Private Money: Fact or Fiction, Reality or Illusion?
355966
Mr. Crump has done it again. His ability to transform arcane concepts into down to earth, simple steps is nonpareil. Thank you Mr. Crump.  Cordially,  Richard.
1492567
This book is very interesting and full of references to back up the facts/claims. I heard about this book during a radio show. This book goes into so much detail describing how the dollar is valued over time and discusses who is ultimately in control of the funds. It alsobreaks down how our money system works in a way that us "normal folk" can understand without the political jargon (no games, just the facts). There are other topics discussed as far as the "new world order" and the secret societies invloved that the public isn't aware of and the power roles those people play within our system to control it. If you want to know why our country is in debt, read this book.. You will find some mindblowing answers that will make you want to re-read the book a couple times more. And yes, i even researched the references in this book to make sure it was true..
4829085
The author correctly points out that  banker financed loans to speculators in the stock,money,and real estate markets were the main cause of the Great Recession. He correctly proposes,as Keynes did in the General Theory (GT;1936) in chapter 12, to tax stock market transactions and shows how England's miniscule  1/2 of 1 % tax brings in the equivalent of $40 billion a year. He correctly demonstrates that Greenspan,Bernanke,Paulsen,Geither,etc.,blundered again and again and again,ad nauseam ,in their policy proposals, recommendations and analysis. However,he fails to explain why they continually blundered .All of these individuals were ,and still are,  believers in the Efficient Market Hypothesis(EMH).The EMH was the foundation for the VAR (Value At Risk )models that were supposed to safely allow for the complete and total deregulation of all money,financial ,and stock markets as the banking and finance industries substituted managed risk assessments using VAR in place of financial regulation. Both VAR and EMH are based on the false claim that the time series data in financial and stock markets is normally(log normally)distributed. Mandelbrot demonstrated in 1963 that the time series data followed the Cauchy distribution .He showed that the data was not even remotely normally distributed. Mandelbrot's demonstration means that financial market risk is greatly  underestimated by  the EMH and VAR models,as well as by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM),which all use  some kind of normal distribution .The banking industry continues to use these models even after their complete failure.

  I have deducted one star because the author has erroneously claimed that Keynes was in favor of deficit financing (pp. 106-107,119-120).Keynes was opposed to any type of budget deficit aimed at promoting increased short run consumption spending as put forth by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Keynes favored " loan expenditure".Loan expenditure involved having the British Government stop adding to the sinking fund set aside to pay down the national debt and spend the funds on long run infrastructure investment projects. This would require two different budgets-a current account ,which would always have to be balanced, and a capital account which would fund public works projects that would end up paying for themselves over the long run. Only the capital account could run a deficit. Obama's stimulus package was just the kind of  short run,pork barrel,consumption approach that Keynes  opposed. Obama could have put the entire $780 billion into ,for example, long run transportation projects that would have really ended up creating jobs and improving to some moderate degree the current,slowly collapsing transportation system that in fact needs roughly $12 trillion  to effectively modernize.
  The author fails to come to grips with the fact that Obama is,and has been, allied with the big Wall Street hedge funds,private equity firms,and commercial banks ,whose speculative behavior has brought down the American economy,all his life. Obama is perhaps the ultimate false prophet.
4600621
Understanding investment strategies is of paramount concern when investing your hard earned money. This novel explains in a simple to understand format about the history, value and future of gold investment, especially in today's environment. In order to survive the monetary disaster unraveling before our very eyes one must know the enemy and the methods used by the enemy to con us into believing that future monetary standards will continue to exist. If one chooses to be an ostrich with his or her head buried in the sand then you will be overtaken by financial disaster and forfeit any hope for surviving the upcoming collapse of this world's currencies.
3490327
it makes clear that if things are to good....
just anyone could be drawn into the unclear world of the "money-makers"
this is what the world has come down to...MONEY, MORE MONEY AND YET SOME MORE MONEY
and as we still see upto this day, it doesn't look to promising at all and...... the money rolls on and on........endlessly.
2317441
Friedman has written a classic book on capitalism that has sold over half a million copy. The most interesting element of his book is that Friedman has accused the Federal Reserve Bank to be responsible for the depression of the 1930s due to their lack of interference by not helping the failed banks and by contracting the money supply. The Federal Reserve Bank is in charge of creating money whenever it is needed, in order to prevent such occurences as major recessions and depression.(The Federal Reserve Bank is embodied in five to six privately owned banks in Europe and America that took over the central financing of the United States in 1913 during the Woodrow wilson presidency when the Federal Reserve act was passed, which marked the beginning of the privatization of American financial and political institutions into the hands of the global corporate world).
Friedman has borrowed most of his concepts on capitalism and freedom from the father of free market economy the brilliant Austrian economist Friedrich Von Hayek, and made them his own.
This book will provide the reader with an interesting perspective on free market economy and the elusive concept of freedom.
348868
Although I had not previously been aware of the historical debate over when and how concern about the human frailty known as avarice entered into western thought, my uneducated guess would have been that it probably happened well before the arrival of the money economy. The human propensity for greed seems to be something that was likely second in arriving into human behavior, once man acquired the ability to conceive of his own death.  But of course there are no historical records back that far. But for those who doubt such a claim, Richard Newhauser has scoured the existing historical record to successfully prove his claim that avarita certainly pre-dated the arrival of money.

