There is one book I recommend more than any other, and I'm ashamed to share the name...

I swear to god, this is an incredible, well-written, thoughtful book.

It's called 'How To Get Rich' 🤦‍♂️

It was written by a magazine publishing magnate named Felix Dennis in 2008...

Ignore the title. Seriously. It's great.

He is a character. In the 90's he blew $100MM+ on alcohol and crack cocaine, then become a full-time poet in the early 2000's.

It encompasses most of the important lessons of starting and operating a large business.

Here's a few bits:
Fish where the fish are:

“If you wish to become rich, look carefully about you at the prevailing industries where wealth appears to be gravitating. THEN GO TO WHERE THE MONEY IS!”
Hire smart people and leave them to it:

“When you come across real talent, it is worth allowing them to create the structure. In nine cases out of ten, by inviting them to take responsibility and control for a new venture, you will motivate them to do great things.”
Delegate:

“If you want to get rich, then learn to delegate. Don’t learn to pretend to delegate. Delegation is not only a powerful tool, it is the only way to maximise and truly incentivise your most precious asset – the people who work for you."
Fight to hire the best:

“Stupid people are easy to hire.”
Ideas > Execution:

“If you never have a single great idea in your life, but become skilled in executing the great ideas of others, you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams. Seek them out and make them work. They do not have to be your ideas. Execution is all in this regard.”
Retain ownership:

"Every single percentage point of anything you own is crucial. It is worth fighting for, tooth and claw. It is worth shouting and banging on the table for. It is worth begging for and grovelling for.”
Money ≠ Happiness:

“Happiness? Don't make me laugh. The rich are not happy. I have yet to meet a really rich happy man or woman—and I have met many rich people. The demands from others to share their wealth become so tiresome, that they nearly always insulate themselves."
I first read this back in 2008 and have read it annually since then.

In reality, while it is about how to get rich, it's REALLY about why you probably don't want to get rich and the myriad ways it messed up his life.

Really great. Worth a read: https://t.co/hSk6KlC1jE

More from Culture

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?