Money and the Law of Attraction (Blog)

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Bristol

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.

Fair enough.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Bristol

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

Ah… I see. You didn’t actually say that at first. Your comments were general in nature, or so it seemed to me, so I gave a general response. My bad.

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

Oh, well...

What resonates with you? Isn’t that what matters most? Who gives a rip what makes sense to me, or Steve, or anybody else? You're the king (or queen... don't know your gender...) of your own life and you're probably a magnificent creator. Your opinion is as valid for you as mine is for myself and I respect what you've said in this thread in that light.

I made my suggestion, and I included something along the lines of take it or leave it. So there you go.

Hakuna Matata my friend!

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Swannie

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

Hear hear! (That seems to be the phrase of the day for me...)

[matt1968]

Hi everyone. I've been reading Steve's blog for around a year and been an occasional “lurker” on the forums. This is my story:
Despite having a reasonably highly paid job I never seemed to have any spare money, always scraping by. One day a Google search brought me to Steve’s blog (I forget what I searched for) and I was very impressed by the honesty and integrity of the blog. One post that really stood out to me was a post about providing value in life. I took a long hard look at the way I was living and realized that despite earning a high wage I was doing as little as I could get away with in my job and living with a scarcity mindset.
I gradually changed my thinking and decided to give as much value as I could in everything I did (not just in my day job but all areas of my life) and also became open to abundance in all areas of my life. This took a while and is still a journey I’m on. The result was that my job income didn’t really change much but I found myself no longer short of money, my finances were in much better shape, I believe just from a change of attitude to providing value and believing abundance was available to me things got better.
Since then I have more financial income in from other streams and I’ve had more money that I’ve ever had before. Other parts of my life are more abundant too. I can understand what Steve is saying, the value he provided by just that one post changed my life a great deal and the knock on effect for my family, friends and work colleagues has also been significant. The more value you provide, along with being open to abundance, the more money you are going to attract. That’s what changed things for me anyway.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by 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?

On average I play poker maybe a few times per year, not so much for the game itself, but as a fun social experience to go out and meet new people. I enjoy talking to the other players who come to Vegas from different parts of the world. A common opening I use to chat with people is, "So where are you from?"

I've never met Daniel Negreanu, but I think he lives in Summerlin if I'm not mistaken, which is the same part of NW Las Vegas where Erin and I live. I know he plays golf nearby. I think he'd be an interesting person to meet... maybe for an interview for the blog if nothing else.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

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.

Like I said I earn only pennies per visitor to this site on average. Any teacher will earn more than that -- per person.

You can go deeper (provide a lot of value to a few people) or broader (provide a little value to a lot of people). Most people unfortunately settle for providing a small amount of value to a small amount of people, never learning how to fully utilize their strengths to provide more value, serve more people, or both.

A person teaching basic skills to a class of 20 people doesn't have much leverage, so the pay reflects it. A person teaching basic skills to 20,000 people can earn a lot more, as can a person teaching advanced skills to 20 people. A person who can teach advanced skills to 20,000 people will queue up a lot of social debt.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by matt1968

Hi everyone. I've been reading Steve's blog for around a year and been an occasional “lurker” on the forums. This is my story:
Despite having a reasonably highly paid job I never seemed to have any spare money, always scraping by. One day a Google search brought me to Steve’s blog (I forget what I searched for) and I was very impressed by the honesty and integrity of the blog. One post that really stood out to me was a post about providing value in life. I took a long hard look at the way I was living and realized that despite earning a high wage I was doing as little as I could get away with in my job and living with a scarcity mindset.
I gradually changed my thinking and decided to give as much value as I could in everything I did (not just in my day job but all areas of my life) and also became open to abundance in all areas of my life. This took a while and is still a journey I’m on. The result was that my job income didn’t really change much but I found myself no longer short of money, my finances were in much better shape, I believe just from a change of attitude to providing value and believing abundance was available to me things got better.
Since then I have more financial income in from other streams and I’ve had more money that I’ve ever had before. Other parts of my life are more abundant too. I can understand what Steve is saying, the value he provided by just that one post changed my life a great deal and the knock on effect for my family, friends and work colleagues has also been significant. The more value you provide, along with being open to abundance, the more money you are going to attract. That’s what changed things for me anyway.

