Having lived in the great Canadian North for a substantial time, one might think that Canadians are used to the bait-and-switch weather of early March.  Even if the Canadians aren't used to it, perhaps the local plant life would be, given the thousands of years it has existed in such a climate.  Yet, despite the collective experience, the snow begins to melt, the weather warms, and some early greenery can usually be seen at this time of year, right before it is unceremoniously buried under a fresh mountain of snow.  The efforts of the Canadians, and the greenery, to enjoy the short-term weather are almost seemingly futile, wasted.  In that effort, though, there is an interesting underlying question that could be asked.

Where best is the line drawn between investing in future returns versus immediate returns?  The question has long been asked of most things, including in semi-famous scientific experimenting with providing children the option of one candy immediately, or two candies later, and deserves to be asked from the perspective of business.  Just like the Canadian who breaks out the BBQ and cleans his car to be able to enjoy them in the short-term weather, an entrepreneur has to decide on a daily basis where his efforts will be expended.  Is it worth pulling out the BBQ, enjoying a steak, then dealing with the effort of re-packing it up?  Or is the effort better invested elsewhere?  Similarly, is it worth the time invested on the entrepreneur's part to garner a short-term gain, or is that effort best invested in longer-term returns?

There is no easy or clear answer.  The hunt for an answer, though, can begin by looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum. On the one side is a focus solely on immediate returns with no plan for the future.  This might be analogous to a company that is partaking in a cash grab, where their customer satisfaction or longevity is not a consideration; they want to get in, make as much money in the immediate timeframe, and get out.  Different from those capitalizing on a window of opportunity, this end of the spectrum is reckless in its trade of future benefit for the immediate gain, and the entrepreneur will sacrifice even the largest future gain for the smallest immediate gain.  This sort of nearsightedness is unsustainable, and will end in catastrophe.

The other end of the spectrum is the entrepreneur who will sacrifice absolutely everything now for a greater return in the future.  Inherent in this, though, is two major flaws: the impact on the current state, and the definition of what the 'future' is.  To call back to the children and the candies, the entrepreneur on this end of the spectrum would sacrifice today, tomorrow, and the rest of his life's candies for a billion candies later.  The result would be an entrepreneur who goes his entire life without ever indulging in a candy, and dying before ever getting to reap his investment rewards.

Resolutions, especially those of the new year variety, have always been a bit of a curiosity.  More recent studies would suggest that approximately 8% of people actually keep their resolutions, despite the staggering number of people who make them.  That means, year after year, roughly 90% of the 'resolvers' don't actually use the word resolve in any sense of its definition.  Resolving, and a resolution, is supposed to be a firm, definite, and serious decision to do something.  If 9 in 10 people are failing to keep up their resolution, how could anyone possibly say that the tradition of new year's resolutions makes any sense?  They might as well be called new year's hopes, wishes, or dreams.

This time last year, BMI suggested that making a resolution is a secondary step in the process; the real first step is to make a resolution just that: resolute.  Cultivating the discipline to follow through with the resolution is substantially more important than the goal itself, since the motivation of the new year, new me mentality fades fast.  January 17th is Blue Monday this year.  By the third Monday of the month, most resolutions have been dropped or forgotten, the credit card bills from Christmas have arrived, and the post-holiday relaxation has started to fade.  Blue Monday is believed to be the most depressing day of the year.  It doesn't have to be, though.

The mentality of having resolutions, and that the mere making of resolutions will affect change, is flawed from conception.  Nothing changes unless you actively and consistently change it.  Utilizing a specific day on the calendar, or a dated tradition, to try and inspire change is simply insufficient.  Instead, borrow a page from BMI, and focus on Perpetual Refinement.  Small, consistent, bit-by-bit change that you take an active part in will be extremely effective, for the simple reason that forward progress, no matter how slow, will put you further ahead than a dropped resolution.

