How To Get Rich or Die Tryin’

Folgende Bücher habe ich kürzlich gelesen zu dem Thema und möchte sie daher hier empfehlen:

 

 

1.) Timothy Ferriss – The 4-Hour Workweek

Schwerpunkt: Mach, was dir Spaß macht, finanziert durch (Online-)Businesses die, wenn sie einmal stehen, so wenig Zeit wie möglich benötigen um sie am Laufen zu halten und konstant Geld aufs Konto fließen lassen. Mit Step-By-Step Guides wie man sowas auf die Beine stellt, Case Studies, und dergleichen mehr.

Hier gibts das Buch, einmal deutsch, einmal englisch (ich empfehle die englische Version):

Die 4-Stunden-Woche: Mehr Zeit, mehr Geld, mehr Leben

The 4-Hour Workweek, Expanded and Updated: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich

 

2.) Ramit Sethi – I Will Teach You To Be Rich

s. hierzu auch meinen Artikel „233 € Verdienen In 20 Minuten“

Hier gibts das Buch:

I Will Teach You to Be Rich

 

3.) Robert T. Kiyosaki – Rich Dad, Poor Dad

Was die Reichen ihren Kindern über Geld beibringen, das die Armen und Mittelständler nicht wissen. Einfach strukturiert und verständlich geschrieben.

• „I don’t work for money. Money works for me.“
• Finanzielle Intelligenz als Weg zu Wohlstand (Freiheit)
• Wieso (und wie) die Reichen keine Steuern zahlen
• Warum man niemals „für Geld“ arbeiten sollte
• Gib dein Geld aus für Dinge, die ihrerseits Geld „verdienen“ (Bsp.: Aktien, Renten, Investments)
• Ziel: Sämtliche Kosten vom dem Geld zu decken, das dein Vermögen abwirft (Zinsen, Dividenden, etc)

 

Tolle Definition da drin für Wealth (Wohlstand): Wenn ich heute aufhören würde/müsste zu arbeiten (bspw. wegen Herzattacke, Unfall, whatever), wie lange könnte ich überleben?

There you go, wieder deutsch & englisch:

Rich Dad, Poor Dad: Was die Reichen ihren Kindern über Geld beibringen

Rich Dad Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money-That the Poor and the Middle Class Do Not!

Enjoy :-)

It Exists, Unless You Can Prove It Doesn’t

„Dr. Lipton has clearly challenged what we thought we knew and opened Pandora’s box. Scientists have long stated, ‘If you can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist.’ That means that we relegate our belief system to the quality of our measuring devices. Since we couldn’t measure things at biological speeds until we got Pentium class computers, we haven’t been able to measure biological electronic function for very many years. Lipton has helped refocus us away from the false belief that the body is Newtonian and reductionistic to the reality that the body works at the atomic level where Newton’s laws fail and electromagnetic energy rules. „

(Review on Amazon on MD Bruce Litpon’s book „The Biology Of Belief“)

Self-Experimentation VS. Studies & Research

Dr. Seth Roberts diskutiert im folgenden Auszug den Mehrwert von „Self-Experimentation“ im Vergleich zu Forschungs- und Studienergebnissen:

The Value of Self-Experimentation:

Acne illustrates the problem. The dermatological party line is that diet doesn’t cause acne. According to a website of the American Academy of Dermatology, “extensive scientific studies” show it’s a “myth” that “acne is caused by diet.” According to “guidelines for care” for dermatologists published in 2007, “dietary restriction (either specific foods or food classes) has not been demonstrated to be of benefit in the treatment of acne.”

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence linking diet and acne. Starting in the 1970s, a Connecticut doctor named William Danby collected evidence connecting dairy consumption and acne; it is telling that Danby wasn’t a professional scientist. When his patients gave up dairy, it often helped. In 2002, six scientists (none a dermatologist) published a paper with the Weston Price–like conclusion that two isolated groups of people (Kitava Islanders and Ache hunter-gatherers) had no acne at all. They had examined more than 1,000 subjects over the age of 10 and found no acne. When people in these groups left their communities and ate differently, they did get acne. These observations suggest that a lot of acne—maybe all of it—can be cured and prevented by diet.

Why is the official line so wrong? Because the painstaking research needed to show the many ways diet causes acne is the sort of research that professional researchers can’t do and don’t want to do. They can’t do it because the research would be hard to fund (no one makes money when patients avoid dairy) and because the trial and error required would take too long per publication. They don’t want to do it because it would be low-tech, low-cost, and very useful—and therefore low-status. While research doctors in other specialties study high-tech expensive treatments, they would be doing low-cost studies of what happens when you avoid certain foods. Humiliating. Colleagues in other specialties might make fun of them. To justify their avoidance of embarrassment, the whole profession tells the rest of us, based on “extensive scientific studies,” that black is white. Self-experimentation allows acne sufferers to ignore the strange claims of dermatologists, not to mention their dangerous drugs (such as Accutane). Persons with acne can simply change their diets until they figure out what foods cause the problem.

(Den ganzen Artikel gibts hier)

Nützliche Seiten für dergleichen Experimente:

• www.quantifiedself.com
• www.curetogether.com