Thank you for sharing your story Matt. I personally found it pertinent, helpful and inspiring!

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

A person teaching basic skills to a class of 20 people doesn't have much leverage, so the pay reflects it. A person teaching basic skills to 20,000 people can earn a lot more, as can a person teaching advanced skills to 20 people. A person who can teach advanced skills to 20,000 people will queue up a lot of social debt.

That makes more sense to me. However, people still need to be taught basic skills? Primary (Junior?) school teachers do that because they love young children, they may very well have advanced skills too - in nurturing and compassion, say But they teach basic arithmetic, and basic spelling....

But if a kid doesn't learn basic arithmetic, he's going to have a hard time learning calculus, and an even harder time learning advanced astro-physics. My point, I guess, is that we under-value basic skills. Somebody has to teach them, and not everybody can learn from a book or a television show as effectively as they can from a teacher.

In other words, your blog only works because everyone who comes to it can read - and thus assimilate the information. And the only reason everyone can read is because a bunch of primary teachers sat us down and went "A is for Apple...." a long time ago.

[Paul C]

That article really made sense to me, I notice am obvious improvement in my understanding of this sort of thing. Also, a few good reminders there as well.

[Savage]

Money is attached to social value, not intrinsic value. Deal with it.

One of the best ways to "deal with it" is to design your life such that you generate lots of social value from your own intrinsic value. For example, I happen to be a very growth-oriented person. But so what? Nobody will pay me for working on my growth. However, by sharing my growth experiences and lessons with others, I convert intrinsic value to social value, so I'm able to generate substantial income just being who I am.

A very loving, heart-centered math teacher with 20 students is probably under-utilizing her gifts. She can do a lot more good by finding a way to share her love with more people. Dr. Barbara DeAngelis used to teach meditation workshops to tiny audiences. But she can make $1M per year from teaching relationship skills to larger groups.

Jack Canfield used to earn $20K per year as an educator. He learned he could make 10x that and more by teaching educators (more leverage). At first he wrote and sold books for teachers. Then he learned to broaden his audience to encompass more people. Should he have remained a teacher for $20K per year, or was it better for him to expand beyond that?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

That makes more sense to me. However, people still need to be taught basic skills? Primary (Junior?) school teachers do that because they love young children, they may very well have advanced skills too - in nurturing and compassion, say But they teach basic arithmetic, and basic spelling....

But if a kid doesn't learn basic arithmetic, he's going to have a hard time learning calculus, and an even harder time learning advanced astro-physics. My point, I guess, is that we under-value basic skills. Somebody has to teach them, and not everybody can learn from a book or a television show as effectively as they can from a teacher.

Another thing with this in relation to Steve's answer above, is the law of supply & demand. There are a lot of people going into primary school teaching, which keeps the pay level down. An additional thing is the skill level required to teach primary-level skills, as compared with teaching advanced astrophysics. It simply is easier to become trained as a primary school teacher than as an astrophysicst who also can teach effectively.

[Playlife]

As far as I know, there's a significant shortage of school teachers. And firefighters. They might be jobs that don't require as much training as a NASA physicist, but I would think they are more needed. Without those, there would likely be no NASA, or other big things.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Playlife

As far as I know, there's a significant shortage of school teachers. And firefighters. They might be jobs that don't require as much training as a NASA physicist, but I would think they are more needed. Without those, there would likely be no NASA, or other big things.

There are predictions of an upcoming shortage of teachers, because of the baby boomers coming up to retirement. And this shortage is partly a function of there being a huge oversupply of teachers for so many years, when not as many people chose to pursue this profession. Nowadays, there's much more of a guarantee to be able to get a job as a teacher, so I expect many more people will go into the field once again. It's not like nursing, where we do face an ongoing and critical shortage.

