The Machinery Of Freedom & Laws Order By Dr. David Friedman

Jason Hartman chats with guest Dr. David D Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, and former professor at Santa Clara University in the Law School. He is also the author of books such as The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism and Laws Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters. The two dissect government’s role in society and its capability.

Investor 0:00
Those who have understood that the paradigm has changed. And that’s perhaps we need to do something that’s counterintuitive. Like being in debt, which obviously we have all been taught is a horrible thing. You know, maybe it’s those few early people who understand that and witness that. So perhaps some people who are more sensitive to risk or more risk averse, or I don’t know what the perfection is, but the canary in the coal mine, if you want, and this is perhaps what you are in like you have been. I am surprised, Jason right. Now, that’s basically what we are saying is not yet more mainstream. I’m not saying that this should be or that this should already be what everybody’s thinking that but so few people are thinking that or at least that so few people are vocal about it. So perhaps it’s just a well kept secrets and those who know we don’t want to talk about it, but I’m very surprised because this is so much against the mainstream of what you’re reading in the paper.
Announcer 1:04
Welcome to the creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You’re about to learn a new slant on investing some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world’s most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self made multi millionaire who’s actually been there and done it. He’s a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who’s owned properties in 11 states had hundreds of tenants and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason’s footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it. And now here’s your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.
Jason Hartman 1:54
Welcome to Episode 1218 1218 Thanks for Joining us today, it’s my pleasure to welcome Dr. David D. Friedman to the show. He is the son of Milton and Rose Friedman. You’ve certainly heard of Milton Friedman before. And I hope you have read his books. He’s a professor of law at Santa Clara University, and contributing editor to Liberty magazine. He’s the best selling author of the machinery of freedom, a guide to radical capitalism, and several other books, including his latest, which is entitled legal systems very different from ours. David, welcome. How are you? I’m fine. I am currently However, an emeritus professor, I retired a year and a half ago. Well, congratulations, congratulations. So hey, I’m looking forward to diving into really both of these topics and simply kind of a split show. But the legal system is so important to maintain a free market and have capitalism exist, obviously. So let’s talk about the machinery of freedom first. Now, this was an older book, but you revised it recently, right?
Dr. David Friedman 2:57
Yes, the machinery was published. In the early 1970s, so it’s now something like 45 years old. And a few years ago, I brought out a third edition with about 100 pages of additional material, which was a lot of fun. What
Jason Hartman 3:13
is the basic premise? Does it follow your father’s line of thinking or, you know, it doesn’t diverge in a different way. Tell us a little bit about
Dr. David Friedman 3:21
that depends on what part of it parts of it are arguing for libertarian views in general. But part which is, I suppose most original is sketching out what a society might look like in which all government functions and replaced by private institutions. So in that sense, it’s more extreme than the positions that my father was arguing for. He was basically asking how within the framework of our present society, can we make things better by making them free or asking the question, What would a society look like in which you carry that program all of the way to entirely abolishing government You plausibly imagine institutions working, which provided private substitutes for police courts in the light, right? And what would the result be? I try to use economics to answer the question, what would the market for law produce? Think of law not is produced by a political mechanism, but it’s produced by a market mechanism. Part of the connection between that and my most recent book is that I concluded when studying a whole bunch of past societies that in a certain sense, I’ve been reinventing the wheel. That is that there had been much more primitive societies, which had a sort of a much simpler version of what I was describing, in which law enforcement wasn’t fact private, and decentralized. So I have a chapter in the new book, discussing that kind of society what it needs to work and historical examples of those. Okay, so when I talked to libertarians, including when I look in the mirror and talk to myself, I always think it’s a great idea. privatized this that and the other thing until it comes down to about maybe three things I sort of can’t see private enterprise doing. I don’t think government does much well, but I do think they do a few things. Well, I don’t know. Can you prioritize everything? For example, let’s just be specific on a couple things if we can you talk about the legal system. And we’ll dive into that a little bit more. But what about just building permits, and food safety, and, you know, some of these sort of basic things people consider to be infrastructure. I don’t think any of those things require government activity. When you buy a house, you care whether it’s going to fall down, and there’s no reason you can’t have and in fact, you do have private institutions, which set up rules for how you’re supposed to build a building and if you conform to those you can claim to have conform to those. Similarly, with regard to food, a grocery store chain that sells food that makes people drop dead is likely to go out of business and they haven’t A strong incentive to try to make sure that the food is safe. So I think those are the easy problems. Right? I would say that the three fundamental functions are police courts and national defense.
