What I'm learning from Gary Vee is that it is all about branding. Branding is all that a company or a website has. In the case of me, all I have really is "TSK Jesus Freak" that is all I have. It is my own website. Things might change but it is the brand that one has and gets to keep. If one is in actual business, they have the number one issue is the brand. When it comes down to it, as we become more and more streamline in terms of shopping. Branding is becoming more and more important than ever. Gary Vee did an experiment on giving Amazon control over what brand that Gary Vee will buy in terms of jeans. He didn't get the Levi jeans but some no name jean brand. This is important for a brand to be well known (at least within an industry or it has enough followers that would prefer to a name brand over a generic brand). Sure, I'm taking a lot hints from Gary Vee about business because he has shown success and has helped grow brands over the years. I was listening to a talk that Gary did for an auto dealership. The dealership had several different dealerships but different brands not one brand selling a lot of products. He was saying that the dealership should re-brand itself to the actual business name because a car company can end the contract with the dealership. He was pointing out that if they were more about the brand they would be in a more stable position because they are one step away from having their business destroyed because of one car manufacturer deciding to end the contract with that dealership and the dealership's name is associated with on of the products that the dealership sells. When it comes to investing, I take a more traditional look. I want a company that has hard cash. The more the real assets that the company has the more accurate the value of that company is. But the business standpoint they need to be concern about the brand because having a strong brand means they can weather out the storms of the markets. McDonald's is a great well known brand and it is recognized by billions of people around the globe. That is why people go to McDonald's everyday. It is well known and they are consistent. In the markets that they are in.
Over the years, there has been a fall out of people who cave to political pressure to varying degrees. This includes me. I'm mainly talking about the Libertarian sphere. The Libertarian sphere has been over years seen its ups and downs. Ron Paul had brought about many to the liberty movement. I came into the liberty movement from a different direction. I was looking for political party affiliation. I was staunchly pro-life, meaning I wasn't going to take it from either the Democrats or the Republicans. They are both hypocritical on the issue of life. Many in the Libertarian Party are also hypocritical on the issue but the short answer is at least they were against government intervention, which was the common ground notion. We say no to government at all levels. Now, that my political affiliation from 2008 to 2016. Now, I dump political affiliation for a philosophical affiliation which is Voluntaryism. Voluntaryism is the only consistent philosophy that doesn't take away anybody's rights away. I came from a property rights perspective. I value property rights, self-ownership rights and contract rights. These three rights are not from government but from God/nature.
There has been a fall out of people fallowing particular celebrities in the Libertarian circles. Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh. Adam Kokesh is a terrible celebrity because is in the grey area of scamming libertarians. He and others figure out that one can scam people in the Libertarian circles because Libertarians won't call the police because libertarians don't like the state at all. Many of them rather get scammed than run to the state for help. Ron Paul is a different case. He is in fact a principle libertarian and an overall decent person. There are a few incidents that Ron Paul made over the years that indicate that he might be a little bit raciest but it isn't flat out racism but it is more about making broad generalizations in a slightly racist tone. Ron Paul a racist, no, but there is some under lining racist tones that he has adopted over the decades. But other than that he is very much a libertarian. Yes, one can be a flat out racist and still be a libertarian because a libertarian rejects the state or at least a big portion of the state. A pure libertarian would find him/herself in the camp of being a total anarcho-capitalist, volutnaryist or agorist. Many people became libertarians because of a particular person and when they figure out that a person isn't as good as they seem to be, the followers of the celebrity soon abandoned the philosophy of libertarianism. It greatly depends on how a person became a libertarian. If a libertarian came from a research oriented point like what how I came to be a libertarian (now Voluntaryist), then they are typically much more stable in the philosophy. If a person is emotionally tied to a person and consider to be a libertarian because the celebrity is also a libertarian then it is rocky soil that they found themselves in. Now not all are like that but as a person gets to know a celebrity in the libertarian circles would realize that they are flawed. Yes, all humans are flawed creatures. Which is why a lot of Ron Paulers became libertarians and stayed libertarian because they recognized that Ron Paul is a flawed creature like anyone else.
Also the popularity effect. If libertarianism becomes more and more popular people will come on board to libertarianism and be a libertarian because everyone else regardless if they believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), in property rights, or some other means. This is one of my reasons why I like the "cling" to the NAP and property rights because it is a focus point to keep things not too far from libertarianism. It is very much like the Christian circles today. The farther away from the core principles of Christianity the more one is in the danger zone in territory of being a heretic or an out right non-believer. As the years go by, Christianity will become less and less popular in culture and so people will dump Christianity because it is unpopular. The masses are going to do what is popular. That is why one can see fallout videos of people on YouTube describing one's coming out of Christianity. It is a good thing that people make a stake in the game on either staying as a Christian or dumping Christianity. I rather have people to dump Christianity all together than stay in because it is popular. It use to be popular to be a Christian but not any more. I'm using the broad term of Christianity. That is why within Christian circles that actually believe in Christ had to label themselves as "born again Christian" or Jesus Freak or Biblical Christian. These three terms means that they are serious about believing and serving Christ. Like wise in terms of Libertarianism there will be fall out because as people become more aware of libertarianism they might not actually believe in libertarian principles. I rather have a small but pure group of Libertarians than wish washy libertarians. I dealt with plenty of wish washy Christians over the years.
