Financial planner Jonathan K. DeYoe and Real Estate investor and coach Terrie Schauer team up to bring The Mindful Wealth Podcast. Learn how to close the gap between the rat race and true wealth. The mindful wealth podcast is about making meaningful mental improvements to manifest an exponentially richer life. Discover the secret to security, tools to beating bigger-is-better thinking, and tips to mindful success, holistic wealth, and financial freedom.
Blyth is a national treasure. The ultra-rare combination of extreme intelligence, incredible wisdom and unimpeachable humbleness. You deprive yourself if you don't listen to this man.
With respect, UBI is the motherlode of bad ideas. It would induce rampant, never ending inflation, it encourages irresponsible people to reproduce which leads to more irresponsible people on the planet. It would obliterate social cohesion since there would be no need to work and build relationships with others due to reliance on government; innovation would suffer a similar demise. The one sure way to destroy any hope of mindful wealth or better capitalism and ensure socialism (ie. early stage communism) is to implement UBI. I see virtually no parallels between the highly diverse US and the culturally, ethnically homogenous nation of Norway with 1/62 the population. I don't mean to be harsh, however it's a concept that needs thorough, stern rebuttal in my view.
@@TheMindfulWealthPodcast Inequality will always exist as different people have different aptitudes and ambitions, anyway we already have social safety nets in the form of welfare programs and SSI. The goal should not be trying to guarantee an equal outcome, rather an equal opportunity, and the way to do that is to limit government meddling and crony capitalism as much a possible so that genuine meritocracy can bear its fruits. We can't legislate morality or mindfulness but we can at least mitigate the great danger that corrupt centralized government presents. I'm sure you all have heard this a million times before, but an old concept is not necessarily an invalid one! Thank you for this podcast, these topics are in great need of consideration.
Not all rich people have power, in fact most don't, its the wealthy CORPORATIONS that create the situations where populism becomes popular. If you remember people like Larry David writing op eds when Bush did his big tax cut, saying where he was going to spend all the new money that he now had but didn't need. I knew a guy who was the 'goto' guy for a billionaire family. It was his job to control the money flow because the guy admitted that most wealthy people are actually fairly decent people and like lottery winners, will often burn through a lot of their money, in one part simply by giving it away. So this guys job was essentially to keep his wealthy clients 'protected' from people who wanted to get money from them, whether charities or investors or anything, because MOST millionaires in the states now are INHERITORS of wealth, not creators of it. So they really don't have the financial acumen of who earned the money in the first place, and often have a fair bit of guilt about having so much money while knowing full well they did little to nothing to deserve it. Populism is a tricky word, but essentially people fall for populism when they are desperate. Here in Canada there is a groundswell for one of the conservative candidates, but he's a pretty onerous critter who has the most 'desperate' people buying a lot of hooey because they hate the current government so badly. I might add that thats exactly what got the CURRENT Prime Minister here elected about a decade ago, because of course populism is not restricted to one party. Obama most certianly was populist, the media doesn't like it because 'in general' to media the only people that fall for populism is stupid people or poor people, and certainly in the latter case, they don't even vote.
Very true re - Rich people! Populism - also true - it is a strategy employed across the whole political spectrum, both left & right. It's rather a tactic - one that unscrupulous politicians reach for at times when discontent is high, rather than a political philosophy. Any recommendations for future guests who you'd like to hear talk about this?
This is a wonderful discussion. A hurdle I struggle with in my own spiritual growth is how to reconcile my Earthly existence with my spiritual understandings. I believe in doing honest work, creating real value by providing goods and services that people are willing to pay for and at the same time aren't detrimental or addictive to the buyer. This is in opposition to earning an income by selling (or investing in) addictive substances, processed foods, rainforest lumber or cheap goods made oceans away where the people and environment are degraded in the process. Speculation and "shrewd" investing (including 401Ks) creates little to no real value and often serves to accelerate this degradation. It also makes me uneasy that I'm coerced to support a parasitic government (US) by paying taxes and following its edicts. My point is, it's hard to have enough free time and energy to really delve into spiritual practice when so much goes into doing _real_ work to earn an honest dollar while also trying to avoid contributing to the problems caused by cutthroat capitalism and bloated bureaucracy.
