve's site, and pays Steve every time we click on one.

We don't really care about the adsense ads. We care about the value Steve offers us in the articles. We get that value because Steve makes money offering value to Google, who make money offering value to the advertisers, who make money offering value to whomever buys their products -- which of course are a percentage of Steve's readers -- and the circle is complete.

Well, that's how I see it anyway

John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

@Paul: This post is part of the larger series on career fulfillment -- your comments seem to be taking it out of context and addressing the money-value issue in isolation. See comment #10 above for details.

Series or no series. When I read a post from you, you hold a certain amount of authority in my subconscious. Therefore, when you write...

"If you somehow find a way to make money providing little or no value, you can bet your market will soon be flooded with me-too wannabes. The field will be sliced into tiny little pieces. Meanwhile your spirit will be screaming at you to stop doing what you’re doing because it’s mind-numbingly boring, regardless of how much money you’re able to make from it."

... I have to take it at face value. Meaning, I have to assume that what you write is what you believe to be true. So if you say that "if you somehow find a way to make money providing little or not value...your spirit will be screaming at you to stop doing what you're doing" etc., I have to assume you believe that.

This is where I disagree. I am sure that some people who work in coal-mines would say that what you do provides "little or no value" because you're just "clicking buttons on a computer". I know people who say that sales people don't do anything - "They just talk all day long...scammers making money by talking...why can't they do an honest days work!" etc.

All of this is limited belief thinking in my opinion.

What if I'm an artist and I get absolute FULFILLING BLISS by painting giant paintings that look completely ugly to everyone else. Am I providing value?

What if the only value you provide is to yourself? Does that count? Why or why not? What if nobody in the world can provide more value to you than yourself?

I understand the context you're saying what you're saying. I just don't belive it anymore. I used to. But certain experiences have changed my thinking. Having to provide value in order to make money or feel fulfilled is an illusion. Or, perhaps a better way to say it is that it's a CHOICE.

Here's another way to say it. Take your list of values. Take "CONTRIBUTION" as one of your values, and move it down all the way to the bottom. Then put "FULFILLMENT" and "SUCCESS" as numbers 1 and 2. What happens now?

[wulph]

It seems to me that making money without providing genuine value is a Dark alignment, whereas focusing on value creation is a Light alignment. From what I understand of these concepts, either method can be very successful and fulfilling -- IF you choose and develop ONE of those paths.

Those of us who ponder whether to create value have not chosen a path, therefore we flip-flop around instead of achieving fulfillment (and money).

I appreciate Steve sharing his Light approach, which appears to be a continuing success. I also appreciate the contrast of other approaches, e.g. Coca-Cola, similarly successful.

The $200/$4000 teachers may feel equally fulfilled or equally miserable, depending on their alignment.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Impaul99,

As I said in a previous post, to make money (earn--not steal), the value Steve referred to only has to be perceived value. Steve didn't mention that, but I think we all know it anyway. The value doesn't have to be real to get money in return for offering it.

You're on the right track. Now, what if I told you that PERCEIVED value is not in the eye of the person RECEIVING the value, but in the eye of the person CREATING the value.

For example. I went to your site and I saw you paint and sell paintings. What if you took one of your paintings you normally sell for $4,000 and you put it up for sale for $40,000 instead?

You might think "Nobody will buy it for that price!" but that's your problem, not the buyers. If you put it up for $40,000, and it sells, did the purchaser not purchase a $40,000 for $40,000? How is that different from paying $4,000 for a $4,000 painting?

If I buy that $4k painting from you for $40k, as long as I think it's a $40k painting it WILL be a $40k painting and when someone were to ask me about it I might tell them that it's a $40,000 painting or even higher.

Here's what I'm saying. If someone hypnotized you tonight and made you believe that you earn 10x as much money per year than you actually do right now and you DESERVE to make that much and they also changed all the prices on your site to be 10x more expensive, what would happen?

Something to think about. Perhaps the "perceived value" is not in the eyes of the buyer, but the seller.

Don't think about this logically. Think about it experientally. Go to malls and look at what jewelry stores do. Look at clothing stores. Look at what they do on TV. Look at what car manufacturer's do. See what people actually act on day to day, not what seems logical.

For example, buying a car for $36,000 so that you can get back $2,000 cash seems illogical, right? Why wouldn't they just price the car at $34,000 to begin with? Which do you think sells more? The same car priced at $36k with a $2k cash back or the exact same car priced at $34k to begin with.

If you sold me a painting you made that I realy enjoyed for $40k, would I not be getting $40k worth of value everytime I looked at it?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by wulph

It seems to me that making money without providing genuine value is a Dark alignment, whereas focusing on value creation is a Light alignment. From what I understand of these concepts, either method can be very successful and fulfilling -- IF you choose and develop ONE of those paths.

I disagree here as well. I don't think "value for money" is a "light" alignment. It's simply aligning with a belief that says "I need to provide value in the eyes of others to feel deserving and to make money."

Here's another thing. What value is Steve or anyone else able to provide in the world that wasn't first given to them by someone else anyways? We come into this world as naked babies. Before we can provide any value in anything, it has to be first given to us in abundance by the world / universe.

Why would that ever need to change? Why can't we just accept the fact that we deserve full abundance right now, in this moment, without any further "suffering" to "help others" by "creating value for them" without that realization leading to "the dark path".

Why can't we accept that just by "being ourselves" we already provide a zillion trillion billion dollars per second of value to the world. The only reason we don't receive it is because we block it. It's like the universe is giving us a blank check and we're only paying ourselves $20/hour because we don't want to offend it and it's sitting there wondering why the hell we're chosing to suffer.

I don't believe you need to provide value to others to make money.
I don't believe you need to provide value to others to feel fulfilled.
I don't believe you need to provide value to others to be aligned with the "light" side and aligned with "love".

You can make money, feel fulfilled, and be aligned with love without providing value to others because it has nothing to do with "others", it has everything to do with yourself.

Once you accept all of those, only then can You CHOOSE to provide value for others out of free choice. That is a HUGE difference.