I know that I'm making a lot of comparisons between the state of Christianity and the state of Libertarianism. But this is how I analyze the situation of Libertarianism. A lot of libertarians went on the Trump band wagon and of course all the Republicans/Trump supporters enjoy it but it is us pure libertarians make the case that one can't be a libertarian and also in support of Trump. Now, can libertarians sympathize particular policies of any elected official, yes.
This was my thinking for sometime about political libertarianism (or statist libertarian). Playing the political game to try to take over the state and release control to the individual, this notion is what I gave up on. Political activism is immoral, sure I write about politics in a libertarian mind set and would like to see the state to go away, but the only way that can go away is through Voluntaryism. Because as bad as the system is I don't want to get into a situtation where "I pull the plug" and there are still a lot of statists. All it is going to do is make the case that statism is really amazing and while Volutnaryism is unrealistic. If there are still a lot of statists then the state will rise again. No statists means no state. That is why I subscribe to Voluntaryism. It keeps things simple and to the point. I don't force anyone to do anything and vise versa.
Volutnaryism isn't going to save the world, that is why Jesus came down on earth to save us sinners. Plus why would anybody wants anyone to have any power over anybody especially Christians. Christians know the evilness of one's own heart and why would any Christian that actually thought about it long enough to realize that the state is the manifest of sin. This is one of my biggest complaints about other Christians that when it comes to the state it seems that the state is holy and we need to obey the state because it is holy. The Bible is clear we Christians need to obey authority (not blindly) but not endorse it either. This is the difference between governance and government. One can have righteous governance without the state, it is hard but it can be done. This is why I'm a big fan of city states/private cities instead of huge governmental bureaucracies over large groups of people.
That is my thought process, yes I went philosophical today! Other days I don't normally go this route but that is what I believe and yes I planted my flag and I'm sticking to it! Have a blessed day!
In general the concept of an annuity is stupid. One can go receive a higher cash flow from an annuity than a bond or a stock that pays out a monthly dividend. There are several types of annuities but in short, one gives a large lump sum typically to an insurance company and they pay monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on the annuity. Say one has $100,000 and they bought a traditional annuity they would withdraw money every month from the principle and then the insurance company would then add interest to that amount of the $100,000. At the end of the term you would receive a that money and then some but typically one could live off a annuity for a while but eventually the money would run out. This is the primary reason why I would never do an annuity because I rather have it in a bond or a stock that pays dividends. There are risks to any investments and annuities tends to be a complex contract that insurance companies enjoy selling because they can stack the deck in their favor. Stick the $100,000 in dividend paying companies that has a history of paying dividends. If one has that same $100,000 and they get a good 10% dividend yield that would be a good $10,000 per year. An annuity would give a person a much bigger cash flow but that $100,000 would disappear. Plus it is much easier to calculate a dividend yield than an annuity that has a complex contract. One of the reason why insurance companies like to sell annuities because they are trying to bet against one's person's death. If the annuity is based on one's person's death then one has to make sure that they have a high chance of living until they are well beyond 100 years old. These types of annuities typically have huge contracts and a lot of lawyers try to understand them and it takes time and effort if one is in need of a dispute against the insurance company in terms of annuities that are based off of either being alive or dead.
If one wants to succeed in life and enjoy the comforts later on, one must put in the work to get any where. Monday through Friday, I'm working at two active jobs. Saturday and Sunday, I'm dedicating to work on this website. I try and try again and again. I'm in the process of creating a book about finance, since I know the inexpensive way to invest and have done it and (still doing it). Instead of paying someone else to manage one's portfolio which is expensive, in the book I will show how I do it and other models that can be done, besides my model.
I don't need stuff!!! Yes, many Americans and western culture has grown up with the whole notion of having stuff is good. Not that many people really set out to acquire stuff but over the years, they do. I need is food, clothing and shelter, but living in America and soon to be around the world, one would also need to have other things in order to function in society a little bit better. Smart Phone, Laptop and legal documents, basic kitchen supplies, but other than that, one doesn't need that much stuff. I sleep on the floor, so, I don't need a bed. I'm in the process of moving and I'm going all the way down to the minimum of what I need. If I haven't used it for more than a year, then I'm going to get rid of it. Once I move, I will take photos and a video of what I have, in my future place.
Terence S. Kruger (Jr.) is all about bringing a Christ Centered Libertarian Philosophy to the world.