Money and the Law of Attraction (Blog)

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Bristol

While this "scarcity" mindset has been discussed in various forums on various topics, I do see a pattern (This's not meant to be personal about Steve's post at all - merely an observation/opinion...)

<BEGIN OPINION>

People post comments about how other people have a scarcity mindset when something they have been piking is construed as "too expensive" by some people. This stance usually comes across as a defensive posture - one that's designed to somehow elevate the poster to a higher level by dumping those who are having trouble finding a way to pay for the product/service into the "scarcity mindset" stereotype.

Ok, lets see here...

I really really want to buy something worth $2000 (Just an example).

I have, lets say, -$600 in the bank (yes, with a negative sign, happened to me many times)

My essential expenses per month are probably add up to more than $2000.

There's no way I can buy this. If only it were $500 or so, maybe I could have put it on my visa that has barely that much avaialble on it...

Now, if I look at this equation and feel that $2000 is "too high", I got a "scarcity mindset" ?

If only I could think wealthy, I could write a check and the bank would somehow allow it to go through?

These are real, objective numbers - not play-cash in a board game. Either you can afford something or you can't. If you can't and you really would like to have it, the price will appear out of reach, too high, greedy ...whatever.

Yes, one could try not to post something to that effect, and just simply admit that he couldn't afford it, perhaps next time...

Maybe then we can call those people to have a "neutral mindset" or something like that.

Dumping people in a generic "scarcity mindset" group because they can't afford something they would like to have, IMHO, is a sign of arrogance.

Blimey, but mostly these posts are written by people who can afford the prices. Maybe somewhere in the past they couldn't, but now they can. Happens all the time to many people...people in debt work out of it and go on to riches and vice versa.

And now that it's a new world for these people, suddenly, those "down there" have a scarcity mindset...if only they could look at their overdraft bank accounts, speak to the debt collectors, deal with the past due rent and feel wealthy....alas!!!

</END OPINION>

You make an interesting point.

I've always assumed that generally when someone I trust says something, it's likely that what they're saying is not them talking down to me, but a matter of difference. I.e. If Steve has $1,000,000, and I have $1,000, what he's saying is more about what I have to do differently because, in his experience, he found he had to do that, too.

But then, I wonder to what degree it's better to listen to yourself here, or rather, create your own way forward and blaze your own trail.

Ultimately I think both approaches can be effective, but like polarity, it's easiest to choose one. By my actions alone, it's clear that I choose drawing upon the knowledge I have of paths already blazed in the blazing of my own, but I can see it's potentially equally as possible to blaze your own trial and draw on what you might call infinite intelligence rather than the intelligence of fellow human beings. But is there really a difference? What is other humans drew on "infinite intelligence" to make progress on their own particular trial and you're now drawing on that?

All interesting stuff.

It really does make you aware of your own "thought bubble." Years ago I wouldn't have imagined I would think this way at all, but now I couldn't really imagine thinking differently. But then, if my past is anything to go by, thinking that this current level of thinking (or, at least, the general mindset and principles involved) is "it"--the maximum--in a few years or so, I'll have another "years ago, I wouldn't have thought this way at all" story to tell.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by dream23

I'm sorry but what a load of rubbish. So on your current model a nurse giving $600 to charity is less generous than say P.Diddy who gives a million pound to charity. Is it not all relative?

Does it not matter what the person does in there working hours? while the nurse is in a noble job serving society, P. Diddy is out corrupting the youth rapping about bitches, money and flash cars.

His Net worth 3 billion while the nurse is worth peanuts, is that the result of him being more generous?

You're confusing personal value (what you value) with social value (what society values). Money is based on the latter. This was previously covered in great detail in this article from December:
Making Money Consciously

Incidentally, I recommend the above article to everyone who hasn't read it yet, since it already addresses many of the issues raised here. I also devoted a whole chapter to the subject of money in my book.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You're confusing personal value (what you value) with social value (what society values). Money is based on the latter. This was previously covered in great detail in this article from December:
Making Money Consciously

Incidentally, I recommend the above article to everyone who hasn't read it yet, since it already addresses many of the issues raised here. I also devoted a whole chapter to the subject of money in my book.

I think the tricky "your blog isn't a book" gremlin shows itself again re: people being confused. It must be pretty frustrating to have so much content on your blog readily available but no decent system to link it together in a cohesive format that doesn't put restrictions on how you're able to post content.

