Wisdom and Speech: Excellent Speech Leads to An Excellent life

Here is a subject almost no one today even considers: rehearsed speech.  I mean to suggest the unthinkable idea that many people would be much better off today, if they took the time to craft out (in about one paragraph or so) selected speech units that they then memorize and adapt strategically into their lives, for use at occasions and situations for which they were created and easily adapt.

Is there a problem with spontaneous speech?  Well, consider that it might get you in trouble, or embarrass you, if it comes out badly.  Rehearsed speech runs like a train on two rails — you know exactly where it aims before you get there — no scary surprises in need of retraction.

This provides both a measure of predictability, and a measure of CONTROL over your lips — self-control.   It also gives you control over the way you appear to others — or control over your reputation.  Moreover, this practice instills confidence, and gives a sense of security about the future, and over what (otherwise) unruly situations  might arise.  Memorizing is many ways the lost key to greater understanding, better education, and skill in life to handle almost any rhetorical or social situation that might arise.


Put bluntly, the collective advice implied by the many speech-oriented Proverbs amounts to this: devise and use a speech-management program to tame the unruly tongue.   Rehearsed speech can surely enable this.  This means you will want to:

First, sit down and begin collecting sayings and, or quotes from various sources that you admire. Keep and ongoing list, perhaps on the desktop of your computer.  There are entire volumes of “quotable quotes,” ranging from the academic and profound, to the funny and witty one-liners (e.g. “change is inevitable, except from vending machines”).

I would suggest keeping several different (ongoing) lists, each with its own topic heading “funny stuff,” “intelligent stuff — physics,” intelligent stuff — life,” “witty stuff,” etc   Some should take the form of questions.  Others should propose brief lessons with a punchline.  These should each have a distinct purpose — to motivate people to do good works, to profit other people, to alert them as to something profoundly important, to make others think “long-term” about life, to promote good causes, or else healing the psychological wounds, or to promote the physical health of others, or sometimes, simply to make others laugh.

Here are some things to consider in crafting your new speech life.

You should be excited that this can greatly improve your life.  Next, think of all the wise sayings you know of, and consider using some of these as “templates” (starting points).  Then, draw upon the resources of a thesaurus to change some of the words of the sayings or quotable quotes, so that you are not simply repeating the old.  Try rearranging the sentence now this way, now that.  Adjust it many times, until it fits a style all your own.  You get to define who you are by making these wise sayings your own, and using them to shape the way you think and live over time.

Next, think about the package, the way your units are formed.  Short parallels (or the use of symmetry) usually make the point last in the minds of hearer most effectively.  Recall JFK’s famous saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”


Conclusion: wise speech is like good writing.  It has to go through many drafts before it is excellent.  Excellent speech is waxes profitable, healing, funny, skilled, witty, promotes the good, resists evil, teaches briefly, and says much in few words.  If you raise the quality of your speech, you raise the quality of your life.

The only other way to improve your speech well comes by expanding your vocabulary.  You should work on this also.  A wide ranging vocabulary bespeaks a very intelligent mind.  Reading broadly will also tend to cause this naturally over time.  Otherwise, one could best manage this by systematically (10 words each day) memorizing and using your new words in sentences.

P.S. you might also consider memorizing at least 20 funny sayings you could have at the ready,  adapting these this way or that to the need of the moment.


Money (By the Carloads) for the United States and Other Nations

Todays topic in profit-accretive studies concerns the regulatory relationship that nations often establish which set the terms badly for the promotion of new businesses. In many ways, new business is the lifeblood of future economic development.  This means that nations should make sure to incentivize the rise and thriving of new business as much as is possible. Consider the older statistical point that most new businesses that do fail do so within the “3 to 5” year death zone.  Forbes now has it that “According to Bloomberg, 8 out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months.”  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/

And this accounts for very many new businesses, which I wish here to argue are unnecessarily thrown upon the trash heap, when, with a little altering of the way we manage them, they could thrive to become powerhouse economic engines in the national and international economy.