There is no such a thing as populism. There is what normal people want and than there is what tiny leftist minority and elites want. We can than say the same thing about Biden. Is Biden populist? What determines what is populism and what isnt. Basically its whoever I dont like is a therefore a populist.
Just messaged him... we'll see what he says :) you can always troll him and tell him to come on the show! Great tip btw... keep sending guest requests and I'll keep harassing them till they come on the show
wow. excellent. I would love to hear updates on the struggle for basic income in different countries, what the setbacks have been, what he's optimistic about. How has the populism of the left and right affected basic income. I would love to hear how the struggle against the 'eight giants' is progressing. I would love to ask if he thinks a post war Ukraine might be a good or bad place for a trial of a basic income. I would love to ask how he thinks fuel prices and inflation effects the precariat and what he thinks of the record low unemployment, its cost and whether it is a meaningful number, or just the splitting of enterprise jobs into precariat tasks. what does he think of global depopulation and china's falling birth rate? what does it mean for the precariat, inequality? will it lead to rising wages or automation? Im very interested in basic income on a city level, I know Andrew Yang ran for NY mayor. Im from Portland OR, which has no sales tax, but 3 oregon cities have a sales tax. I think Portland could pass a sales tax to fund a basic income. What is his take on sales tax or VAT funded basic income, and what does he think of cities taking the initiative, is it viable, is it even a good idea. what about sovereign wealth funds and endowments. I'll try to think of more but he never disappoints
I was reminded of part of this false concensus stuff last night reading an article about this finnish corona vaccine, taken via nose spray and highly promising, we could've gotten it inside 2020 if the government had taken over and allocated the resources. But no it has to be done privately, or the developers have to apply for business loans to develop the vaccine as a commercial product. Well it's 2022 and the vaccine still isn't here but under development and one paragraph just bluntly states "The state will never do this, nowhere in europe is this true, this is not for the state". Apparently it was a quote from someone in the government who oversaw the development. It's like a complete refusal to even try to break out of this box we've put ourselves into. It's easier to imagine the end of humanity than the end of capitalism, even this hyper shitty version of capitalism we got now.
@@jamesbelcher9588 you are telling private companies that made those loans to students, that they have to lose their income, or are you proposing that taxpayers will be footing the bill ? There is no other way...
@@wikingagresor The DOE owns over 90% of student debt. It was spent into existence, much like the military budget. Canceling student debt is the easiest win imaginable. If the main argument against debt cancellation is "What about the 10% of student debt owned by private lenders?", I think cancellation wins.
@@jamesbelcher9588 Cancelling that 90% owned by the DOE then is identical to the government paying it, i.e. adding it to the national debt instead. Many would read that as the taxpayers footing the bill, though I'm not sure whether it would be discretionary or non-discretionary spending or if that debt would ever be paid out. Personally I think I do lean toward cancelling it (despite having no debt myself), but I think you should understand that even "cancelled" debt doesn't just evaporate into thin air. For wikingagresor, taxpayers are pretty much definitionally above the poverty line, so they aren't in the worst position to shoulder that cost as many among them may have been the beneficiaries of such loans. I suspect that what is bothering you are cases where those that are relatively privileged took loans that they perhaps didn't need to? It certainly can bother me as well, but lets not let them ruin a good thing.