It's kind of sad that you might be participating within the forums less, since your posting here creates a nice bridge between your blog as well as your new ideas (or, at least, more clarified, elegantly expressed versions of things you've already written about), which really does a good job of mitigating the disadvantages of blogging (i.e. the iterative nature and how it gives rise to no real comprehensive high level to low level implementation that's easy to follow). But all in the quest of greater contribution, I guess. Clearly the answer is that in addition to consulting, you just need to write more books. (I love how I make that sound so easy. )

Seriously though, I wonder if something can't be done to more effectively bridge content that is specifically related, such as your most recent article we're discussing in this thread, and the thread you linked to. (And I'm talking only direct relations. All your articles are related, but others have more direct relations than others.)

(On a side note: I don't know if you've noticed, but the way we're replying to these threads is sort of interesting. With one group of people, it's like a sort of one-to-many real-time chat that's between a few people, but available to everyone. With another group, it's like more of a one off thing post, and yet another group, more like... well, kind of like a turn based chess game over a period of months. So many different means of communication within the one system--the forum--sure makes for some interesting and lively conversation. At least, I'm enjoying it.)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Since money is social debt, having lots of money means that you've given much more value than you received.

It doesn't really always work that way - lottery, funds, finding money on the street. Maybe you could say playing Black Jack for high stakes creates social debt as per the entertainment value you contribute for others...

I suppose to some extent money doesn't necessarily have to be linked to created value directly; that discounts money found on the street that could 'turn up' as a reward for something you contributed.

Also, what about stolen money or money from things that were stolen and sold?

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Not quite. That isn't really the point. You're close, but you didn't take it far enough.

The point isn't to try to get you to spend money you don't have. It's to get you to see that you're the one who sets your standards and defines your financial equilibrium, and if you want to afford something that costs $2000 when you only have $600, you'll need to raise your standard of contribution to get there.

So if you only have $600 in the bank, you've only generated $600 of social value more than you spent. If you want to afford something that costs $2000, then it's up to you to generate that extra $1400 of social value by making a bigger contribution.

The idea is to push you to stop holding back on the contribution side. Go out and generate more value than you're doing now. Start associating with people who are more contribution-focused and don't waste time complaining about how little money they have (because they're hardly created any value for others).

In order to afford something that costs $2000, you have to go out and give $2000 worth of value to other people. This is a good thing.

Since money is social debt, having lots of money means that you've given much more value than you received.

If you only have $600 to your name, it means you're pretty darned selfish, doesn't it? You've only given society a net $600. Is that the best you can do? What's stopping you from creating a million dollars worth of value for other people?

Money is simply a note from society that says, "You've given more than you've taken out, so we owe you X amount of value in return for the service you've already rendered."

The more money you have, the more you've given to society. Having lots of money is a result of generosity, not greed.

* Note: This assumes a contributor mindset towards income generation, not a moocher mindset like thievery.

Interesting...

So, people who don't quite have the skills/talents/education/etc. to make and have more than $600 in the bank are selfish?

People who are doing important but low paying jobs (working with children, senior citizens etc.) are not being generous (enough) and hence don't have more money but some others (e.g. P. Diddy, as someone used as an example) has displayed more generosity and hence has more money?

I know, you will talk about societal value as opposed to personal value - meaning the society values stuff that someone like P. Diddy dishes out rather than what a volunteer at the senior center (Just an example. There are other people who have given society a lot more of less questionable value than the person in this example) does.

You talk about providing value worth $2000 so that I can actually have that cash to spend on things I want to have. Combining that with a previous response where you point out the difference between personal value and societal value (which has the underlying premise that since society is paying more for something, it values it more) basically you are saying....

"deliver what people in the society are willing to spend money on and you will be wealthy."

Marketing 101, though implementation takes a bit of skill and knowledge.

But yes, with that perspective, I totally agree with you!

[daj]

I think you & erin should do more audio posts, a lot gets lost in translation with the written word.

[C33]

We live in a society that rewards handsomely someone like P.Diddy and gives peanuts to the caring nurse.That's a fact.

Most people would agree that the nurse's value is, on the human level, higher than P.Diddy's.
Most people would rather spend $ 17 on P.Diddy's c.d than giving it as a token of appreciation to the selflessness and caring of the nurse.

I love this line from FREAKONOMICS:"Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work, whereas economics represents how it actually does work."

Right now, I am getting more and more at peace, because I have stopped being around well meaning friends who, fueled by the anxiety generated by lack of money, constantly monitor the way I spend mine.