First, I shall propose a straightforward statement of the problem: government tax-greed, or inappropriate taxation that is deadly to new arrivals.  What I mean to suggest is this: by taxing a small business from its first year — governments should instead defer their desire to collect tax from new businesses 10 to 20 years — the powers that be do the following:

1. Impose a huge burden on a business when it can least afford it.  It can least afford early taxation because it is still learning everything about its business environment and how things actually operate and interact in the real world (the learning curve factor), and because it needs the money taken away from it as tax, which would otherwise be used for re-investment — a very important element of success in business — when the business MOST needs this money.

2.  the combined effect of these two handicaps added to toddler businesses causes the risk factor for opening a new business to soar, resulting in far fewer start-ups, since without this capital early on, businesses are far more likely to fail.

3. What is the potential cost of tax-deferment to hungry governments?  The surprising answer is “zero.”  In fact, it actually pays huge (later) dividends to the governments wise enough to realize that without tax deferment, there is not going to be much new business to tax at all.  This has a long-term deleterious effect on taxable income revenues for the government, just the opposite of what it wants.

The solution? Wait 20 years before imposing any tax whatever on a new business, while denying the ability of any other business to “grandfather in.”  This is precisely the way we treat our children.  We do not demand at age 10 that they “get out there in the marketplace and make it happen, sink or swim.”  We protect them and grow their understanding (learning curve) and pay for their expenses (no taxation without preparation) until we feel they are fully capable to enter the market and succeed.  We should do precisely the same for nascent and adolescent businesses.

This would cause the following:

A sharp upsurge in new businesses, and a much longer learning curve allowed (reducing the stress load on new managers and owners).  It would weigh in heavily against the 3-5 year death zone stats, causing far more businesses to succeed and then grow sizable.  This means that when they do in fact begin paying taxes, they power up and increase significantly the tax pool, reducing the burdens of the middle class and other businesses (Potentially lowering taxes for all, but again, only if we do it right).  The bottom line IS the bottom line, and nothing succeeds like success.  Re-investment is a highly successful business strategy, and this means that this approach causes much more success all around — from business startup and survival rates, to the total tax collected by Uncle Sam, and a lower tax rate (potentially) in the long of it, while easing the general tax burden.  I always loved the Spring motto: “Power Up.”

Here this meaneth brethren: Tax less. Earn more.

What can corporations and larger businesses do to help?

They could create a general fund (invested in the markets to produce award money for small business that could and should be saved from the failure heap.  These business are chosen by the fund managers’ best assessment, according to an Alan Greenspan-like objective criteriometry, one designed to eliminate irrational exuberance in an age of turbulence), and appoint a committee to manage its disbursement.  Small businesses that struggle with great potential could apply for these funds.  Then, the SBA should give the money back to the taxpayers.  We do not need people in the government trying to do FREE market capitalism with compulsory, socialist money.  We need voluntary support from corporate world.  What’s in it for them?  Think M and A brethren.  To prevent conflicts of interest, they could simply pass a rule that says once a decision is made to support some company A by the general fund, no investment by any body contributing to the fund can be made for, say, six months or so thereafter.  This would also prevent start-up flipping, which causes volatility rather than the more desirable predictability and stability in the economic environment upon which business thrives.

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success though honest dealing, and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those who deal with you should gain as well” — Alan Greenspan


Caribou Biosciences, Inc: Changing the Face of Future Biotechnology Forever

Caribou Biosciences, Inc of Berkeley, CA is doing the impossible.  They have invented CRISPR-Cas, a new editing system. It edits the specific DNA sequences of any genome. This looks to do for biotech what quantum computing promises to do for the world of cyber-technology. One of its introductory webpages reads: “Engineering Any Genome, at any site, in any way.”

Their website is located at http://cariboubio.com/

Their brief article there cited indicates the beginning of change for our future in these words:

The CRISPR-Cas system is spreading like wildfire among researchers across the globe who are searching for new ways to manipulate genes. Barrangou says that the paper’s findings will allow researchers to increase the specificity and efficiency in targeting DNA, setting the stage for more precise genetic modifications.