9:15 except of course, "everyone" didn't get bailed out (in america). The rich even took most of the stimulus meant for the unemployed. 200,000+ small businesses closed permanently. And soon people will start losing their homes as the banks collect debt from the poor, that was incurred by the rich. Not an accident. All by design.
economics is what you study when politics is too scary. no ethical person would participate in usa politics, and revolutioning is dangerous and usually ill-paid as well. so you talk about the machinery of society, and leave motive power in the hands of sociopaths and idiots. and the occasional 'hero' like assange, manning and snowden.' somewhat like the 'schoolmen' of medieval times, although more useful than 'angels dancing on pinheads.' sometimes. yet there are economists who prospered by simply saying, 'get out of the way of the market.' you tell rich people what they want to hear, and you prosper. the vital questions of our times are population and environment, and they are not addressed by current elite-driven societies. if we don't get democracy, the zuckerbergs will kill us all.
Guess what? You can't have in increase in Standard of Living without Inflation. THAT'S WHAT AN INCREASE IN THE STANDARD OF LIVING MEANS. The key is that wages have to rise more.
Great conversation! I have an uneducated response to the how to control or cater to capital. I think we will need a ubiquitous set Global Corporate Governance laws to reign in capitalism. So there's no where on earth you can exploit or leverage. Hard if not impossible today, especially with the NWO conspiracy. I think fundamentally globalization has made the nation state irrelevant and beholden to capital demands. Just look at our supply chain fiasco. How does the USA not have a single IC chip manufacturer? I can't wait to read Karen Ho's book. I read Transaction Man by Nicholas Lemann and it dovetails well with this conversation. Thanks!
I wouldn't quote the exact number, as it will need inflation adjustment over time. I don't know who said it, but that effect can definitely be seen in surveys on happiness.
Very interesting episode, but please, for the love of God, equalize your sound, I either have to get my ears destroyed by the hosts or miss most of what Mark is saying.
I am sand to see only 256 views in a month for a video from a great man of your calibre. Perhaps next time you should stroke a white cat on your lab. RU-vid algorithms will favours you. Your thoughts should be taught at school 🏫
The growth of populism is due to the failure of the elites and governments create a level playing field, economically, allowing the rich and corporations to get richer whilst in work poverty plus debt to spiral out of control for the working class. Add to this the Conservative nature of people to accept social change but having rammed down their throats rather than letting it happen generationally. When you no longer trust the news channels people resort to the Internet for their information much of which is ill informed or feeds to people's predjudices.
Mark really is an intuitive genius man. If the stages of capitalism are software then he has shown himself to be the expert white hat hacker trying to expose and fix the faults in the software.
I can't believe so many smart people don't understand that corporations pay zero tax, their customers pay 100% of whatever the government takes, period. And they get far far far more in return in social, general government, and military spending. The poor do not, never have gotten rich, and never will from redistribution, and if you haven't learned that from 2020, you will never understand. Government spending is the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.
"corporations pay zero tax, their customers pay 100% of whatever the government takes, period." That's not an honest description, that's like saying no workers pay tax because it comes from the pockets of corporations that pay their wages. Granted, I agree with the core of your point, much of it over the last 30-40 years has been trickle up per se, but it doesn't have to be that way and hasn't always been that way.
@@zvxcvxcz with a bullshit name like that you could expect a logic bomb to blow the most iron clad mind... yet no. Its nothing at all like that Ask yourself how the worker gets access to income? They rent their body for money - and when I say body, I mean body, mind, and in most cases soul. A corporation can pit you against not only your coworkers, but against yourself. How does a corporation get access to revenue? They coordinate labor and capital expenditures to create products and services to sell to consumers. There is no body to rent out, no soul, no kids left by themselves, no family ignored. Now what does that coordination mean? A corporation reinvests surplus value into capital to thus make labor more effective. Yes, they externalize costs as best possible, but they manage costs in such a way profit is maintained or expanded. They can do this by increasing capex, they can do this by reducing labor costs, and/or they can do this by increasing prices. But it is not trading life-years for revenue. If the cost of tax is universal and there is no benefit extended to one corporation vs another, then costs increase for all products sold, therefore the price level increase for all products sold. Moreover, increases in costs are actually better absorbed by larger corporations, thus resulting in less competition and more consolidation, thus pushing price levels up not to maintain profit, but to increase it as while as reduce labor leverage. A person has finite energy, finite lifetime, has real opportunity costs, taxing them costs them something real, life energy, actual minutes in an increasing shorter "healthspan" while corporations are essentially an abstract coordination point of cash flows and investment choices. Making them equivalent is the dumbest comment I have ever read on the internet. A corporation pays zero taxes, the customers do. And the more taxes you extract from corporations, the worse you make the life of consumers/laborers. Wake up and stop peering into your naval.