Summer, believe it or not, is starting to draw to a close. September generally marks a return to routine, as schools open, vacations end, and the weather becomes less conducive to activity outside the home.  That is not to say that routine is a bad thing, nor to suggest that summer ending should be a depressing time (though, those still in school might beg to differ!), only to highlight that this time of year is generally a slower pace. In fact, with how many see a shift in their schedule to accommodate the restart of school, it might even be argued that September is the true start of the year. If that is true, then perhaps September is a good time to reflect on the habits and routines that are being set up, and the impact they will have for the next few months. A sort of early New Year's resolution.

The importance of building habits that are sustainable and beneficial is no secret. Conventional wisdom regarding health, exercise, diet, sleep, and so many other elements of life are not without their established merits. In spite of the value they are recognized to have, there appears to be a disconnect; if these elements of life are so important, why are they not prioritized? The paradox mirrors something BMI has noted over the years, in that it seems some people are too busy to reduce their workload.  At first glance it might seem completely backward, to hold the notion that one's work schedule is so filled to the absolute brim that there couldn't possibly be time to analyze why the schedule is so full, or work on reducing that workload.  Yet, it is a significant and deep-rooted issue. Just as people continue to acknowledge then immediately ignore the importance of a healthy diet and exercise, so too do people acknowledge and ignore the importance of both balancing work and life, and prioritizing the real work that should be done.

Parkinson's law is, as the name suggests, a law, just as gravity. It states that, if not regulated and measured, work will expand so as to fill the allotted time. If one books 8 hours of work a day, then work will fill all 8 hours that day. If one can only perform 1 hour of work a day, then work will fill that 1 hour. As a thought experiment, imagine your work day and your to-do list.  In the event that you completed everything on your to-do list, would you call it a day, and head home early? Or, would you allow work to expand and keep you there until that arbitrarily-set amount of time elapsed?  The amount of work to be done is infinite. The question, then, is where you have drawn a line.  Or perhaps, the question is, have you drawn a line?

It would seem, if one was to make a list across several thousand people, who, upon their deathbed, listed their regrets, a handful or so would mention not spending more time at the proverbial office, out of a sheer statistical likelihood. The other such items on the list, no doubt, would include any combination of things like spending more time with family, eating healthier, going to the gym, owning a better house, leaving more money as a will to the grandchildren, travelling more, pursuing a favorite hobby, learning new skills, keeping in touch with lost friends, pursuing that new career opportunity and so on. This list, at a glance, is contradictory with the idea of spending more time in the office, as, in order to complete much, if not all of the examples on our list, one would need time out of the office, not in it. If a contradiction exists, so writes Ayn Rand, check your premises; there is no such thing as a contradiction.

Without jumping to the conclusion that, for my theory to be correct the orator of regrets must be lying, there is a question I would first pose as an integral part of this mystery. What, if anything, prevented any such deathbed-ridden person from pursuing and removing their regrets? Truly, there are entire branches of philosophy dedicated to defining what a regret is, what motivates them, and how to disperse them, but on a more simplistic level, it likely boils down to either a lack of time, or a lack of money. We can safely say that if it was a lack of interest, whatever it was could not properly be called a regret, and, given time and money, interest is the only possible other factor in determining how one spends their time. Therefore, based on the fact that a task necessarily had to hold the orator's interest, it must be for lack of money or time that, upon his deathbed, he lamented it as a regret.

Putting finances on hold for the moment, the idea is contradictory that the orator of a regret could simultaneously wish to have had the time to pursue his unfulfilled actions, and wanted to spend time at the office, as I claim. Again, let us shift the question from how this paradox can exist, and examine another question: within our aforementioned list of likely regrets - or even, within a list that can be thought reasonable by anyone - are mundane tasks that appear to contribute little or nothing to one's quality of life likely to appear? Outside of our rare statistical chance, it would be fair to believe that not many orators of regret are lamenting not taking a lengthier morning shower, or more time in traffic, or more time reading newspapers. This is, of course, to say nothing of a regret of "not slowing down and smelling the flowers" as conventional wisdom might quote - and which, if I may say so, is a reasonable regret - but only challenges the idea that, if given the time, the orator of regrets would spend it on mundane tasks.