The work by Barrangou and Beisel holds promise in manipulating relevant bacteria for use in food — think of safer and more effective probiotics for your yogurt, for example — and in model organisms used in agriculture, including gene editing in crops to make them less susceptible to disease.

The NY Times reported on this in March. One of the most important lines in the article indicates the potential this editing system has for altering diseases (like the ebola virus or any other invader we might wish to undo):

“The real frenzy, however, started in 2012, when a team led by Emmanuelle Charpentier, then at Umea University in Sweden, and Jennifer A. Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated a way for researchers to use CRISPR to slice up any DNA sequence they choose.Scientists must synthesize a strand of DNA’s chemical cousin RNA, part of which matches the DNA sequence to be sliced. This “guide RNA” is attached to a bacterial enzyme called Cas9. When the guide RNA binds to the corresponding DNA sequence, Cas9 cuts the DNA at that site.

The cell tries to repair the cut but often does so imperfectly, which is enough to disable, or knock out a gene. To change a gene, scientists usually insert a patch — a bit of DNA similar to where the break occurred but containing the desired change. That patch is sometimes incorporated into the DNA when the cell repairs the break.

Would this work in organisms besides bacteria?”

How Nations Can Inherit Billions of Dollars At Near Zero Price

This is neither a joke nor a get rich quick plan for national economies. And it does work.  The core concept can be summed up in the phrase, “Hire everyone; do not hire someone.”  The attempt here is to leverage both free market capitalism and the best brain power (educational system) together in a single format for creating extraordinarily large sums of money by the production of intellectual capital useful to nations for creating both 1. Streams of savings (cost-cutting) and 2. New streams of income  3. Both kinds of streams should be placed into an irrevocable trust, which invested in the global markets (best of breed purchases only, 20% in gold/ silver, well diversified).  This money is then used, when it matures significantly, to pay down the tax base for taxpayers.  If you taxes get lower over time, you draw foreign investment, and your total tax dollar volume goes up.

How do you create the streams of savings/ earnings?  The governmental body in question [Nation, state, city, or municipality] posts on its website a form to be sent to a specified address, where the proposal created by the “proposee” is reviewed by a committee for feasibility.  The website offers to pay 10% to the party responsible for a successful (accepted and deployed) proposal, for creating a stream of income and/or savings.

Example.  Several years ago, I read in a newspaper that the SF bay area passenger train system (B.A.R.T.) carried 400k passengers daily, and that they had a rule “No food or drink on the trains.”  They earned 180 million USD each year from ticket sales from their 35 stations.  This was their only source of income.  My proposal, emailed to the BART board of directors was this:

Change your food and drink rule to, “No food or drink allowed on trains except coffee cups with a lid.”  Then farm out your 35 stations to a coffee company of your choice, which sets up shop at each one, selling a two dollar cup (once in the morning and once in the evening), and an occasional muffin wrapped in cellophane or a 4 dollar white mocha.  This would earn an estimated 1.2 – 1.5 million per day, given the World Coffee Council’s 54% listing for the number of Americans that drink coffee. And it’s higher in metro areas like SF.

All BART had to do was hire one person (a comptroller) and send him around to drink free coffee and eat free muffins all day, merely making sure no one was — as we say — cooking the books.  This names “irregular accounting” in the world of Elliot Spitzer (a very expensive practice).  This would earn BART some .8 million per day, which could then be used to pay down their tickets prices, say, 50%, driving an enormous number of people off the streets and onto the trains (esp. with high gas prices) — to drink yet more coffee.  It’s a vicious cycle without all the vice.  Flush with new cash, BART would then be free to build more stations, and sell more coffee.

This kind of proposal simply notices opportunity cost, how we lose money by not doing something profitable.  Here, it turns unused foot-traffic into a wildly profitable stream of income.  Now suppose a government (let us say, France) gets very enlightened and offers a 10% commission on any such proposal turned into to its “proposal review committee,” and finds one person’s proposal to generate over the next ten years 10 billion dollars by helping it maximize some of its resources.  It then pays out 1 billion to the propose.  This creates the “lottery mentality.”