The most fascinating aspect of this study are the unmistakable consequences of the sin that, despite all the efforts of those in the early church (later church as well) to prevent it, greed has thrived as a human trait and continues to do so.  Interestingly, the wealth accumulated over and above the minimum necessary might be best illustrated by the wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church itself.

  Certainly, the arrival of money economies didn't hurt man's propensity to hoard.  But Newhauser not only shows us records of concern about creed all the way back to 1 CE, but includes slices of many prominent chuch thinkers who were already bargaining with the idea in order that possessions above and beyond what was necessary to live might be permitted - most notably when the nobility or wealthy wielded power in the immediate vicinity.  I guess not much has changed since then.

I became aware that, despite the early as well as later efforts by the church, it has failed to control greed in western societies even while demonizing it and collecting enormous amounts of surplus wealth itself.
752092
I believe the book is a must read for professional investors as well as non-professionals, advisors, trustees and most certainly the academic community. It offers a (deceptively) simple explanation to a series of widely debated issues in modern portfolio construction. While I wouldn't dare entering into a debate with any of the rather well-known critics of the concepts I would propose that they all read the book carefully and contemplate the principle known as Occam's razor while doing so; "Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." (Quote from Wikipedia) The Fundamental Index concept as such may not be new, other will have to be the judge of that, but at least I know of no other formalization of the concept, nor of any other text offering the richness in its explanations of the sources and applications of the concept. (Disclosure: I am on record as being a supporter of the concept and I work for a firm that is a Research Affiliates, LLC, licensee.)
3311125
I regard Chuck Carlson as a trusted source of good, solid financial information.  After all, this is the guy who gave us such investment classics as Buying Stocks without a Broker, The No-Load Stock Investor and Free Lunch on Wall Street.  Thus, when he penned Eight Steps to Seven Figures, I had to get a copy and glean its secrets.

Now, one could say that his use of statistical data may well be an attempt to cover up the fact most of the material found in the book could be gleaned with a fair bit of old-fashioned horse-sense.  However, for me, much of the information served to confirm what I have always suspected, but had precious little in the way of evidence to support.  Carlson's use of statistical data to back up his claims does indeed make his book look impressive, and the statistician in me does have to take issue with a few things associated with his numbers, such as:

1) I can understand his reticence to disclose personal info on those sampled, but I found it odd that he did not disclose the sampling method (basically, how did he go about getting his sample?  Most likely, it came from those who subscribe to his investment newsletter).  Nor did he report the response rate to his survey.

2)  He was not really consistent in the reporting of his results.  In some cases, he reported averages, and in others, he reported medians, and in no cases did he report variations or present us with distributions associated with the various answers to questions.

3)  He seeks to make the leap from his sample of millionaire investors to all investors like them, and from those individuals to the reader.  However, without knowing something about the composition of his sample, we really can not infer anything useful in general which we may reasonably apply to ourselves, at least with any degree of certainty.

That is why I say that the contents of the book, if true, would mean renewed hope for the Hopeless (aka, the typical wage-earning, rent-paying, or if unlucky, mortgage paying, indebted schmuck).

Since I regard Chuck as a trusted source, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; however, interested readers should take note of the following:

1) In reading the book, it sounded like most of the respondents are fairly well-to-do, and can be considered white-collar or managerial-class workers.

2) Most of them have been investing for at least twenty years, with their investment success coinciding precisely with the extended bull market lasting from 1980 to 2000.  The bull market may have had more to do with their success than their investing acumen.

3)  We really do not know what their total returns were (on a compound average basis) nor do we know what their asset breakdowns were, so we do not know the extent that IRAs and 401ks  , the two critical pillars of Carlson's eight step approach, played in the respondents' investment success.

4)  Most of them appeared to have had an intimate experience with poverty at some point in their lives, which they recalled vividly, and this experience spurred them to save frantically.  This alone makes them atypical as compared to the general American public, who as a group have a negative savings rate.