Jason Hartman 6:10
Okay, before you get into that, though, let me just ask you a question about that. See, I think that part of the problem and and listen, philosophically, I agree with you. I’m just wondering how it works in practice, is all part of the problem is there’s this big lag time in a lot of circumstances in life, right. Let’s say it’s a drug. And I know your father had a lot, wrote a lot about the FDA, and I agree with his thinking, by the way, but it takes a long time before you see the consequence of something. So if someone you know, in the private world if they want to cut corners to save expenses or be more expedient, you know, it might take a long time to figure out that they’ve damaged somebody, right? It might indeed,
Dr. David Friedman 6:49
it might equally take a long time for a government regulator to figure out that something is safe. And while they were figuring that out, people died because they’re not allowed to use The new drug we happen to have
Jason Hartman 7:01
for service the FDA,
Dr. David Friedman 7:03
the FDA, as you may know, many years ago, the FDA put out a press release in which they admitted to killing 100,000 people. That isn’t how they put it.
Jason Hartman 7:11
Fair enough. Yeah,
Dr. David Friedman 7:12
what they did was this had to do with the issue of beta blockers. Beta blockers are drugs used to prevent a second heart attack, right, and been widely used outside of the US for a decade or more before the FDA decided to approve them. And when it approved them, it estimated that approving them would save eight to 10,000 lives a year. So if they were, say, 10 to 12 years, they kept them off the market. I don’t remember the exact timing eight to 10,000 lives a year. That means that their particular caution it killed about 100,000 people by their estimates, there isn’t a way of playing safe,
Jason Hartman 7:47
isn’t it? It seems to me that the way you solve this problem in the private enterprise world, is you do it with insurance policies. And you know if a builder wants to build a home or someone wants to make a drug or someone wants to sell your food or whatever they want to do if they want to be your local police department, that’s a capitalist operated police department, whatever it is, right? They have to buy an insurance policy. And there’s a private insurance company taking the risk that’s going to examine them to make sure they’re playing. Right.
Dr. David Friedman 8:18
That is that’s certainly one way but there are lots of different ways things happening in the market. I don’t think you can easily predict which one will turn out to be optimal. Okay, that’s one way. Another way is that you have a large firm with a big reputation at stake. And it says, Take the historical example of Sears Sears did not make stuff. Sears sold stuff other people made mostly under their own brand name. And what were they doing part of what they were doing was saying to their customers, this company that made this particular shovel you never heard heard of, they could be making the junky shovel and you would waste your money and only discover when it broke down. But you know that if the shovel you buys from Sears turns out to be junk, you’ll be left likely to buy stuff from Sears. So it’s in our interest to do the work. So that’s one way of doing it. Ensuring is another way of doing it. There are a variety of different possible so so
Jason Hartman 9:10
the one way you mentioned with Sears is just have a clearing house have a retailer essential reputation. Yeah, that’s right. So they have the reputation and they are in charge of vetting the homebuilder. Okay, so you’d have another party in there another layer someone another middleman. That’s one
Dr. David Friedman 9:26
way of doing it. Another way if you look at how EA works, EA it is the base reputation EA is not saying this product is any good. Right. eBay is merely saying we will report to you yeah, the information we have from other people essentially
Jason Hartman 9:44
the same as Amazon and repayments. Thankfully, reviews are getting much more popular. But of course they have their problems too, but maybe they’re less problem than government.
Dr. David Friedman 9:52
Okay, I don’t think you should assume there were perfect solutions to these things. I think one of the mistakes that defenders of the free market often make Is to imply that with the free market, nothing wrong will ever happen. And that isn’t true that both people make mistakes and their ways economists have analyzed in some detail which we refer to under the general term of market failure, in which even if nobody makes a mistake, you get the wrong answer. Those are things like public good problems and externalities, those all the implication of those things, is that a perfect free market system, there will sometimes people will sometimes do things they shouldn’t do or fail to do things they should. And the response to that is we have no better mechanism than if you think about the reasons why the market sometimes doesn’t work. Those are also reasons why the political market sometimes doesn’t work. And the difference is that those reasons are the exception on the private market and the rule on the public market. If you think about the basic logic of market failure, which isn’t just about free markets, is that is the situation or individual rationality doesn’t produce group rationality. And the reason is that the decision that I make has its costs or benefits largely to other people. So if you think about why in a free market, I might pollute, even though I shouldn’t, even though the damage that people downwind is larger than the benefit to me, the reason is that I’m getting the benefit of making steel and putting stuff out the chimney, and other people are getting the cost. If you think about the reason why some basic research might not be done that’s worth doing. It’s because that research produces benefits for lots of other people I can collect on all of that could happen to the free market. But you then think about the political system. And on the political system, it’s normally the case that when somebody takes an action, he there is neither the cost nor gets the benefit.