Think of the results.  Retired scientists gather together to form research groups, and promote brilliant new ideas.  People from all over the world do likewise.  France is flooded with new money.  New students rush to take an economics degree at universities. Instead of spending their thesis efforts on theoretical empty-space, they use it to promote new streams of income and savings for several nations — and retire once paid.

Hire everyone, not “someone.”  The cost is only “cost of legislation,” and “proposal review.”  That’s it.  The opportunity cost of not doing this runs in the trillions of dollars worldwide. We have some 250 nations now. The US budget alone is trillions of dollars now.

How the US can solve the social security Apocalypse crisis.  1. Do a cost-benefit analysis to find those agencies or bureaus that cost the most and yield the least ROI over the past 40 years.  Make a list of the top ten most expensive, and sell them to the public in an IPO (initial public offering) and if the market declines it, simply abolish it.  Take the money from the IPO’s and the cut budgets and use them to overfund the SS system by 20%.  Then pay out 120% to the ones who have paid in the longest (the golden handshake) and boot them from the system.  Do the same for the remainder of payees, down to those just entered, and cease the obsolete system — with everyone happy for it, and no implosion scheduled for 2033 will ever get the entire congress fired — the present Social Security (apocalyptic) option.

How to create Billions more for your country.  Stake the Vampires.  Replace both the capital gains tax and the income tax with an alternative form of taxation — the national sales tax.  This renders taxation voluntary, since you only pay when you spend (All 50 U.S. states do this right now).  Then systematically replace all other forms of taxations with the national sales tax. This abolishes the IRS and uses a system of taxation already in place.  It simply replaces the many state tax rates with a uniform tax rate, and the many involunatary kinds of taxation with a voluntary one.  The rich pay more b/c they have more to spend. The poor could be issued a card which revokes their tax when swiped at the store terminal.

This evenly layers the payment of tax throughout the year instead of creating the April 15 bottleneck. Under the present tax nightmare, some 45% of the people choose to pay no income tax, assuming the IRS has bigger fish to fry.  The cost of acquiring these lost taxes “taxes” the IRS — is expensive.  The 45% would all pay their voluntary tax load under the new approach, increasing the total tax revenues, with no cost of chasing cheaters. It also greatly simplifies the tax code, since you pay everything you owe at the time you spend your money.

This means you keep every dollar you earn at work and every dollar you make investing in the market.  And you pay no recurring tax for owning real estate (just a one-time sales tax).  Two words: BOO YAH.

Two Ways To Ramp Up the Global Economy

1. have the G 20 nations meet and agree each one to invest 10% of the money it collects annually in taxes in the global market, with 20% in gold, silver and platinum.  They could stagger their entries to reduce volatility, with 1% per month each invested.  This would collapse the unemployment market, and create a global economic boom.  The rest of the nations would follow golden suit.  This would cause far more people to pay their taxes, since their April 15th contributions would then cause their 401k’s to prosper significantly.  Here, it pays to pay your taxes, thus turning a grievous liability (April 15) into a significant asset (Roth IRA value accretion) — see Rich Dad, Poor Dad, 101.

2. Have the South American gov’ts appoint a committee to meet with potential investors (corporations et al) to fund and build an inter-continental railway system (Southern Trans-American Railway System = STARS).  It should connect all the major economic centers and cities of SA and then connect to the North American railway system through central America and Mexico.  It should also have cargo airports, that fly the goods and services from SA to the rest of the world, say, C-130’s or some other large cargo birds. It might even create a new NYMEX to draw funds for trading the railway’s goods and services.

Corporations could build entire cities, by buying up the land dirt cheap in advance, where the railway system is scheduled to run.  These could be the jewel cities of South America, since corporations do everything with excellence, and governmental interference should be limited, so that it won’t be able to wreak havoc with the project (in traditional fashion).

The US connected east and west by a railway system in 1871 (golden spike, Promontory Point, UT), the results of which created the largest economic powerhouse in the history of the world to that point — the US industrial economy.  We could do the same thing again with South America, which is some 5+ times bigger than the US.

These should create trillions of dollars annually for the global economy when fully operational, given the trade synergy involved, and the global economic boom likely to result.