With time and interest momentarily questioned, the aspect of money comes into light. How many regrets, I must wonder, are borne of a lack of resources to be able to pursue them, if time and interest are sufficient? Most regrets, if not all, have a financial aspect to them, and one that, likely due to the magnitude of the grandiose plan we are all susceptible to making, carries with it a large price tag. It would be, considering that the proverbial office is the source of finances, illogical to say that an orator of regrets could have possibly wished and pined for something that carries a heavy price, while simultaneously wishing to avoid the means of paying said price. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that, excluding the metrics of time and interest, at least, for the moment, an orator of regrets who lists any such thing that carries a price tag, would be indirectly lamenting his lack of funds, as a result of insufficient time at the office. He would be, albeit not in these exact words, regretting not spending as much time in the office. 

A feedback loop occurs with this logic, however. Spending more time at the office may increase the finances available for pursuing interests, but, by definition, decreases the available time for the pursuit. Conversely, spending less time at the office decreases the funds available, but affords time. How, then, in this paradox, can I still maintain that anyone upon their deathbed would still wish to have spent more time in the office? Believe it or not, the answer has already been covered. It has been established with the idea of regretting spending time on mundane tasks. This should include mundane tasks completed in the office, and yet, for some reason, most do not attribute any substantial possibility for improvement to this area. If each task performed at the office by any such small business owner was categorized, it would necessarily fall into one of three subsections: value-adding, value-maintaining, and value-detracting. 

Value-adding activities increase business, increase efficiencies, decrease expenses, and help grow the business. Such tasks might be obvious, like spending time increasing sales by contacting new leads, or less so, like repairing a machine to improve its efficiency and lower its operating costs. Value-maintaining activities are those that are the necessary evils of the business world that all businesses have to do. They do not increase business, but are required to keep everything going. A great example is preparing taxes; it is required by the government, and thus is necessary for the business, but does not add anything to the business (to say little of what the government might take away). Lastly, value-detracting activities: the bane of a business. These tasks are the ones that eat up time without producing anything of value - or at least, of requirement - but tend to feel accomplishing to complete. Each industry and business will pick a different poison, so to speak, within their daily activities, that fall into this category. For some it is spending downtime perusing social media feeds, YouTube, or online shopping. For others, it is answering emails that feel important, as they sit unread in the inbox, their notification demanding attention, but emails that are ultimately not important.

It would be contrary to the very principles of BMI's Wellth to suggest an imbalance in any work-life time management, and yet, I still posit most are on their deathbed wishing they spent more time in the office. It is because of the last activity mentioned, the value-detracting tasks, that this is so. If the orator of regrets had focused more on value-adding activities in the undoubtedly long hours she spent at the office, the financial component of the regrets would be addressed. Even more than that, building a business, a difficult endeavor no matter the entrepreneur, will never have a shortage of problems and demands upon its proprietor. By focusing on the value-adding tasks and making an express effort, day in and day out, to avoid the value-detracting activities, the business will transform from something that runs you, to you running it. The laments of the orator are that she did not spend more quality time in the office, building her business, scaling it to new heights, and letting her business work for her to grant freedom of financial and time burdens, and instead, performed tasks that felt urgent, felt important, felt required, but blindly led to inefficient and ineffective uses of time. Reflect on each task, each action, and each decision made in the office, in the context of the value it adds, or detracts, from the business' overall health. If, after serious introspection and critical analysis, you find most of your time is spent maintaining the status quo, or even detracting from your business, many long years from now, you too will find yourself wishing you had spent more time in the office.

Obviously, though the example might be unlikely, the thought hardly makes any discernible impact on the perception, and ultimately the judgment of the action. The distinction of when the thought does, or does not, count, lies in something that has been alluded to in prior parts: the ability to enter into a sympathy with the other party. When any particular action is brought home to the breast, as Adam Smith writes, the action can only be judged as necessarily good or evil, acceptable or unacceptable, appropriate or inappropriate, if the judge himself can sympathize with the thought behind the action. If he can enter into a sympathy, then he would necessarily approve - or at least, excuse - the action. If he cannot, however, the action in question cannot be approved of, and the rationale or motives behind it are also deemed inexcusable. Referring back to the example of the wedding, it is nigh inconceivable to think that anyone could willingly enter into an approving sympathy with the ill-prepared gift-giver, as, is often the case, a wedding is not an event of an impromptu nature, and the gift-giver should, the judge might think, have had ample time to prepare. So, too, might the judge be unwilling to believe himself capable of such neglect, ill-preparedness, or even sloth, that they would not enter into a sympathy, lest he might judge himself guilty by approving or excusing the gift-giver's actions.