Jason Hartman 11:44
Tell us more about that. Be sure,
Dr. David Friedman 11:47
take the question of why democracy works as badly as it does. There’s this famous quote from Churchill it offers us the worst form of government except for all the I love that quote. People normally treat that as though it’s an argument for democracy is actually a guard against government saying the best way we have running government works very badly. And there’s a reason that sort of what I think of as the civics class model of democracy is that the government has to do the right thing or will vote them out. for that to work, the voters have to be well informed both about what the right thing is and about what the individual politicians have done in the political process together not getting that information is costly information that requires a lot of time and effort to figure out, there is no benefit to the individual voter from getting that information. If you are in a country, the size to the US, the chance that your vote will flip the result of a presidential election is something well under one in a million, maybe one in 10 million or so you’re not going to make an investment of hundreds of hours of effort for a one in a million chance of making the world better. If you are an individual judge in our system, and you set a precedent that happens to be a mistake, a precedent that results in the system working less well. You’ll never We’re find out, you could have imposed cost. If you imagine a precedent that makes GNP lower by a hundredth of a percent. If you work that out, that’s an enormous amount of damage for one human being to make. But he’ll never know it did Oh for the legislature did Oh, for the lobbyists, all of those people in the political system are taking actions, most of whose costs are born. And often most of these benefits are received by other people. Therefore, they have no incentive, the way a decentralized system has to work is you have a system where if it’s something is worth taking, it’s worth my doing it. If it’s not worth worth doing for all of us, it’s not worth my doing it. The free market gets that result most of the time, because if I produce something, I got to pay for the inputs. So I’m bearing the cost of the things I’m using. I get paid for the output, so I’m getting most of the benefit. So benefit is larger than cost for me. It’s probably larger than cost per US. political system. That’s not true. So you have ways in which the market doesn’t work, but they are ways that are much less common on the market than on the only alternative we have, which is the political system. So that I think is the basic argument for for the free market. And I have a chapter in the new edition of machinery, where I think the title is market failure considered as an argument both for and against government. It’s an argument for government because it shows that the market is not perfect. It is an are stronger argument against government, because it shows that the political market is more imperfect than the private market. So that’s one of the things I discuss in the book.
Jason Hartman 14:32
You know what happens a lot, at least to me in these debates I have with my leftist friends, and you must have quite a few of them in your environment at Santa Clara is that it comes down to this thing of you know, really the Sherlock Holmes, you can’t hear the dogs that don’t bark, right. You know, like the thing you mentioned about the beta blockers and the FDA, right, you know, no one’s paying attention to the hundred thousand people that died, right? They’re only paying attention to the few things that work or don’t work, you know where, oh, hey, a beta blocker killed someone. Right? Yeah, they don’t pay attention to what the profound impact of the things that are really unseen. That’s the problem with these, it makes me wonder if there will ever be any change, even if your proposal is dramatically better. And your father’s proposals are dramatically better. I mean, I really liked his argument about the FDA, the way he talked about that how, you know, especially rare diseases where there, you know, drugs have a small upside but a big downside, right to the bureaucrat. I remember that argument very well. And it’s very sensible. But I don’t know will there ever be any change,
Dr. David Friedman 15:44
some things do change. We don’t have a draft anymore. We don’t have a military draft. We’re still signing people up for the military draft that we don’t have. And we may stop doing that. If the courts decide as they seem to be deciding that we have to sign up women to that big Make it sufficiently politically unpopular, right? We have floating exchange rates, which we didn’t have when my father started writing. We have, I think, more sentiment in favor of free trade, although that’s been beginning to reverse a little bit recently. But as a result, partly of the fact that economists for about the last 200 years has been arguing that tariffs usually make the country that impose them worse off, not better off. So things do sometimes change. What’s interesting in a way is, there’s a bit I don’t know if you’ve read Lord of the Rings, but there’s a little bit near the end, where Gandalf, I think, is saying, we’ve solved this problem. That doesn’t mean that problems are over. You can’t look forward to sort of heaven. That means that there will be other things will arise in the future, just as we thought, two ages ago, that the good guys had solved the problem when they destroyed Morgoth. But then, Sauron came up. And similarly, one of the things that strikes me looking at political arguments in my life, Time is that we largely defeat a socialist dogma intellectually. And that’s partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And yes, people talk about socialism now, but mostly what they’re really talking about is a welfare state. Sweden and Denmark and Norway are not socialist countries, their capitalist countries with a good deal of income redistribution, and that almost nobody is willing to seriously argue for a centrally planned economy, which was after all, the basic socialist idea. On the other hand, environmentalism has replaced it so that the arguments now against laissez faire are often environmentalist documents.