The other day we went shopping during the sales ( funnily, it was their idea, even though they keep on complaining they have no money) and I saw something I really liked. It was a bit pricey, to their standards, and immediately, when they said:" oh you're buying something." , I said:" No I'm not, it's too expensive."

Truly,it was not too expensive for me, but right away I went into scarcity mode and reasoned myself that the money was better used to pay bills. I felt bad to buy this piece of clothing when they couldn't afford it .

Shopping is supposed to be something fun, but with such company, all the pleasure was sucked out of the experience.All we did was trudging along from one shop to another, looking at nice things that were "too expensive".
In the end,they spend much more than I did! but nobody had fun!

Is what Anthony Robbins says factually true: if you combine the income of your five closest friends and divide it by 5 , the number you will get is roughly your income?


Lately, I have started carrying twice as less cash as before, in an effort to cut down my spending. However, I do not feel deprived at all. As a matter of fact, I have cut down a lot on my spending, but that's in order to afford not to work as a 9 to 5 admin job, and to me: that's something positive because having time for myself, taking care of my health,listening to my own voice is a form of wealth.

I will try carrying more cash at all times and see how it affects my finances. This will get me to the next level of cutting down on my spending so I can go for my bliss!

Funnily, since I have started on this path of intolerance towards my own and other people's naysaying,I sold stuff on ebay for twice as much I thought I would get! Hmmm!

[InterfaceLeader]

I don't think that people put the 'correct' value on things. Politicians are paid more than teachers, because politicians have more power over the pay scale.... not because they offer more value to society.

I really doubt any business man offers $250k worth of value in one hour. No tutor is that efficient, especially when the best lessons are ones you have to accept and be ready for.

And then there's the issue that nobody starts from the same level. It is easy to 'sell' yourself and your talents when you can read, write, access the internet, purchase business cards etc etc. It's a lot more difficult when you can't do any of those things.

You might have been the most brilliant flute player in the world. But if you are never able to afford a flute in the first place, then so what?

Money is divisive. It creates inequalities of power, and most rich people are NOT creating value or positive social change. Some are, most aren't. Not everyone in the world can have the luxuries we take for granted - as other people have said, it's completely unsustainable. And who needs another acre of land, or an ensuite bathroom, when you have peace of mind and contentment?

It's all very well saying 'money is just a tool, and if I had it I would use it wisely'. The fact is that money is a form of power - probably the most important one in this society - and that having it does not mean you have earned it, or know how to use it. That so much power is centered on financial skill is unfair.

Lots and lots of people generate a million dollars worth of value - but they generate it for the homeless, the poor, the ill, and the elderly. They take care of them, love them, provide for them, educate them. And they do it without any hope of a financial reward.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It doesn't really always work that way - lottery, funds, finding money on the street. Maybe you could say playing Black Jack for high stakes creates social debt as per the entertainment value you contribute for others...

I suppose to some extent money doesn't necessarily have to be linked to created value directly; that discounts money found on the street that could 'turn up' as a reward for something you contributed.

Also, what about stolen money or money from things that were stolen and sold?

Already explained in this article
Making Money Consciously

[DeRocky]

Originally Posted by nique

I can definitely see the benefit of having a lot more money than you strictly need. Being able to use it to make the world a better place is a good thing.

What I have a hard time envisioning is spending my money on what I see as extravagances. I just can't envision myself in a situation where having a tennis court in my backyard or a full 20 car garage is OK and normal. And when I hear about and see "rich people" that's what I see: extravagances. Yes you're spending a lot of money on other people, but you're spending a boatload on yourself too. Way more than you need. Is that actually OK?

Nique, I felt exactly the same way for many years - in fact there are still some small things that continue to cause me guilt from time to time. Even a bowl of grapes has been known to occasionally make me feel guilty!

At the moment my partner and I qualify as "rich" by most senses of the word, and this is a real blessing. Here's how I have been beginning to see the situation... (I think I have three main points)

The main luxury in life is to be able to spend your time the way you want to. Whether that be in humanitarian pursuits, art, music, career, love, or just plain extravagances, being able to call your own shots in life is the most priceless thing and it's one good reason to value wealth. Of course we can always call our own shots in life, with or without money, but money can make it easier and a bit more comfortable. My partner and I have many ideas to generate more $$ and its very likely we will do so in the near future. But we don't plan on using it to buy 20 cars or anything like that. Mainly we just want further control over our time, the ability to pursue our passions, and to take care of the children we hope to have in the best way we know how!