Thus, although I really can not say how applicable the statistics in the book may be, I can say that the book contains many juicy, common-sense tips that anyone, be they white-collar or blue-collar, well-to-do or of modest means, male or female, can put to use.  While you could glean the general ideas and the eight steps by reading solely the preface and introduction of the text, you would miss out on a lot of valuable insights and information.

I highly recommend the book to anyone looking to achieve or maintain financial safety and security.
1836768
My wife and I were in France when the Franc to Euro conversion was completed (2004), and we had since 1999 watched the cash registers and various shops posting both Franc and Euro costs simultaneously (traces of this can still be found on certain receipts, if you look carefully, even though the Franc is no longer used in France), so it's neat to have a piece of French History with a coin like this. With much of the EU and the Euro itself spearheaded by various French economists and politicians, the debate is as heavy as ever in France--an in Europe, more broadly--whether the Franc should have ever been abandoned in favor of the Euro. It's a common misconception, too, to confuse the Euro (which is a denomination) with the EU (which is a political amalgamation of countries): not all countries in the EU use the Euro. And when the various countries, such as France and Germany who led the battle for the Euro, gave up their local coinage, they ceded some power to Brussels, much like in the United States, when the various State and local currencies were replaced with a single coinage from Washington did. Was it a good idea? The debate rages on.

So, is this 1960 Franc coin "worth" much? As a circulated, common coin, much like the "penny" in the United States, the economic answer is "No," but to the person who is interested in history, its a great way to have a coin that has been retired. Mine came in Very Fine condition, and with little wear or tarnish, is suitable for basic framing. I'd like to get a complete set of uncirculated Francs of all denominations from the same year, but that will cost "a pretty penny" (no pun intended). This is a great way to enjoy a coinage that was in circulation for a very long time for nearly nothing at all. Highly recommended!
2190852
This book doesn't get bogged down in all the intricate rich detail that Walter Bagehot provides us. They start with some simple concepts. Why does The Bank of England exist?They are given the ability to conduct their banking business for the exclusive benefit of the English government. They take their deposits and they provide invaluable assistance in providing the government with funds that are borrowed. When somebody wants to pay somebody outside of England,their bank goes through the Bank of England so that funds are made good in the transaction(s).If they can't do either of these functions,they are in fact breaking the law. It is a matter of convenience that funds are able to be made convertible. You can get securities,gold,or fiduciary media in the course of making payments or lending and receiving interest and principle from the Bank of England as it relates to government debt. The Bank of England made it easy for the English government to borrow for it's purposes. At the time,this was the normal course of business. Gold was exported to make payments and fiduciary media was used domestically. At the time that the Bank of England was established,a sunset provision was put in place. Whenever they decided to payoff every bond that they issued,the government would disband the Bank of England. In America?Budget surpluses were embarrassing around Grover Cleveland's time. Would  panics prove to be a drain on resources?The Bank of England and other banks would lend to all that bring good securities,quickly, freely,and readily. There has been demands on bankers that rendered their assets unavailable. The issues here revolve around the Bank Charter Act of 1844. It was suspended three times:1847,1857,and notably May 11,1866(Overend Gurney).There was to be a reserve fund held by the Bank of England. Their directors would oversee the lending of funds to those in need. It was also proposed to issue one pound notes secured by a second fund in gold. It was anticipated that the directors would lend this at no less than 10% until demand for money diminished. A profit would accrue for interest and in the issue of fiduciary media. The numbers here are rather small by today's standards. We're not even talking a billion pounds yet in any one column. Rather than comparing to current values,I would suggest that this would be considered more towards small or medium sized projects,subsidiaries,or whatnot. Bankers know about the ordinary forms of business and the learning curve here for times of distress was usually about every decade a crisis. Just as the Bank of England they wanted to avoid this. Too big to fail was something they were talking about even in these times. There was a fine line that they understood to divide between helping the banks in distress versus simply liquidation and reconfiguration.
1149375
For about 40 years in the U.S., a U.S. citizen could be sent to federal prison for owning gold, except for certain types deemed by the government to be OK for private ownership, like wedding rings, jewelry, and certain collectible coins. I grew up during part of this time, and it never seemed to make sense why this was so. What was the special property that made gold such a dangerous commodity for free people to possess? Interestingly, this question never seemed to bother too many adults at the time, and it seemed to me that nobody really knew why, let alone seemed to care.