Jason Hartman 17:36
Like the old saying goes, green trees have red roots
Dr. David Friedman 17:40
doesn’t even have to be the root. Part of it’s true in the sense that one reason some people like environmentalism is because it gives them arguments for things they wanted to do. Anyway. There’s a wonderful cartoon, which I like because what it betrays of the peep about the people who drew it and admire it and the cartoon is Somebody’s saying, What if global warming is really false, and we do all of these good things, and it doesn’t stop global warming, the obvious implication being there, obviously all good things, I don’t remember the whole list, but it’s basically a checklist of people left of center want to do. But of course, the mirror image of that is that implies those people would be in favor of doing those things, even if they didn’t believe in global warming, which is a reason to be a little more skeptical about their environmentalist. But what I was gonna say is that environmentalism in one sense is an improvement on socialism, because it’s actually a better argument. But on the other hand, in practice, since the conclusions that leads to or mostly conclude is like giving government power to make decisions, and there’s no particular reason to expect government to make better decisions for the environment than anybody else. It has bad consequences.
Jason Hartman 18:49
let’s shift gears a little bit and talk about the legal system your your latest book, I’ve always found this fascinating, especially since reading iron Rand years ago. And to her writing about how, you know, that’s really the one of the real roles of government. Now, you may disagree with that it sounds like you might, but she at least said, hey, look at the government’s just got to keep violence from happening and like, that’s their job. And other than that, don’t do anything else. Tell us what you learned about looking at these ancient legal systems and so forth.
Dr. David Friedman 19:20
They aren’t all ancient. The legal systems I cover include modern Amish, they include modern, Romany, they include Islamic and Jewish law which still exist, although Jewish law doesn’t have very much bite to it anymore. Islamic law, I don’t think there really any societies that really follow Islamic law even though they talk about it, but those are both interesting systems. So I guess you learn a lot through different things. The thing that’s most relevant to the issue of whether government has to do it is a set of systems that I refer to as feud law, of which the first one I encountered a long time ago that got me interested in other legal systems was saga period, Iceland, Iceland with thousand years ago, which is where we get the saga because they were the people who wrote the original sagas. And that was a legal system where if you killed somebody whose relatives sued you, and if they won the case, and you didn’t pay the damages, and you didn’t settle out of court, they killed you. And it was legal for them to kill you. And it was illegal for people to defend you once you had lost the case and gotten outlawed. So that was the case where you had a sort of a centralized mechanism for stamping with approval who is or isn’t guilty, but there was no centralized enforcing. There are other systems that go farther in that direction. The remedy to some extent, the modern Romany, even right under refute system, and the basic logic of a feud system is that if you wronged me, I threatened to harm you unless you compensate me. Hmm. And in order for that to work, there are about four different problems it has to solve. The first problem is making sure that I don’t use it as an excuse for extortion. You have to have some way in which might threat to harm you believable if you really did run me and not believable if you didn’t. So in the Icelandic case, that’s what the court mechanism is doing. Because if I win my court case, then all the neighbors know that when I come after you, I’m the good guy, and you’re the bad guy. And if I don’t win the court case and try to threaten you, then the neighbors will support you instead. That would be sort of a simple version. But there are a variety of other ways in which that problem gets solved. But you need some way in which is I like to put it in which right makes might some reason why the threats are believable when you’ve really been wronged and not when they aren’t. second problem you need is a commitment strategy. You need some reason why when I threaten to harm you, if you don’t compensate me, and you reply will I’ll fight back, I actually carry out my threat instead of backing down and there are no a variety of different ways in which societies have done that. And I would like to claim it even goes back before the human species because you get territorial behavior among some animals when the animal is actually committed the fight to the death against a trespasser of his own species. And that explains some animal behavior. Third, probably we need is how do you protect the weak, you need some way in which people who don’t have access to much physical force can still get their rights protected. And my favorite example of that is, again, the Icelandic system, because in the Icelandic system, Tort Claims were marketable. They were transferable. So I’m an
Jason Hartman 22:24
Oh, wow. So you can transfer it to a big strong guy.