A second point. If you make money with integrity, you have to do it by creating value with others (sharing). That is something Steve Pavlina stresses, and it's a totally true concept. Having $3,000,000 generally means you did something that others valued, and that they probably valued it enough to contribute to your personal fortune (though of course they probably weren't consciously ruminating over that fact). In other words, the very act of making a lot of money - ideally - makes the world a better place for the people who chose to trade the money with you for your products or services.

A final point (i think!). Every dollar we spend - ideally - helps to keep money flowing throughout our society. Ideally, even if we choose to buy 20 cars, we're supporting the employment of those involved in the creation and selling of the cars. As they generate profits or wages, they too will be able to use that money to meet their needs and desires and this will create a trickle down effect. The idea here is that spending/investing money consciously (even if its for purely luxurious reasons) is probably better than hoarding money (and probably better than choosing not to make much money at all).

I thought I'd share these ideas, even though I don't know whether or not it will help. I know how these sorts of problems feel, and they're not easily "rationalized away". But one thing I'd encourage you to do is to think about how you'd live your life if you had, say, $2,000,000. Don't just think about where you'd work -- think about what things you'd pursue, how you'd feel, how you'd contribute, what hobbies you'd take up, what places you'd see. And then see if it feels so bad?

And of course, if you continue to feel guilty - then that's your right too! There's a place for all of us, and we don't all have to have the same goals, thoughts, and feelings!

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Bristol

People who are doing important but low paying jobs (working with children, senior citizens etc.) are not being generous (enough) and hence don't have more money but some others (e.g. P. Diddy, as someone used as an example) has displayed more generosity and hence has more money?

With respect to social value, yes, absolutely. One of the reasons such people don't earn much is that they don't help very many people... often just a handful each day. They may be well intentioned and very heart-centered, but they're playing in a very small game. Worst of all, when they aren't actively working (such as while they're sleeping), they help no one. This approach is strategically unsound.

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

I don't deliver as much value to each individual person as some people do, but because I'm playing in a larger field than most (reaching a worldwide audience via the Internet), I can deliver that value to many thousands of people each day, even while I'm sleeping or on vacation. I earn only pennies per person on average, but it adds up.

Just within the past hour, a woman told me that she was inspired to try the raw food diet after reading about my experiences with it. She lost 42 pounds in 2.5 months. That's a wonderful value she received from this website. I didn't even have to be there because this value was delivered passively. Multiply these kinds of effects over many people x many articles x many years, and it adds up to a lot of social debt.

[wulph]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Since money is social debt, having lots of money means that you've given much more value than you received.

I agree with the money as social debt paradigm. What I don't get is why Mother Teresa wasn't a billionaire. Surely she contributed much more than some billionaires (even some honest ones).

How is someone volunteering for Habitat for Humanity contributing less than a subcontractor? What kind of decisions need to be made to "stake your claim" on your share of social debt?

Edit: It seems you answered this question here.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The more money you have, the more you've given to society. Having lots of money is a result of generosity, not greed.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Holy jesus Steve, can you write posts much better than this?! They're gobsmackingly vigorous and lucid...

I completely agree! That last sentence is a paradigm shifter for me personally!

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

With respect to social value, yes, absolutely. One of the reasons such people don't earn much is that they don't help very many people... often just a handful each day. They may be well intentioned and very heart-centered, but they're playing in a very small game. Worst of all, when they aren't actively working (such as while they're sleeping), they help no one. This approach is strategically unsound.

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

I don't deliver as much value to each individual person as some people do, but because I'm playing in a larger field than most (reaching a worldwide audience via the Internet), I can deliver that value to many thousands of people each day, even while I'm sleeping or on vacation. I earn only pennies per person on average, but it adds up.

Just within the past hour, a woman told me that she was inspired to try the raw food diet after reading about my experiences with it. She lost 42 pounds in 2.5 months. That's a wonderful value she received from this website. I didn't even have to be there because this value was delivered passively. Multiply these kinds of effects over many people x many articles x many years, and it adds up to a lot of social debt.

I just got this NOW.

I am a child care provider who is starting up a new business.

I was MAD at you, Steve, all day for saying I am not worth $500/hour for the work I do. I was STEWING over this. "Doesn't he KNOW how hard I work????" "So making sure a child has a happy, safe childhood is worthless?????" Oh, I was mad. Did I mention that already?