To take a moral from this, then, would be to be distinctly aware of when the thought truly does, or does not, count, in lieu of - or at least playing part in excusing - what might be called the proper action for the occasion. Whensoever the judge of the action, be it an individual or the masses, can take the rationale, the reasoning, the thought behind the action, home to their own breast, and sympathize with the motive, as they approve of it, the thought is what counts. But, should that judgment within the breast deem the action and motive wanting of sympathy, as the judge deems that they cannot approve of such behavior - as they would be unlikely to see themselves receiving such approval in their sympathetic placing of themselves in the scenario - no motive can justify the action, and the thought, being necessarily disapproved of, does not, in fact, count.

It is a paradox that, if I may say so, draws a striking comparison to the argument of which came first, the chicken or its egg. Many philosophers, great and small, before me, have attempted to lay out (no pun intended) their arguments for both, and I, neither being a renowned philosopher, nor desiring to delve as deep into such topics, want only to bring to light an interesting argument from Adam Smith. Assume for a moment, as we often do for these types of mental exercises, that we are not to worry about the debate of the existence of a deity that has commanded any such moral laws. Whether there is, or not, is a moot point. The question, then, is whether humans have a moral law built into their breast (the location ascribed to containing the sense of ethics, as noted in Adam Smith's writings), fashioned by nature, or whether it is the laws of the land that, over time, shaped what is seen as right and just. Which came first, the internal morals that shaped the laws, or the external laws that shaped our internal morals? And, moreover, what does the internal versus external origin have to do with the notion of 'the thought that counts'?

In the case of supposing that the external laws were fashioned first, then impressed upon the human breast, to guide and shape their internal code of ethics, we can take an example from different ends of the world, and compare them to one another. How is it, long before the advent of any meaningful communication devices, or perhaps even before the ability to send scraps of parchment and ink any reasonable distance, that so many different and isolated locales came upon such similar rules to govern human behavior? Settlers of a new land, perhaps, might bring with them the rules set forth by their motherland, but if history is continually traced back further, to the point where tribes had no meaningful communication with anyone outside their immediate vicinity, the same general rules seem to be present. And, ignoring, as we are, the possibility of divine intervention in establishing these rules, the probability that such a different populous and different landscape as earth is, produced consistently similar rules externally becomes infinitesimal, ignorable. If the likelihood were not as such, it seems then, likely that the same arts, music, languages, cultural norms, or some combination therein would also have been produced the same. And yet, the vastness of architecture, music, and art produced by different tribes the world over bears very little, if any, resemblance to the other. What conclusion we are left with, then, must be that there was some underlying factor that influenced each individual tribe, to come to similar conclusions in the manner of governing behavior.

Anthropomorphization is a term, long in nature and a frustration to pronounce, that denotes the tendency of humans to give humanistic traits and characteristics to inanimate objects. In the example of the coffee, it is to assign the coffee cup the humanistic trait of compassion for a friend, as the coffee cup would naturally care about its owner, like a pet its owner. This assignment of traits fulfills the second condition of Adam Smith, and thus, allows for an object, rather than just other creatures, fellow or otherwise, to receive the same gratitude, or resentment, that it might be due. The question, or reflection, for today, then, if I may pose it forth, is this: there is no merit - or necessarily demerit - in assigning these traits to inanimate objects, but it does draw an interesting trend. Why is it that positive and gratuitous traits are so readily assigned, assuming the best intentions, to inanimate objects, and not fellow creatures? I would challenge you to examine if you are affording the same benefit of the doubt, and airing on the side of assumption of the good-intention of man, when determining whether an action done had nefarious or benevolent intentions. Peeling back even one layer of a perhaps jaded outlook on fellow-creatures, and applying the same level of impartial analysis of the motivations that we even afford our coffee cups may leave you to find that the world is far more positive than you might otherwise believe.