Dr. David Friedman 22:27
Yeah, I’m an elderly man who has one son and the son is killed by someone. And I know that if I try to go to court to sue them, I’ll get beaten up on the way to the court. But my neighbor, he’s got four big sons when a Viking in their youth and lots of relatives and allies. So I transferred the case to him. He prosecuted collect the very sizable damages for killing. If it’s an easy case, maybe he agrees to give me part of the money if it’s a hard case, maybe he doesn’t, but either way, the person who did the killing gets punished. Either pays damages or gets killed. So Therefore, even though I have no force, I can do it. And I’ve argued that this is one respect in which the American legal system is a mere thousand years behind the cutting edge of legal technology. Because if you think about it, making Tort Claims transferable would have substantial benefits in our legal system. If you think about the person, somebody smashes your car, and you aren’t a lawyer, maybe you can afford a lawyer, maybe you can’t. But even if you can afford a lawyer, how do you figure out for this one time in your life and you need a lawyer who’s the lawyer will do a good job. You have marketable Tort Claims. You don’t have to do any of that you just asked who’s willing to bid the most above vote to buy my claim. And then the law firm that can do the best job of collecting damages for your car is the one that is going to make the highest offer. You are now still entered as a witness but you no longer are a party, you’ve you’ve been paid. And I’ve discussed a number of other ways in which that would be useful. So part of the fun of this is seeing that some of the ideas I have a different case where I discovered that a really nice and weird institution empirically in Athens was paralleled by the way they run horse races today in America, let’s call it a claiming race use the same basic logic is the way in which people empirically and Athens arranged to get public goods produced. If you read the book, you can you can see the description of that, but that’s part of the fun of it. So anyway, so the the fourth problem you have to solve in a few system is how you prevent what people imagine and if you’d system namely, I think you’ve wronged me, I claim it you refuse to pay cuz you think you haven’t, I harm you. You then say, well, then now I’ve got to get revenge and it goes back and forth, right? That actually is pretty uncommon in real food systems. And there are various mechanisms by which you prevent that the one standard mechanism you see in the Icelandic sagas, is you find some powerful high reputation person and both sides will arbitrate the dispute. And now If he ever rules against me, I don’t look like a wimp for giving in. And if he rules against me and I don’t get in, he’s just been added to the other side.
Jason Hartman 25:08
So I’m going to lose people listening probably have visions of all kinds of violence in the streets with this type of thing. Yeah, well, I think
Dr. David Friedman 25:16
such evidence we got for Iceland, the way I like to put it. The Icelandic system lasted for about a third of the millennium, 330 years, so quite a lot longer than ours has. The last 50 years were pretty bad. You were getting essentially what was turning into a civil sort of a civil war over who would run things. But as best I can tell, the number of people killed in that per capita was somewhere around the US Highway death rate. And the number of people killed in 50 years what they regard was unacceptable violence was almost certainly smaller than the number of people killed in three weeks of the year 1066 in wars between governments the the battles, Stamford Bridge and Hastings
Jason Hartman 26:03
but the wars are that’s a different concept. This is
Dr. David Friedman 26:07
the breakdown was really becoming a civil war. And of course the US Civil War killed quite a lot of people too. So again, there’s there are no perfect systems.
Jason Hartman 26:15
Right? You know, I agree with you there are no perfect systems. But you know, as we wrap it up here, you just keep making me think of privatized prisons. Right which is an idea when I first heard about that maybe in the mid 90s. I was very much in favor of that I thought of course the private sector I’ll do a much better job than the government. But then you see these corrupt judges putting kids in jail and there’s like in this incentivize, you know, it’s when you incentivize war with the central banking system, you’ve incentivize war because it’s profitable. When you make taking people’s freedom away profitable. You know, that doesn’t make any pie good.