But, I got it now.

I am not only a Child Care Provider, I am also starting a new business that will SUPPORT other Licensed child care providers. Our business is starting to take off, and there is no limit to how much I can earn with this.... We are starting with Licensed providers with a plan to expand to families with kids... which is.......... one huge number of people.

So, I do get it now. Also, with my Second Business, I do not just earn money while *I* work. It is sort of a passive-income business with tremendous value to offer not only our clients but also our employees, as we are going into this WANTING to offer both our clients and employees value. We aren't worried about our income right now. We know it will come as we grow.

So... I am not mad at you anymore. Not that you would care.

Thanks for the insight!!

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

With respect to social value, yes, absolutely. One of the reasons such people don't earn much is that they don't help very many people... often just a handful each day. They may be well intentioned and very heart-centered, but they're playing in a very small game. Worst of all, when they aren't actively working (such as while they're sleeping), they help no one. This approach is strategically unsound.

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

I don't deliver as much value to each individual person as some people do, but because I'm playing in a larger field than most (reaching a worldwide audience via the Internet), I can deliver that value to many thousands of people each day, even while I'm sleeping or on vacation. I earn only pennies per person on average, but it adds up.

Just within the past hour, a woman told me that she was inspired to try the raw food diet after reading about my experiences with it. She lost 42 pounds in 2.5 months. That's a wonderful value she received from this website. I didn't even have to be there because this value was delivered passively. Multiply these kinds of effects over many people x many articles x many years, and it adds up to a lot of social debt.

With all due respect, minus all the convoluted language, all you are trying to say is find a big enough crowd willing to spend money on something and deliver that thing/service to them. Doesn't really matter what - as long as it's not illegal.

It really has nothing to do with "scarcity mindset" or "wealth mindset". It has nothing to do with carrying 837 dollars in the wallet. It has nothing to do with people making x dollars claiming that x/100 dollars is an insignificant amount for them (duh, of course it's insignificant!)

It's simple, proven, age old, business strategy.

If you want big money, sell to a larger crowd, sell more and sell bigger (...more expensive) stuff.

Like I said, marketing 101, though not as simple, for everyone to implement.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Bristol

People post comments about how other people have a scarcity mindset when something they have been piking is construed as "too expensive" by some people. This stance usually comes across as a defensive posture - one that's designed to somehow elevate the poster to a higher level by dumping those who are having trouble finding a way to pay for the product/service into the "scarcity mindset" stereotype…

Maybe then we can call those people to have a "neutral mindset" or something like that…

Dumping people in a generic "scarcity mindset" group because they can't afford something they would like to have, IMHO, is a sign of arrogance…

And now that it's a new world for these people, suddenly, those "down there" have a scarcity mindset...

@Bristol: Is it possible that your objections (if that’s what they are) are more about you feeling defensive about being tagged with the “scarcity mindset” label and less about the actual merits of Steve’s article? I get the sense that your original and subsequent posts stem from you feeling personally insulted in some way. All of the references that I underlined jumped out at me. Being thought of as one of "those people", or being dumped, or being labeled in any way that you interpret as inferior seems to really chap your hide, so to speak.

If I am right, may I humbly suggest that you examine the accuracy of those beliefs and any others that they might be connected to? You already know that empowerment (not to mention ridiculous amounts of joy) are on the other side of inaccurate thoughts.

Disclaimer: I FREELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I COULD BE DEAD WRONG. It wouldn't be the first time! If so, don’t hesitate to say, “No, that’s the exact opposite of what I was thinking/feeling!” Or words to that effect. Or even better, completely ignore this post!

[Niki]

Nothing really to do with the forum conversation here but just was interested to know if you still play poker? (question to steve) And do you know daniel negreanu personally ?

As my thoughts about the blog post, I mostly agree that step by step, and enjoyement of every step is a good way to go. It's much easier to adept the mindset of someone that's a step richer then you then when somebody is twenty steps different. I'm just not that keen on the LOA anymore. While the outcome of "practicing" the LOA can be benefitial, I think this has nothing to do with underlying "magnetic" forces.

[Allerim]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

With respect to social value, yes, absolutely. One of the reasons such people don't earn much is that they don't help very many people... often just a handful each day. They may be well intentioned and very heart-centered, but they're playing in a very small game. Worst of all, when they aren't actively working (such as while they're sleeping), they help no one. This approach is strategically unsound.