Firefighters, I don't know. That's a whole different scenario. Dangerous, and lousy work hours.

But as far as NASA, once again, it's easier for someone to become a grade school teacher than to become an astrophysicst or engineer. No matter how valuable primary school teachers are, it's still a lower-level scale of skill compared to engineering.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

In other words, your blog only works because everyone who comes to it can read - and thus assimilate the information. And the only reason everyone can read is because a bunch of primary teachers sat us down and went "A is for Apple...." a long time ago.

Sorry to break your paradigm, but my parents--mostly my mother--taught me how to read.

Teachers taught me pretty much squat. In fact, I kind of feel I would have been better off without teachers and school since I would have had the freedom to naturally play to my strengths as I tend to do when I'm left alone to my own devices. Not that school wasn't educational for me, but in terms of actually being effective, I think I could have done more on my own (whether I would have is a different story, but the potential was definitely there; I think I would have done what I'm doing now if I was just left on my own, just earlier. That would have been a good thing! At least, it seems so from this perspective).

Anyway, my point is: when trying to understand Steve's concepts and you're trying to "acid test" them, you need to have examples that hold up from many scenarios. My one example kind of breaks yours, so you need something more holistic.

I've acid tested Steve's value concept myself, and it passes the test. The concept remains, and is pretty solid.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Sorry to break your paradigm, but my parents--mostly my mother--taught me how to read.

Teachers taught me pretty much squat. In fact, I kind of feel I would have been better off without teachers and school since I would have had the freedom to naturally play to my strengths as I tend to do when I'm left alone to my own devices. Not that school wasn't educational for me, but in terms of actually being effective, I think I could have done more on my own (whether I would have is a different story, but the potential was definitely there; I think I would have done what I'm doing now if I was just left on my own, just earlier. That would have been a good thing! At least, it seems so from this perspective).

I had been trying to express similar thoughts but couldn't figure out how to explain it the way I wanted to, and you just did it perfectly. I was thinking about how homeschooled kids tend to do very well academically. My mom also taught me how to read well before kindergarten.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Bristol

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

Oh, well...

Someone saying that "something doesn't resonate with them" may be more telling than it seems.

To shed some light on this situation for those interested:

All my various patterning tells me that Bristol is an accuracy seeker. Some may call him a skeptic, but no, that may not be quite accurate, although accuracy-seeking does lead to what may seem to be skepticism (it threw me at first, too).

I had a discussion longer than any of you care to know about with a hoard of skeptics and people who wanted to kill my ideas a while ago. At the end of the discussion, I walked away with an understanding of what accuracy-seekers are looking for in all of their critical analysis: simplicity. Elegance. They want things to be more simple. Even if things are complex and it's better to work with things like that, they want things to be more simple because it's easier to work with. And that "easier to work with" is the key that gives it away.

Suffice to say this is all textbook talent stuff, and if you give me someone like Bristol, I bet you'll find talents that relate to being drawn to simplicity.

On the other hand, people like me break when they see simplicity. I say, "ok, it's simple, but is it comprehensive?" While accuracy-seekers may see complexity within simplicity, I see simplicity within complexity.

It's all extremely relative, and the best thing to do when dealing with people of vastly different talents it to acknowledge that you literally speak another conceptual language and see the world differently and go do what is productive. You will never come to a consensus, and if you do, it will be an uneasy one. It's kind of sad that people can't agree on some things, but it's also amazing to know that we are such specialists, and there is so much we can do with such intense specialisation. Unfortunately our world kind of standardises everything (we need more Individualisers!), but it's getting better slowly (which does nothing for my Activator talent ).

When I make 40 Twitter posts and people can view my Twitter post archives, I'll be able to say "for more strengths and talents info, see my Twitter profile." It may sound like I'm speaking another language when I speak of things such as "Activator" and "Individualisation", and honestly, that's what I'm doing. My hope is that I can only confuse everyone as much as people's lack of specificness and comprehensiveness confuses me.