Now, Mr. Ferguson's book, for the first time in my experience, sheds light on why the US government, especially the newly elected President Franklin Roosevelt, decided to criminalize the mere ownership of gold by only US citizens, while allowing the US government to use it as payments to foreigners. It's a curious time in our history when several events came together, and of course, in the name of a national emergency, the rules for the confiscation of gold quickly went from executive orders to legislative action within the course of a year, with barely a whimper of resistance from the public.

Is it a case of incomplete knowledge by Roosevelt of how the economy works, and bumbling around in his early days of power to find solutions for the Depression, or a Machiavellian scheme to steal the wealth from its citizenry in a bald-faced 100% capital gains tax in order to fund his New Deal without having to bother with Congress? This book points out the arguments and leaves the reader to decide, but provides a ton of things to think about, especially the details of the slippery rhetoric used to modify, confuse, and enforce this act over the years.

How and why people of the time thought about things like personal economic freedom, how the world and economy worked, and whether they really just rolled over and let this happen, or did they vote with their actions, considering that only about 50% of the estimated gold was every confiscated? Why did it take 40 years to turn this "emergency action" off?

Ferguson points out that the thinking today is very different, especially since the US left the gold standard completely in 1971, and that gold is no longer considered such a sacred item by the Federal government, or a "barbarous relic" by some Keynesian economists of the era, that confiscation of privately held gold is not likely to happen again.

If you are a history buff, I highly recommend this book, it's a very quick read, well written, and think you may find some fascinating insight into something that affected the US for over 40 years that has seemed to escaped notice or study before.
3668933
You have to look closely to see that the Euro is not real.
1284801
It's an astonishing concept. Most people work for money, because they do not know what money actually is. Financial education is rarely available to people today and Robert shares some very insightful ideas that are going to facilitate your financial education even further. I can't recommend this book enough. It's one of the best books written by Robert, so I am pretty sure, if you take the time and read it, you won't regret! Moreover, if you apply the ideas into your life, you'll be one step closer to your financial freedom.

I did not answer the question in the title of this review, so I'll keep my answer short. Rich do not work for money, they work for assets that put money into their pockets. Money is not an asset, since 1971, it became debt - it's has a hole in its own bucket.

Chris Diamond
Founder of DoubleTimeToday.com
1538834
I do not usually appreciate "self-help" books, but the points made in "The Richest Man in Babylon" seem to be mostly just common sense.  Unfortunately, most people completely lack common sense about money.

One of the main ideas that most people never seem to get is that it is better, and more interesting, to make money from your MONEY than to make money breaking your back.  However, this leads us to the first difficulty: in order to make money from your money, you have to have some.

As we supposedly "all know," we cannot have our cake and eat it, too.  But most people spend every penny in their paychecks, and then some run out and charge more on their credit cards.  They live from hand to mouth, from paycheck to paycheck, and they never even dream of actually saving 10 percent (or more) of what they earn.

But how can you have money if you don't have any money?  Let us imagine some typical American, earning (say) $40K per year.  Saving 10 percent of his salary would give him "only" $4,000 in the bank at the end of one year.  This looks pretty miserable, until you stop to wonder just how many people could actually lay their hands on $4,000 in cash WITHOUT doing a cash-advance on their credit cards.  By the end of the fifth year, this fictional person would have $20,000 in the bank, assuming no interest and no investment income.

But now this person is in a position to actually begin making investments, and watch his money work for him.  And the profits from that should just be plowed right back into "the money tree."

My personal opinion: if you think there is another way to "financial freedom," you are simply deluding yourself.  Win the lottery?  Gee, how many rich people do you know who got their start that way?

Answer: none.  Lottery winners usually run out and spend their winnings faster than they come in.  Consider winning "a million dollars" in some phony lottery which does not actually hand you a million dollars, but doles you out $50,000 per year over 20 years.  Most people turn this into a sort of middle-class welfare, and wind up as broke as they ever were.  But, if you did NOT quit your job, and put that money in the bank, faithfully, over a 20-year-period, you would (after investing it) have a whole lot more than a million dollars.

The author of this book was clever: he set it in ancient Babylon.  The point was that reality, in many important respects, does not change.

I would agree with all that there are many ways to be wealthy: in learning, in money, in love, in friends, and so on.  But it is very difficult to attain those other happinesses if you can't make the rent.

This is actually a good book.  It has never gone out of print, and that may mean something.
4556309
Found this  book very intriguing.  I was very surprised at how naive I was regarding the control of our country's money and would recommend this as an eye-opener for anyone.
3585308
Loved the book because it exposed me to the basic truths about money I had not considered. It cleared my head about the true value of the paper money I have relied on for security. The book is very easy to read and I recommend it for anyone who is concerned about their financial future.