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

I don't deliver as much value to each individual person as some people do, but because I'm playing in a larger field than most (reaching a worldwide audience via the Internet), I can deliver that value to many thousands of people each day, even while I'm sleeping or on vacation. I earn only pennies per person on average, but it adds up.

Just within the past hour, a woman told me that she was inspired to try the raw food diet after reading about my experiences with it. She lost 42 pounds in 2.5 months. That's a wonderful value she received from this website. I didn't even have to be there because this value was delivered passively. Multiply these kinds of effects over many people x many articles x many years, and it adds up to a lot of social debt.

Using teaching as an example is interesting. Even if teachers don't work in a government run school we are still paid relative to what the government wants to pay.

It seems extremely difficult to measure the value we are giving 150 students (in senior school) each day. As things stand at the moment, there is no way to differentiate between those teachers who deliver great value and those that do not (even if it does seem obvious to us all).

In addition to this we are teaching young, growing, maturing people who cannot often easily articulate what value they are receiving. Their parents pay and often the students only realise in hindsight what great teachers they had and how they contributed to their growth.

With the shortage of teachers becoming quite serious in the western world it seems inevitable that teaching will become privitised in some way and in fact people will begin to pay a higher rate to receive an education they value.

This seems likely to extend to nursing and the police force.

The world and how we view what we should pay for what we value is changing. And thus people will be able to engage in work that they personally value and society will reflect this also. As always it starts with the individual before it is witnessed and observed in society.

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

I disagree. Being a single person in a large crowd listening to someone speak for an hour will not match the value of having a valuable mentor who knows you. Teachers don't just 'teach', they provide a role-model, a support system.... and more.

The problem with the large scale system is that, without individuals backing us up, it doesn't work. The social care system is a good example. You set up a system to support social carers, which generates a lot of value for many people. Great. But if every person who was a social carer set up their own large scale system, there would be nobody left on the ground!

A general is no good without soldiers, a politician is no good without voters. A blogger will never be a match for a life coach, and a life coach will never be a match for a close friend or partner, when it comes to supporting and helping somebody. If all I had in my life were one hour sessions with experts, my life would be a lot worse than it is now, where most of my interaction is with individuals.

Apply the system to farming, and what do you get? Large scale factory production delivers lots of food to lots of people - but that food is degraded and is gradually destroying the land. Small scale organic farmers deliver less food to less people, but that food is significantly tastier and more nutritious.

A blogger's message will be distorted and misunderstood, because everyone brings their own agenda to a mostly anonymous written word. But speak to someone one on one and you can explain everything they misunderstand, and a dialogue can develop which will help everybody grow.

The larger you get, the less control you have over the impact on people, and the less impact you have overall. Okay, a woman loses weight after reading some articles - great! But that might just have been the inspiring action, she probably still needed support from family and friends, she probably still needed to go and read up on it, she probably was already in a place where she was ready to take that step and commit to it. I'm not trying to undervalue that inspiring step, I'm just saying that is ALL large scale 'value producing' industries can provide.

[dream23]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

However, those who set up and/or use systems to deliver value to larger numbers of people can earn a bundle, especially if that value can be delivered 24/7. P. Diddy may not deliver as much value per person, but he reaches a lot more people, so his social debt (i.e. his income) reflects it.

A teacher may earn $35K teaching dozens of students for a year. A pro speaker can earn more than that for a single speech. The pro speaker can deliver value to more people in one speech than some teachers will reach in their entire careers. The income difference reflects that.

P.Diddy while he may have incresed his social debt (income) he has also decreased his spiritual worth, by contributing to the down grading of women, materialism, and not to mention all the blood shed for his diamonds.

When P.Diddy and the honest noble working nurse both die we will see who has paid the greatest spiritual debt to mankind. The nurse contributes to the solution, P. Diddy is contributing more to the problem than the solution.

This is a quote that comes to mind.

''I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble.''

--Helen Keller

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by DeRocky

A final point (i think!). Every dollar we spend - ideally - helps to keep money flowing throughout our society. Ideally, even if we choose to buy 20 cars, we're supporting the employment of those involved in the creation and selling of the cars. As they generate profits or wages, they too will be able to use that money to meet their needs and desires and this will create a trickle down effect. The idea here is that spending/investing money consciously (even if its for purely luxurious reasons) is probably better than hoarding money (and probably better than choosing not to make much money at all).