(Oh and in case it wasn't obvious, there's some humour somewhere in there among all those words. Maybe I need more emoticons)

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

(Oh and in case it wasn't obvious, there's some humour somewhere in there among all those words. Maybe I need more emoticons)

I don't know Bruce, I think I saw the humor in your post.

[supertom]

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.

oh okez, i get it now, but what are the top social values money and entertainment?? how do we change social values into more universal principles?? or do we just "play the game" while trying to change it a bit.

these are the questions that need answering

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Money is attached to social value, not intrinsic value. Deal with it.

It seems to be almost a religion in America that the market will infallibly guide money to those who provide value. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. "Money" is just an abstracted system of exchange tokens. It's subject both to gaming of the system and to unintentional leaks in the abstraction.

I'm glad that creating social value turned into lots of money for you but that doesn't make it a universally applicable rule.

You should perhaps not be so belittling, especially when it's you who is oversimplifying. Maybe some people aren't getting what they deserve.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Sorry to break your paradigm, but my parents--mostly my mother--taught me how to read.

Teachers taught me pretty much squat. In fact, I kind of feel I would have been better off without teachers and school since I would have had the freedom to naturally play to my strengths as I tend to do when I'm left alone to my own devices. Not that school wasn't educational for me, but in terms of actually being effective, I think I could have done more on my own (whether I would have is a different story, but the potential was definitely there; I think I would have done what I'm doing now if I was just left on my own, just earlier. That would have been a good thing! At least, it seems so from this perspective)

I was going to point out that I know hundreds of radically unschooled kids who have never been *taught* anything, in the traditional sense of the word, and they know much, much more than schooled kids.

I never taught my youngest son to read, and he reads very well. Learning is an organic process when it's allowed to be.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by supertom

oh okez, i get it now, but what are the top social values money and entertainment?? how do we change social values into more universal principles?? or do we just "play the game" while trying to change it a bit.

these are the questions that need answering

That is a game you could play, if you want to -- the game of enhancing the social value of universal principles. It's not something we *need* to do, or something we *should* do, but does it inspire you? Would it have you loving your life? If yes, play it!

What would be the rules of your game? How would you know (milestones, etc.) how the game is progressing? Interestingly, I can see how receiving money and people being entertained would be really fun markers for how well you are doing in enhancing the social value of universal principles. Do you accept that? Or would your markers be different?

It seems to me that Steve himself is playing a game that looks something like yours -- sharing the value of aligning one's self with principles he sees as universal -- Love, Truth, and Power. I love the way he's playing his game -- I find myself being a willing and joyful avatar in that game, among others -- and again, part of the fun is the abundance (including money) and entertainment I experience as part of the game.

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Sorry to break your paradigm, but my parents--mostly my mother--taught me how to read.

How nice for you. Not everyone has parents, not everyone has literate parents, not everyone has loving parents, so just go back to your middle class world, okay? Just because you don't need something, doesn't make it worthless. [/quote]

Teachers taught me pretty much squat. In fact, I kind of feel I would have been better off without teachers and school since I would have had the freedom to naturally play to my strengths as I tend to do when I'm left alone to my own devices.

So what? Again, you are ONE person. Go to a ghetto school, and ask someone whose been saved from a life of gangs and crime, thanks to a truly passionate and dedicated teacher. The sheer fact any of those kids had a chance is amazing, that teachers are prepared to take on those kinds of odds - whereas personal speakers can ONLY get through to people who are already 'ready' to learn. Teachers are available for everyone, they are an amazing resource for many disadvantaged children, and they DO provide a valuable service, for all that middle-class people would like to keep poverty stricken areas in the gutter.

Break your own damn paradigm, and accept that just because YOU had a certain experience, doesn't make it applicable to EVERYONE. Everyone is unique, and everyone learns a different way. At the moment, superficial teaching via indirect means is vastly overvalued, and direct, one-on-one learning to people who wouldn't otherwise have it is undervalued.