Dr. David Friedman 26:51
I in fact, have a journal. Okay, which is on the question of why you don’t always want the most efficient punishment that if you think Think about different punishments, that fines are the most efficient punishment. Because what the criminal loses someone else gets. execution is more efficient the punishment than imprisonment. The criminal loses one life, which nobody gets. So it’s worse than fine. But within prison, but the criminal loses its freedom, and you have to run the prison. So it looks like you should always have the most efficient system. You say, wait a minute. The problem with that, is that that means that somebody else is benefiting by the conviction. And that gives people an incentive to convict people, whether or not they’re innocent.
Jason Hartman 27:34
Yeah. And we’ve seen that,
Dr. David Friedman 27:36
yes, that I had an argument along sorts of lines you’re describing that was more elaborate than yours, a long time ago, and somebody online said, Yeah, the the colonial powers in Africa did that. When they needed a road built, they would find an excuse to arrest a bunch of people, and then their sentence would be to work on the road. And I then realized that HL Mencken, a writer I’m fond of actually has an anecdote about the city. things happening in a less unpleasant form in America now where you’ve got a jail Warden who likes to have his jail fixed up. So every year,
Jason Hartman 28:08
license plates made or whatever, whatever cheap labor
Dr. David Friedman 28:11
every year, it makes a list of he needs one plumber to painters a list of the workers he needs. He gives them to the relevant police officer. The police officer goes around the bars and finds an excuse to arrest that set of people. They spend a few days in jail fixing up the jail, and then they get turned loose. So that’s a problem you have to worry about.
Jason Hartman 28:32
And that’s certainly true. And it’s much more sophisticated than that, sadly, you have these private prison companies that have an army of lobbyists that are lobbying for more draconian laws so they can fill their prisoners that
Dr. David Friedman 28:45
just the private prisons, the lobbyists for keeping up the number of prisoners, at least in California are primarily the prison guard union. So you don’t solve that problem by having government do it either. No, I agree. It’s a different set of problems and will take longer than we have here. Discuss. But what I try to sketch and machinery of freedom is a system in which the laws are coming out of the market, which is considering the costs and benefits on everybody affected. Because, well, I can’t really explain it this amount of time I want to read people interested in machinery of freedom. The second edition is a free download from my webpage, which is David d. friedman.com. The third edition is a fairly inexpensive Kindle on Amazon. And legal systems very different is also both a print version and a Kindle on Amazon and the Kindle. It’s very cheap. Yeah, I try to take my stuff cheap because I’m mostly trying to spread ideas.
Jason Hartman 29:41
Yeah, good stuff. Good stuff. David, thank you so much really fascinating. Do you have a website you want to give out or a Twitter handle or anything?
Dr. David Friedman 29:48
My website is David d. friedman.com. And it’s got links to a lot of my published work that you can read for free. It has a link to my blog. Which is not very active at the moment because I’ve gotten active on someone else’s very interesting blog. But my blog has a lot of stuff from the past. And I occasionally still make posts on it. The blog is called ideas and it covers whatever I feel like talking about. And that includes global warming includes status. It includes a whole lot of different things.
Jason Hartman 30:21
Fantastic. Well, David, thank you so much for joining us today.
Dr. David Friedman 30:24
Thank you.
Jason Hartman 30:25
So we did something very interesting. A long time ago on the show, one of our clients was an expert in guided visualizations and the law of attraction. And she was kind enough to come on the show and do a guided visualization for us and she actually did this for us at a live event. I believe it was actually at one of our meet the Masters conferences many years ago. What I wanted to do is offer you a little gift, and that is an extra bonus episode every week. This will come out on Saturday, a little bonus episode. And it’s nothing like a regular episode. It’s totally different. It’s going to be a guided visualization. I’ve hired an expert for this. And she does a great job of guided visualizations. And you know, the power of visualization, anything the mind can conceive and believe it can achieve. That’s what Napoleon Hill, one of the early success authors of thinking Grow Rich told us. And if you can get your mind your subconscious mind to conceive and believe things with multi sensory detail, that is a very powerful tool. So why don’t we take this tool and make it specific to the principles of real estate investing that I teach, and we will do that we are customizing guided visualizations. We hired this expert and Every Saturday, we will release a very short guided visualization as a sixth episode per week on the podcast. And you can take the weekend and listen to this and relax and they’re just a few minutes long. They’re very short. And it will help you in your visualization of your bright future your abundant future as an income property investor. So I hope you like it. It’s just a little bonus for you. Look for this every Saturday. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website heart and Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional and we are Also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks