People who succeed via analysis of numbers and facts need to learn that understanding of people can make that analysis unnecessary and can even outperform it. Examples: 1. Amazon did not make money between its 1994 founding through 2002. There was no financial or business fundamentals analysis that could’ve led you to buying the stock, which would launch AWS and FBA in 2006. The only way you could’ve profited from the 4000x share price growth between Dec 31 2002 and today was to figure out that Bezos was one of the greatest of all time and was pouring his best years into the company. 2. I was once doing a reference check for a new employee. You can make a quantifiable prediction of employee quality by creating a points system for traits correlated with future work quality. On paper this employee did not appear to be so great, however his reference, who was an accomplished businessman in his own right without an agenda stopped me and said “Hire this guy. Just do it. Trust me.” He was right. 3. Careers and health are complex systems. We can come up with rules of thumb like “work hard” or “exercise”, but, generally we know a lot less about what leads to good outcomes in these fields than we do in chemistry and mathematics where there are higher degrees of predictable certainty. When an older businessperson who has survived and thrived through multiple recessions tells you, someone much younger, less experienced, and successful, to do something like “call them” or “go to this event”, you just need to do it. When your grandmother tells you to stay slim, exercise, and spend time with friends, you just need to do it. There is no fact or data based analysis to support these recommendations, but decades of experience, of seeing people fail in business or die early and those who didn’t, inform these powerful inexplicable recommendations. Yes, facts and numbers are great, but they will only take you so far. Master the understanding of people and know when their recommendations outperform what we call rational analysis to go even father. And note that these two methods are even more powerful when combined. Trust me.

Brontosaurus skeleton at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History (allegedly) Let’s pretend for a moment that brontosauruses are made up, despite them being accepted by the public and scientific community, having ample evidence for their existence, and appearing in museums all over the world. Let me show you how this could come to be: Smart, but young, naive, and generally conformist people enter academia to study paleontology (the study of fossils) They learn about brontosauruses: They were up to 7 stories tall They weighed up to 70 tons They have no back teeth and swallowed all their food whole They would eat rocks to help with their digestion Their long necks were to "reach marshy vegetation some distance away or to reach leaves higher up in trees" (Encyclopedia Britannica) No skull has ever been found The bones you see in museums are mostly not real. They're casted. They get a PhD about how their poop is the size of a 737 Then one day they have a thought “you know…there’s a lot of stuff about brontosauruses which is pretty unbelievable” and they make a list They write a paper and submit it to a paleontology journal. If the paper is right, the journal must disband and all the people who work for it will lose their life’s work, so it gets turned down. The skeptical paleontologist turns to the press, but all the more senior paleontologists say that the skeptical guy is crazy, so now our skeptic’s reputation is ruined The skeptic can’t attract funding because they can’t get published and they’re a kook according respected paleontologists No museum will air the possibility that brontosauruses are fake because it’s one of the main reasons why people go to museums If the skeptical paleontologist is smart at all, they will see all this and they won’t say anything. They want to keep their PhD, their role in the group, and their prestige. It takes a unique and rare person to go against the flow and call something out like this and even if they do, their views mostly won’t be heard. Of course, I’m just joking around. Brontosauruses are real. But if they weren’t, the brontosaurus would be an uncoordinated conspiracy.

This article will explain the following: 1. What is a Fiacracy 2. How do Fiacracies NOT work 3. How Fiacracies work 4. Are Fiacracies sustainable 5. Why Fiacracies matter 1. What is a fiacracy? It’s government by fiat (money). The driving mechanism by which it works is not voting (democracy), a royal family (monarchy), or even a stable ruling elite (aristocracy, oligarchy). It’s a government driven mainly by the creation and movement of currency, fiat. 2. How do fiacracies NOT work? In school you were probably taught that your government works like this: A. People vote for politicians B. The politicians use tax revenue to provide services for voters C. If taxes get too high or services too bad, voters substitute the politicians responsible for new ones who will be better Fiacracies have voting, politicians, and taxes, but this is NOT how they work. 3. How do fiacracies work? A. People vote for politicians B. Politicians allocate money for services C. A central bank creates new money to pay for these services D. If voters do not like the politicians or what they are doing, they change them out for new ones What’s different between between this system and the last one? This system has only one check on government action, voting, whereas the other has two, voting and taxes. A concrete example: It’s much easier for fiacracies to go to war because taxpayers don’t need to pay for it, they just need to vote for it. And it’s also much easier for fiacracies to do handouts, whether it be for the rich, the poor, or the companies’ shareholders which benefit from war. Why is it so much easier? Because no one has to pay for it. All it requires is votes. An uncoordinated consensus exists between politicians, the central bank, and voters to keep the system going. If politicians don’t spend they don’t have political support and they get voted out. If the central banks don’t finance the spending they know the system collapses resulting in chaos. The voters are subjected to propaganda (oftentimes paid for by the government itself), don’t know what is happening, and if they do, why end the system and face chaos? Uncoordinated consensus. 4. Are fiacracies sustainable? Let’s answer the question in reverse: What would make a fiacracy unsustainable? A. People must be willing accept the newly created money, otherwise government cannot provide services nor effective handouts. B. People must believe in the system and its fairness or they will revolt C. It cannot be too easy to convert the newly created money into other currencies that are perceived to be more stable D. If money is created too fast, handouts will overtake the creation of value as peoples’ focus and people will stop working causing system collapse E. Handouts must be allocated fairly to system participants or the system will face instability from groups who feel shortchanged F. Greed. If a powerful group makes too much money for itself without acknowledging the delicate balance between the participants in the fiacracy, the system will destabilize and die. G. Immigration/emigration. Countries mostly are not closed systems and the arrival of new voters or their departure can cause violent swings how new money is allocated, which is the main determinant whether people continue to support the fiacracy system. We can see from how many different ways they can go wrong that individual fiacracies are generally unstable, but with proper management and the right general conditions they can last for a long time, particularly if culture, education, or propaganda (which can be paid for with fiat) are conducive to the maintenance of the fiacracy. 5. Why Fiacracies matter? They matter because of how ubiquitous they are and how increasingly large government spending is relative to the overall economy. Politics in a fiacracy is, at its core, a fight over access to the newly created money enabled by achieving a voter majority. Once you understand that and how fiacracies work at large, you can both benefit yourself, but also predict and maintain your country’s stability. The fiacracy is a useful mental model that explains better how things actually work than what we were taught in school and told by media.

1. Empathy 2. Dexterity 3. Persuasion 4. Musicality 5. Confidence 6. Ambition 7. Grit 8. Creativity 9. Flexibility 10. Energy 11. Individualism 12. Willpower 13. Stoicisim 14. Objectivity 15. Allure