Anyway, my point is: when trying to understand Steve's concepts and you're trying to "acid test" them, you need to have examples that hold up from many scenarios. My one example kind of breaks yours, so you need something more holistic.

I'm not 'trying to understand' Steve's concepts, I'm disagreeing with them. Learn the difference! Steve is one person, with one kind of world-view. I am a different person, with a different world-view. Since both my parents had to work full-time just to pay rent, without teachers I would have been pretty ****ed. What's more, millions of people also need and appreciate teachers. If 50% of people like being taught one-on-one, at an early age, by a good teacher, and 50% of people are home-schooled, untaught, or just didn't like school.... that doesn't mean one is better than the other, it just means we have to make sure that all forms of learning are accessible to everyone.

Money is attached to social value, not intrinsic value. Deal with it.

Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it's the best/most efficient way.

A very loving, heart-centered math teacher with 20 students is probably under-utilizing her gifts. She can do a lot more good by finding a way to share her love with more people. Dr. Barbara DeAngelis used to teach meditation workshops to tiny audiences. But she can make $1M per year from teaching relationship skills to larger groups.

That's nice for her - but meditation teachers are still needed. My point isn't that one is good and the other isn't, but that both are needed and one is significantly undervalued and the other is significantly overvalued.

Jack Canfield used to earn $20K per year as an educator. He learned he could make 10x that and more by teaching educators (more leverage). At first he wrote and sold books for teachers. Then he learned to broaden his audience to encompass more people. Should he have remained a teacher for $20K per year, or was it better for him to expand beyond that?

Again, nice for him - but he still needs educators to teach. We can't all be 'at the top'. We need people at every level, generating every kind of value. Discovering a new cure for cancer would be a brilliant contribution to society - but you still need nurses on the ground level to administer it. Developing more efficient systems for educating people is great - but you still need educators to actually go out and do it.

Kids need to be taught to read. Where their parents can't, or won't, a system has to be developed for them. Not everyone loves reading, but it is such an incredibly valuable skill that everyone should be taught it. You can't really teach reading/comprehension in groups of 60 or 100 people. You need individual one-on-one attention for it to work properly. Teachers - the system of teachers - generate an awful lot of value to society.

But the difference between $20k a year and $1 million is huge - ridiculously unbalanced, in fact. Yes, one might generate more social value than the other - but not THAT much more.

[moonrambler]

The thing is, teaching someone to read is a relatively low-skilled job in our society. Highly valuable, but low skill. Somebody's mom can teach her kids. Probably somebody's older sister or brother can. Volunteers at the Literacy Council can. Anybody who can read well has a pretty good chance at being able to teach a kid to read, and most people in our society can read reasonably well. This means the pay level is going to be relatively low.

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

The thing is, teaching someone to read is a relatively low-skilled job in our society. Highly valuable, but low skill. Somebody's mom can teach her kids. Probably somebody's older sister or brother can. Volunteers at the Literacy Council can. Anybody who can read well has a pretty good chance at being able to teach a kid to read, and most people in our society can read reasonably well. This means the pay level is going to be relatively low.

Becoming a primary school teacher is not a low-skill job. In the UK it requires completion of a two year training course, usually along-side, or after a degree.

I used reading as an example. Primary School teachers also teach music, a foreign language (French in my school), art, maths, spelling, writing, carpentry, basic mechanics, basic science.... the list goes on.

In addition, school teachers work extremely long hours - starting at 8.30am, and usually marking papers long into the night. Many take on second jobs during the school holidays as they can't afford not to.


Not that long ago, the labour of a slave was valued by society as being worth nothing. Was that 'okay'? Was that something they 'just had to deal with'?

Equally, not that long ago, women were paid less than men for the same job. Society valued them less than men, and therefore paid them less.

