Many, many years ago I bought one of his newsletters, ended up not using it much and called and asked to cancel.
I'm pretty sure it was Porter that picked up the phone.
I had my money back on the next statement, no muss, no fuss.
That's a good businessman in my opinion.
Even if it wasn't Porter that picked up the phone.
He's in a mood.
I don't blame him.
By Porter Stansberry
Saturday, August 21, 2010
I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.
Oh... and one more thing...
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?
That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs.
The Guidotti-Greenspan Rule
Named for Pablo Guidotti, former deputy minister of finance for Argentina (that bastion of resposibility in national financing), and Alan Greenspan, increasingly discredited former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States (that other bastion of responsibility in national financing)
States that a countries financial reserves should equal short-term external debt (one-year or less maturity), implying a ratio of reserves-to-short term debt of 1.
The rationale here, is that countries should have enough reserves to resist a massive withdrawal of short term foreign capital.
The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currencies in reserve.
The U.S. has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (supposedly, ain't nobody counted it in generations).
It is the world's largest holder (supposedly, ..... ).
That's 16,267,000 pounds (at the risk of redundancy ....... ).
At about $1,100 per oz. or $17,600 per pound, it's worth just under $300 billion (you know ..... ).
The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels of oil.
At about $80 per barrel, that's roughly $58 billion.
And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves.
So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves.
Now, consider this .............
Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt.
That's not counting any additional deficit spending, maybe another $1.5 trillion ..... ish.
Add it up and you get $3.5 trillion ..... or so, a trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
That would be about 30% of our entire GDP.
Where do you think that money is gonna come from?
They're gonna print it.
Or snatch your IRA.
If not both.
The above was taken almost in it's entirety (with the exception of the bitter and/or sarcastic comments usually written with type just about this big) from a Porter Stansbury article that was all over the place most of this past fall.