I was thinking along these lines too. People spending money is the reason other people are able to make money. If people stopped buying yachts, there'd be a whole lot of people in my locality who'd be out of work.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by wulph

I agree with the money as social debt paradigm. What I don't get is why Mother Teresa wasn't a billionaire. Surely she contributed much more than some billionaires (even some honest ones).

How is someone volunteering for Habitat for Humanity contributing less than a subcontractor? What kind of decisions need to be made to "stake your claim" on your share of social debt?

Edit: It seems you answered this question here.

In addition to Steve's comparison of who provides more value to society, remember that Mother Teresa was funded by a billion-dollar corporation.

[ellie]

So are you saying to be happy we need to service a large amount of people or be able to charge a high rate for what we do?

[Ecce Homo]

I notice that people keeping bringing up concepts that sound like, “It is wrong to suggest that nurses and teachers and fire fighters, etc, people who tirelessly serve individuals in their community day in and day out, people who are willing to even sacrifice their lives for others, are being paid what they deserve! It is wrong to suggest that others, like P. Diddy, are being paid what they deserve! It should be the exact opposite! Our society’s system of compensation is unfair and to suggest otherwise is not only morally inexcusable, it also helps to uphold a corrupt status quo!”

Is any of that even true?

“Things should be fair.” That one belief alone assumes a great deal. What’s fair? Who determines what fair means and how? “There exists in the universe a perfect and objective standard of fairness that applies to everyone, everywhere.” Are we certain of this? If so, how? “Steve is suggesting that what society actually values is also morally right.” Is he, really? You might want to look at his article again if you think he’s making a moral argument about the righteousness of P. Diddy’s net worth. “Society should value what I say it should value. It should value the Mother Teresas of the world way more than it values the P. Diddys of the world, and it should do so in the form of financial compensation.” Who needs God when we have you? Many of these kinds of beliefs can be traced back to a belief that goes something like, “If everything was like *fill in the blank* life would be perfect.” This presupposes that perfection looks the way you personally think it looks. Is it possible that you are mistaken? Is it possible that perfection might actually resemble reality?

I am not arguing for the opposite of any of the above either, by the way. In fact, I am not arguing at all. Just throwing out possibilities. As always, we are all free to take it or leave it. Isn’t the freedom to ignore that which does not resonate with you grand?

Steve seems to be particularly gifted at handing people opportunities to really examine their own beliefs in the form of polarizing articles. What a neat gift that must be!

[jawillie]

Mother Theresa didn't even want money, did she?

[Swannie]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Steve seems to be particularly gifted at handing people opportunities to really examine their own beliefs in the form of polarizing articles. What a neat gift that must be!

I like to think we are all particularly gifted at reading articles in the way we want to read them ;-)

The big value comes from getting enough like minded people together to discuss them. There is a LOT of value in that. Especially when the people choose to be there.

As far as I can tell, Steve is just explaining that money is a currency of expressed power. If that power is aligned with love and truth, a lot of good can be generated from it.

More creating more value means more expressed power. By rejecting money, Mother Teresa empowered her message of love and truth. She didn't need money as a currency of expressed power because she had a large audience (another currency of expressed power). If she accepted more money and created a trust to continue her work, would be be talking about her? Would her audience have shrunk?

Society currently places value on things differently to most individuals. We all live in different circumstances, so it is no surprise!

By understanding what society places value in, and producing that value, we can gain more money, or ability to express power. The trick is then using that power to "educate" society where they should place value. Corporations are doing this all the time.

P.Diddy got his power from corporations placing their power behind his product. A large portion of society follows what corporations dictate. And often what they promote is not value-less. It just has dubious value to those at a higher level of conciousness. P.Diddy has reaped the value of that power... suffice to say the record label, distributors, etc. got more cash.

Steve isn't self publishing. He's using the power of Hay House to promote his book. Steve uses his power to promote other products that he believes in. We all do this in smaller ways when we play music to our friends, talk about films and books, etc.

However, if you believe that you are currently attracting the right value from society from what you do, is the Law of Attraction going to manifest more value society? No.

So Steve is not saying you should feel like society is giving you a bad deal. On the contrary - that is a win/lose situation. Steve is saying you should realise that you can create more value for society, and they will give you back more value, usually in the form of money. A win/win situation, or in Steve language, a situation more strongly aligned with love.