Just because society places a certain value on something, doesn't make it something we have to agree with. We CAN change society, since we are all individuals making a contribution to it. But we can only change society if we consciously question and criticize its values and norms.

Certain jobs in this society are significantly undervalued. Other jobs are stupidly over-valued. As an example, they did a social experiment where they removed CEO's from the running of their businesses. Despite their huge bonus and self-perceived 'worth', the business ran just fine with any random person in their position.Look at someone like the President of Northern Rock - he presided over one of the worst financial debacles in recent history, lost many people's life savings, ran his bank into bankruptcy, was then bailed out by the government and still got paid an astronomical salary and bonus. Was he 'worth' that? No. Does a teacher produce more value to society than him? Absolutely.

So the system is flawed, and the amount of money you earn is not representative of how much social value you produce.

[supertom]

i think people dont value schools as much as they should, it might be better if you go to school for "smart" kids cause they value it more.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

Becoming a primary school teacher is not a low-skill job. In the UK it requires completion of a two year training course, usually along-side, or after a degree.

I used reading as an example. Primary School teachers also teach music, a foreign language (French in my school), art, maths, spelling, writing, carpentry, basic mechanics, basic science.... the list goes on.

In addition, school teachers work extremely long hours - starting at 8.30am, and usually marking papers long into the night. Many take on second jobs during the school holidays as they can't afford not to.


Not that long ago, the labour of a slave was valued by society as being worth nothing. Was that 'okay'? Was that something they 'just had to deal with'?

Equally, not that long ago, women were paid less than men for the same job. Society valued them less than men, and therefore paid them less.

Just because society places a certain value on something, doesn't make it something we have to agree with. We CAN change society, since we are all individuals making a contribution to it. But we can only change society if we consciously question and criticize its values and norms.

My point isn't that society is placing a low value on primary school teaching. My point is that a lot of people are qualified to do it, certified or not. The homeschooling stats show that. There are a lot more people who have the skills necessary to become a primary school teacher or who could easily obtain those skills, than there are people who can become NASA engineers or physicsts. This doesn't mean it isn't valuable. And I know how hard they work -- one of my closest friends is a high school teacher. She puts in a lot of time outside of the classroom.

But, the market pays according to supply and demand. Finding someone to teach elementary skills to children is simply easier than finding someone who can effectively design a spacecraft.

[supertom]

WHAT THE HELL is the point of goals if it doesnt excit you, it feels just normal ??

But i agree with the concept but i cant fit it into things, in ACIM it says that miracles dont dont bring a state of AWE and deep gatiude

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

But, the market pays according to supply and demand. Finding someone to teach elementary skills to children is simply easier than finding someone who can effectively design a spacecraft.

And that is 1. Not what Steve says happens, and 2. Not really a very good way to run a society.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

Break your own damn paradigm, and accept that just because YOU had a certain experience, doesn't make it applicable to EVERYONE.

Thanks, you've just put your finger on what had been bugging me about this.

The Law of Attraction (which seems to be influencing some positions here) can lead adherents to believe that if someone's getting a raw deal then they must deserve it or have chosen it.

Objectively, reality just isn't that individualistic. Sure, we have some individual control over our destiny, but other people's actions impact on us too. (The balance of the two varies significantly by circumstance).

Steve has stated that Subjective Reality is just one of many possible lenses - and a particularly empowering one. But it is not without its limitations and it's far from all-encompassing.

Just because some people have success with one approach under certain circumstances doesn't mean the same applies to everyone under different circumstances.

[faheeta]

This makes a lot of sense. I noticed my mindset when I wake up every morning and I'm broke is:

"How can I make money?" When I'm focusing on "how can I make money?", I am looking for more ways to attract money into my life.

Now I realize when I wake up with $500 dollars in the bank, my mindset shifted to:

"What bills do I pay?"
"What can I spend my new found wealth on?"

It's like at $500, I am now Donald Trump and my life is complete. There's no need to attract any money into my life.

I need to have large sums of money in my life and at the same time ask myself "How can I make more money?".