damn blyth has such a way of explaining our financial world that is simple and down to earth it's too bad more politicians don;t take his approach to heart .. and yes once you've got $10 million what drives you to accumulate more & more .. and we all know the devastation of uncertainty in life ... great interview..
Please for the love of god turn down Terri’s mic! You all have interesting things to say so please balance your levels in post so we can hear them without sustaining industrial deafness.
We need to change congress. As it stands today congress is made up of mostly rich people who are mostly white old men and one of the reasons for this is , thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts decision that money equals free speech, they are the people who get the money to run and win. The second reason is the seniority system in place in congress which rewards seniority instead of rewarding talent. It gives the state with the longest serving congress person undeserved power. The main reason that things don't get fixed is because congress people are not feeling the pain that is caused by the problems personally.
It takes time for these ideas to make it into policy.. that's what we're trying to do with this channel. Have a larger discussion about these ideas so things begin to change !
@@TheMindfulWealthPodcast These ideas aren't really new. All of Capitalism was designed to lean into the curve of human desire to be greedy. I think there is just a percentage of humanity that believes in self centered consumption over anything else. It is a psychological delusion that has become ideologically inseparable from a religion. We're a Neo Roman style Feudal Enterprise that never truly severed it's addiction to slave labor.
Proposed 'solutions' attempts to treat symptoms, leaving root cause in place. Clearly globalism is an utter failure, as it's built upon corruption, causing massive environment damage, political and social disruption, which leaves me wondering why it's being defended. I fail to see how The Fairness Doctrine was gov control over news, and how we benefit from it being rescinded, bringing on the various Rich Guys' channels, such as Murdock's Fox, Sen. Menendez's PBS, etc.
Globalism is not a failure and isn't built on those things. Those things are temporary consequence as global markets adjust. Unfortunately, the process will take a long time and opportunists will use the period to have as little accountability as possible. E.g. while it has contributed to stagnation in US wages, it has lead to the rise of a middle class in China. Of course now China is no longer the bottom pay area globally so a lot of manufacturing has been moving to Vietnam lately. It's not that globalism doesn't drive growth, it's that 1) it isn't our growth necessarily and 2) is it good and sustainable growth or is the offshoring just to skirt the law (not just wages, but human rights, environmental protections,etc...). A more formal set of global laws and consequences would go a long way towards fixing the issues with "globalism" but unfortunately many of those that object to globalism would see them as part of a conspiracy furthering globalism rather than as a way to limit it. You know, the new world order nuts. From what I know of it, the Fairness Doctrine was probably for the best. I see how people can say it imposed government restrictions on the presentation of news, but it seems better than feeding them a stream of single sided rhetoric without pushback.
@@zvxcvxcz Basic flaw of globalism: arrogance. As though a tiny set of humans can/should define how all of us live. Or, in the case of the current instantiation, die, by the millions. "temporary consequences", as you put it. You're tap dancing around the basic fact of the matter, it's built on labor arbitrage, which is "growth" of billionaires. Fiscally moving West's middle class to the East. Neither of which are hardly bragging points.
@Accelerationist if you think we would have the same problems with climate change if we have less people on earth then you would be mistaken. You might want to look at a graph of population growth and think about how that impacts climate change.