Defining what is actually the proverbial Caesar's owed renderings, then, must become the primary concern before attempting to extract the debt. If the definition is inexact, and too low, Caesar has not been rendered what is rightfully his, and he will resent the debtee for underpaying. Conversely, if the definition is inexact, and too high, society will see Caesar as rendering more than he is owed, and will earn their resentment for his attempts to further his own happiness at the expense of another. Carefully define therefore, if I may say so, your debts before attempting to collect them. Doing so will make you, in the eyes of both the debtee and society, a fair and impartial debtor who only seeks, like Caesar, to render unto himself what is his.

Should the group, or society, think that the magnitude of the actions taken is within reason and the subject acted rationally, they will not condemn his actions as too bold, too rash, or too disproportionate. A subject who steals to feed his family very well may be judged to have broken the laws of society, but as the society can more easily enter into the rationale and motives of the subject, the magnitude of the actions does not seem as extreme, and the ends can be seen to justify the means. Conversely, society would necessarily disapprove of the means of a murder of one by another over a minor inconvenience; such ends are far too great in proportion to the means, it may be judged, but necessarily, to the murderer, the response of action was justified, lest they would not have done it.

To translate this through is to say that one's approval, or disapproval, of another's actions is entirely subjective within the bounds of the observer's ability to enter into a sympathy with the action's executioner. As such, a question of the end justifying the means is hardly a logical one to ask, as the answer must, by virtue of the means having been executed, be yes. Instead, if I may say so, shift your paradigm to understand that knowing, to oneself, the ends will always justify the means. From that understanding, then, and as a course of diligent decision-making, ask oneself, about any action you are about to undertake, what a third party may say about the proportionate, or disproportionate, degree of the actions in question. One can always justify their actions to themselves, lest they would not do it, so inclusion of a metric of a third party may give the insight required to make a sound, logical decision.

Mob mentality is an interesting and powerful phenomena. It can incite riots among the civil, and peace among warring factions. The power of mob mentality lies in the fact that, as observed in other postings within the Wellth Blog, the human tendency is to sympathize with the emotions of others. Sympathy of a fellow being is strong, so likewise, it's much stronger when sympathizing over a similar plight with two, four, ten, or a thousand. And, as often is the case, sympathy with such plights is not only justifiable, but understandable and reasonable. If the case were not so, if the object of the mob's gratitude or resentment was not to merit such emotion, the mob would not have formed in the first place, as each person would fail to enter into sympathy with the first's feelings, and no mass would be formed.

But, when a mob does begin to form, and sympathies merge and are reinforced, there is a compounding and amplifying effect that must be recognized, and heeded, especially in the case of negatively charged sympathies. The mob mentality, of an elevated mood and sense of joy that comes from entering into mutual joy with the audience of a loved one returning to their waiting family in an airport, the joy seen and therefore felt by a young one's exclamation of excitement upon seeing the return of their parent resonates within everyone. The mob mentality, for a moment or two, is powerfully felt by the universal entering into of the young's joyous sympathy. The compounding effect, however, is short-lived, and recognized. The mood returns to normal. The case is not so with a riotous mob storming the gates of their abuser. Each new mob member, not only entering into the sympathy of the first, adds their own particular spin on the resentment, their own grudges with the accused, and each other mob member is offered additional negative emotions to enter into sympathy with, compounding the effects.

As each new mob mentality participant joins, the negative sympathetic energy grows, and reason is quickly lost to emotion. Injustices, even if they have not been inflicted on any particular member of the mob specifically, demand repentance from the perpetrator, at a level that is not reasonable. Therefore, while mob mentality can be powerful, that power can be misdirected and garner unfortunate results. It is advisable, then, before entering into a sympathy with any mob, and succumbing to the power of the mob mentality, that a critical investigation to the merit and constant, vigilant rationale be applied. It will save you from joining a mob that spirals to disaster, or making irrational decisions based upon what was at first a rational grievance.