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

@Bristol: Is it possible that your objections (if that’s what they are) are more about you feeling defensive about being tagged with the “scarcity mindset” label and less about the actual merits of Steve’s article? I get the sense that your original and subsequent posts stem from you feeling personally insulted in some way. All of the references that I underlined jumped out at me. Being thought of as one of "those people", or being dumped, or being labeled in any way that you interpret as inferior seems to really chap your hide, so to speak.

If I am right, may I humbly suggest that you examine the accuracy of those beliefs and any others that they might be connected to? You already know that empowerment (not to mention ridiculous amounts of joy) are on the other side of inaccurate thoughts.

Disclaimer: I FREELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I COULD BE DEAD WRONG. It wouldn't be the first time! If so, don’t hesitate to say, “No, that’s the exact opposite of what I was thinking/feeling!” Or words to that effect. Or even better, completely ignore this post!

Going by what you are saying, everything is a belief. What you just wrote is part of your belief system and what Steve wrote is part of his. And of course, what I'm posting is part of my very own.

Since everyone has his/her own belief system, how can we really measure the "accuracy" of anyone's belief, since there's no "standard" belief to measure against. Also, going by the same vein, what would be the meaning of "accuracy"?

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

@Bristol: Is it possible that your objections (if that’s what they are) are more about you feeling defensive about being tagged with the “scarcity mindset” label and less about the actual merits of Steve’s article? I get the sense that your original and subsequent posts stem from you feeling personally insulted in some way. All of the references that I underlined jumped out at me. Being thought of as one of "those people", or being dumped, or being labeled in any way that you interpret as inferior seems to really chap your hide, so to speak.

If I am right, may I humbly suggest that you examine the accuracy of those beliefs and any others that they might be connected to? You already know that empowerment (not to mention ridiculous amounts of joy) are on the other side of inaccurate thoughts.

Disclaimer: I FREELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I COULD BE DEAD WRONG. It wouldn't be the first time! If so, don’t hesitate to say, “No, that’s the exact opposite of what I was thinking/feeling!” Or words to that effect. Or even better, completely ignore this post!

And, by the way, I was trying to make two points:

1. Jumping into the scarcity mindset discussion seems to be a fairly common practice when prospects complain about the price and other aspects of a product/service one is piking. I've seen it over and over again. I was presenting my opinions on how such action appears to me - so yes, those points are definitely part of my belief system, as all opinions are.

2. The manner Steve presented the "provide value" concept, it appeared to me like a bloated,convoluted way to present a simple business strategy, one I've mentioned in the earlier posts. It didn't seem to have anything to do with all the rest of the stuff that was presented in his post (money in the wallet, amount of money appearing to be insignificant to certain people etc.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Bristol

Going by what you are saying, everything is a belief. What you just wrote is part of your belief system and what Steve wrote is part of his. And of course, what I'm posting is part of my very own.

Exactly! Aren't you grateful that we are all free to think our own thoughts and experience the consequences that follow for ourselves?

Since everyone has his/her own belief system, how can we really measure the "accuracy" of anyone's belief, since there's no "standard" belief to measure against. Also, going by the same vein, what would be the meaning of "accuracy"?

Here’s where I go with it: why would I want to measure the accuracy of anyone else’s belief system? How would that change reality? How would that benefit the world around me? How would that serve me? How would judging Steve’s, or yours, or anyone’s beliefs enhance my own sense of joy and gratitude? If Steve’s, or yours, or Buddha’s or Jesus Christ’s concepts don’t resonate within me, I simply ignore them. So I don’t experience the “problem” of accurately measuring other people’s beliefs. And equally, I do embrace those concepts that enhance my own sense of joy. Happily, the idea of service and contribution creates great joy within me, so I embrace them, for instance.

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Here’s where I go with it: why would I want to measure the accuracy of anyone else’s belief system? How would that change reality? How would that benefit the world around me? How would that serve me? How would judging Steve’s, or yours, or anyone’s beliefs enhance my own sense of joy and gratitude? If Steve’s, or yours, or Buddha’s or Jesus Christ’s concepts don’t resonate within me, I simply ignore them. So I don’t experience the “problem” of accurately measuring other people’s beliefs. And equally, I do embrace those concepts that enhance my own sense of joy. Happily, the idea of service and contribution creates great joy within me, so I embrace them, for instance.

I was responding to your suggestion that I checked the "accuracy" of my beliefs (quoted below).

If I am right, may I humbly suggest that you examine the accuracy of those beliefs and any others that they might be connected to?

And now you seem to be saying that checking the accuracy of any belief is something that doesn't resonate with you.

Oh, well...