What financial reality you choose?

Financial reality, the financial world - is the set of economic policies that you choose and who you follow.

Simply put, the financial reality - this is your way, this is your way to earn a living.

After some thought, I was able to distinguish two separate ways and another option, which is a kind of symbiosis between the first and second.

Everything, as in fairy tales: "The right to go - death will find, to the left - the horse will lose, right - something else third." All paths are the same, each has its pros and cons. You choose. Thus, reveal the card.

Ask yourself: "What do I pay? "I am sure that there are two possible answers:

* For your efforts;

* For the benefit (or value) that you create for others.

Your answer - it's your choice own financial path. Let's look at these two roads a little more detail.

1. You get paid for their efforts.

If you read between the lines, it becomes clear that you are - the person receiving a salary (even higher). More often than not, in this case a large part of your salary - a salary rate or something else like that.

In this way has its advantages:

* You define the purpose of your activity (you do not have a headache about what to do);

* You promise to pay the money, you promise economic stability;

* You are required not so much the results as a certain level of effort (you always able to say that you tried very hard);

* If you continue to make an effort, then your financial risks are minimized.

Most people are happy with this situation. This so-called "safe option", which elects the vast majority of people. I myself believe that such a path is not bad for a start - to get used to life and to understand what you want from it.

However, this path has its limitations, and quite significant.

Meditate on what do they consist of? As we can see, choosing the first option, we shoot with the lion's share of responsibility, we reduce their risks to a minimum (basically - it's great). What we can not meet this way:

* The objectives of your activity is determined for you;

* Your level of income - is a stable amount, but it is far from the limit of your capabilities;

* By choosing this path, you get used to put the responsibility for their actions;

* The path does not stimulate you to give 100%, it does not stimulate your growth (as an individual);

* Often, with this approach - you have limited management capabilities, limited choices;

If you're satisfied with these limitations - you can happily continue to go this way ...

The rest, I'll tell you about other ways ...

2. You receive payment for your contribution (value benefit)

Terms of the game at the same time completely different. You will never be able to say, "I tried as best I could. I give 100%. " It is absolutely nobody cares. This fiscal path is much harder, but it provides appropriate compensation.

So, what are the requirements in this way?

* You choose the direction;

* You and only you are responsible for you created value;

* It is important not invested efforts and created benefits (while efforts should try to invest as little as possible - and it is difficult).

* You are all risks associated with the choice of direction (maybe you create the value of no use to anybody - the main mistake you can make in this model);

Let's look at a specific example.

I - spender and I like it!

Entertaining turned my correspondence with an interesting lady.

First letter. Catherine writes:

Dear Gennady! Urgent help me! This is not a drill! This cry from the heart! Day, imagine the whole day - I can not find any reasons why the money is not important. What to do?

I answered:

Hello Catherine, and you have people ask around. Maybe they can help.

Katherine was gone for a couple of weeks. And today I get a letter from her.

Read: Good day! I am very glad to chat with you again, Gennady! Results of work with the theme of "Money."

So, I decided to poll the audience to share, "the bish" its environment into several groups. As a result, it gave me nothing, because "No one clever thoughts on this matter has been received from any person," almost all think the same way regardless of the amount of the phenomenon of "money."

By this criteria, "UMO conclusions" - you "UMO conclusions." After talking with the people of all kinds, rich, poor, in business, and so on, I discovered the following:

- First complete misunderstanding of items!

It feels like no one ever on this subject and did not think. And a clone of the side - in any other, but not in the direction of money. Many are satisfied with this state of what is, and why. And in truth what?

There are people who just oud put themselves in such a position that it is necessary to make, you see there are incentives (loans, etc.). Many (mostly wealthy) people have already developed, stable life - quiet and measured, the same way (would not like me so).

By the way, I have one friend - a Swiss banker. When we met him, I was "corporate war" involved (how to take strategic controversial property). He told me then:

- Kate, here you are so smart, beautiful, why do you need all this? This is dangerous, difficult walking on the razor's edge. And I so interested in all this was (adventuress I "did not finish" ... not more "altered").

In general, life - a fountain. So, it took several years (he opened a branch of the bank in Ukraine ") and calls me, all this" in the saliva "of happiness - for advice. It turns out that he faced "problematic" property, and had to deal with these "war games." All such awful "shook-happy."

I helped him, of course, a week later he calls me back from Switzerland, and shouts into the phone - Kate, I'll be in the next week, I have a couple of projects on the "controversial" property - let's work.

So tell me, a grown man ... ... held a house in Switzerland (where in the mountains), family, children. In general, all the "super-duper". Well che "not ymetsya" peasant, Ahh? Well, you sit there, the mountain air "sniff", no! He corporate wars Give!

Now I want to understand the basic "problems" of people in a relationship with money (Those which have admitted at least.

1. For all not acceptable "squandering" (while everyone puts their meaning in this concept).

What is it for me? It's a waste of money on "unnecessary" things. What is "unnecessary" things? But this is an interesting question. If buying a thing "here and now" I enjoy it "here and now", and then even forget about these things, then what is it?

"I do not need" things or "correct thing"? Or, for example, doing shopping, I buy up "relatively" everything (but losing weight "happiness" :-) 2 kg. It is "not right"?

But for me personally it is "necessary"! - I have a lot of things, and to say that any of them to me, "do not need" - I can not.

Where is the criterion "necessity" and "not necessity"? and who set it?

Now I have about 500 pairs of shoes, and they gave me all the "necessary". Yes, all 500 pairs. Based on the general logic - I'm a spender.

No, I certainly can not live by the rule: - 1 pair of shoes; - 1 pair of boots; - 1 pair of shoes; - 1 pair of sandals. Yeah, I forgot ... more 1 pair 'Dress Shoes "(ie shoes" output "), to yield a pancake just - I'm no vkuril ??? And why? Why should I live?

And anyway, why should I have someone that's got to? (this way also a topic for discussion. If someone gives me a loan, for example, why he does it? Not just just for the beautiful eyes. So why I told him to be? (except of course the return of "the same" and "Term").

In general, the question I have more questions than answers. Okay, then ... strictly by points.

2. manage the money need to "correct"

In my understanding, this item is closely intertwined with claim 1. again, "What is the right - WRONG" Where is the criterion?

For example, if a person has a $ 10 million - that he can afford to live in the house for $ 2 million - and at us it is considered a "correct"

If, it has 2 million, he can not live in the house for 2 million - have we considered "not right."

Why is that? I personally do not understand. If you want to - so let them live "health". It all depends on personal priorities. I, for example, there is a familiar one, and so it has a very modest income, but the cream under her eyes are always the best! (in this case it will restrict your diet, but in cosmetics - NEVER).

So from the point of view of society - she lives "not right." Eat my child have to eat ... and grow ... Only here GROWTH expanse of the way! And there can not be any general rules that every man is set for the rights and prioritize.

Someone collects the clock on the half-million dollars, some rare books with precious bindings, and some seashells. And all these people - exactly the same level of income. Why can not surround yourself with beautiful, expensive things, why ??? Why not enjoy the money, and repeat the whole life - money Evil money destroy people, the world.

It's problems of these people, this world, but not mine own, right? PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE ARE LED (So there! Finally the "doperlo"), and not the money.