The Money Mind
There are no solutions; there are only
trade-offs
Thomas
Sowell
A few
questions and observations relative to the recent book The Money Mind & The Money
Mind;s predominant taxonomy:
First, does The
Money Mind classification (either happiness, committment or fear) stop a bit short? Would not deconstructing the taxonomy further
(be it fear, happiness, commitment) into the underneath payoff (be it gain or
avoidance) get further into the primary imperatives (conscious or unconscious)
which might actually modify the presentational money mind taxonomy?
Secondly relative
to each of the Money Minds:
Is it happiness or the seeking of an altered state (which is never enough
– a hedonic adaptation ‘happiness’ which requires higher and higher dosages?
NOTE: In Judaism there is no word for happiness – which is external and
comparative. Instead there is the concept of Simcha – joy – an inside out
approach)
Is it a commitment mind or a sense of self other defined?
Is it really fear – protection – or regardless of outward appearance an inner
lack of confidence in one’s adaptability and resourcefulness (the real currency
as currency change? NOTE: As planners, I don’t recall colleagues ever
monetizing this (a client’s adaptability and resourcefulness) in their personal
financial planning models.
(An aside, I, can empathize with the author's loss
effectively of his dad and precarious financial situation at 14 making his predominant Money Mind (pre filter?) Fear. At 15, my dad
died – and he died the Death of a Salesman. He left little behind – so I had to
get scholarships, I had to graduate magna cum laude, I had to get an MBA --- I
do understand the fear money mind but question (and if the fear money mind is just the presentational symptom.)
Third, suggestion: consider incorporating formally into 'The Money Mind' prefilter process Kepner Tregoe’s Potential
Problem Analysis – it was very effective with my clients when I was in
practice.
Fourth, what may
even override The Money Mind taxonomy and the fundamental motivation is
context. There is quite a bit of writing on risk tolerance (foolishness when
out of context of goal and capacity). Risk capacity and risk requirement per
each goal prioritized may cause the cognitive to preempt, countermand and
overrule – and possibly rightfully so.
Who is
risk; he who is satisfied with his portion
Rav
Ben Zoma, Ethics of the Fathers
A final comment:
personal financial planning is, in my opinion, a failure relative relative to its
promise of what I would define as ‘healing personal financial anxiety, putting
money in its place, to elevate to connect to one’s signification.’ Why? Regardless of compensation method, personal financial planning is about ‘MORE’
And MORE’, better, now has a habit of becoming ‘worse, less, later.’ MORE is relative – comparative ‘outside
in.’ There is no winning. In contrast, ENOUGH is ‘inside out’ – managing goals rather than managing assets (in
comparison)
Per Ben Zoma’s
statement above: satis (as in satisfied) in Latin means ‘enough’ and one of the
key words in Hebrew for God is Shaddai. And what is the translation of Shaddai
per Rabbi Twerski: God, God Almighty, God all sufficient, ENOUGH. There is no
word for God (amongst the 100 plus references in Hebrew) for MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment