The Top Layer of the Cake
by
Gary North
by Gary North
DIGG THIS
My father died
at the age of 91 on December 2. He was not a man to make profound
observations. He was a facts man. He spent World War II in the military
police and two decades in the FBI. The FBI mostly investigated.
He liked Sergeant Joe Friday's line: "Just the facts, Mam." Jack
Webb made that line famous on Dragnet, which started on TV
the year he joined the FBI: 1951. He was a big Dragnet fan.
He did make
one profound observation to me that has stuck. I am not sure if
it was original with him. I have never heard it from anyone else.
Here it is.
Life
is like a three-layer cake. When you are young, there are two layers
between you and death. Then your grandfather dies, and there is
only one layer. Then your father dies. You are on top.
He spent 48
years as the top layer. I do not think I will spend 48 years there.
His observation
reinforced a prediction made by my maternal grandmother, who on
my 25th birthday remarked: "You will be 30 before you know it."
I was 50 before I knew it.
We all know
how slowly time moves for a child. It moves most slowly in the last
week before Christmas. Christmas to Christmas seems like forever.
Ben Franklin
remarked: "A child thinks that twenty dollars and twenty years can
never be spent." He actually said pounds, but dollars has a ring
to it, despite the inflation. Money runs out sooner than we think.
So does time.
A year to
a four-year-old is most of what he can remember. A year to an old
person is a small fraction of his life, and he cannot recall the
recent details anyway.
We know these
things about time intellectually no later than the death of a grandfather,
and usually no later than the death of our first dog. But, emotionally,
it takes longer to register.
In terms of
time-budgeting, it takes some people decades to come to grips with
this. I suppose there are a few people for whom it takes the physician's
words, "You should get your affairs in order."
A classic
line in this regard maybe the classic line
was William Saroyan's, which he allowed to be published posthumously.
"Everybody has got to die, but I have always believed that an exception
would be made in my case. Now what?"
NOW
WHAT?
As a man recently
elevated to the Order of the Top Layer, permit me to make a few
general observations. Then I will draw a few conclusions.
The clock
ticks at the same speed for everyone. This is the most democratic
aspect of life.
In 1971, I
read a news magazine's obituary of "Papa Doc" Duvalier, the dictator
of Haiti. The author began with this: "Last week, Francois 'Papa
Doc' Duvalier was visited by Haiti's last remaining democratic institution."
I realize
that I am older now than he was when he died. Yet he seemed old
to me at the time, if not to the teenage girls who accompanied him.
Time is the
great equalizer. Warren Buffett is worth ten thousand times more
than you are, assuming you are worth $5 million. But he is 78 years
old. Not many people would want to trade places with him, one for
one. The young know better. So do the old, who have grown accustomed
to their places in life. About the only person I can imagine who
might be willing to trade places with him is his partner, Charlie
Munger. Charlie is 84.
If money were
the measure of success, then success would elude all but men like
Buffett. Success would be limited to people with a peculiar skill,
the ability to make money. The ladder of success would be tightly
defined and tightly policed by agents of those occupying the top
500 or so of 40,000 rungs.
Yet when we
read history books of any nation, by any author, the very rich receive
very little coverage. It is not that authors hate the rich. It is
that the rich have so little verifiable influence on what historians
can easily trace.
The rich man
gets rich by serving the wants of large numbers of people. The more
people he serves, the richer he gets. But the more people he serves,
the more difficult it is to see the specifics of his influence:
too many specifics. His influence becomes noise: not uniquely identifiable
with him.
Bill Gates
is an exception. He is a two-trick pony: operating system development,
which he bought (QDOS), and an internet browser, which he mostly
copied (Netscape). He accomplished a great deal by mass marketing
two peculiar and highly specialized products developed by others.
The more extensive
the division of labor, the more dispersed that any invention must
be in order to have any influence. It is dispersion that creates
influence: millions of people use it. But the more that it is used,
the less clear the connections of cause and effect.
Leonard E.
Read created the first libertarian think tank in 1946: The Foundation
for Economic Education. He also wrote one of the greatest teaching
articles ever written: "I,
Pencil," on the division of labor. It matches Adam Smith's discussion
of the pin factory in Chapter 1 of The
Wealth of Nations. Read once told me this:
You
will know you have been successful when someone quotes an idea you
wrote, and he has no idea where the idea came from.
My conclusion:
"Dispersion counts." The greater the dispersion, the greater the
impact and the less space you get in the history books. The
most famous person in the history of famous quotations is not Shakespeare.
It is Anon.
In terms of
lifestyle, the rich live pretty much as the rest of us do. Capitalism
has made us all incredibly wealthy. What does the super-rich person
have that we cannot afford? Two things: (1) a large home located
so far from the highway that we cannot see it; (2) a home so large
that it requires full-time servants. In short, he has what we cannot
see. If we can see it, he isn't very rich, unless he is so rich
that he does not care. Warren Buffett lives in the same house he
lived in when he was starting out. The house is in Omaha. He has
made his point. He is a one-trick pony: buying low and never selling.
The people
who are guaranteed to get into the history books are politicians
who start major wars and spend lots of other people's money . .
. or print it. In earlier eras, the senior general appointed by
the senior politician got into the history books, but not since
Korea. The division of labor has made generals into interchangeable
parts.
Inventors
used to get in, but the fate of Philo Farnsworth set the pattern.
He invented the television. Then there is Tim Berners-Lee. He invented
the World Wide Web. I can think of no one who has influenced more
people's lives. Neither of them made any money.
Who invented
the computer? (No, it was not John von Neumann.) Who invented the
mouse? Who invented the ball point pen? You can look it up on Wikipedia.
But who invented
Wikipedia? And what Austrian School economist was his inspiration?
These people
had this in common: the same number of hours in the day. They share
this with you.
So, the correct
question is not Saroyan's "Now what?" The question is "What next?"
WHAT
NEXT?
In a free
society, the creativity of everyone becomes part of society's capital.
The creativity of every participant counts for something. Through
voluntary exchange, we make offers and receive offers. We put our
talents to work.
Economists
like to speak of the vast array of tax-funded institutions and projects
such as highways as "social overhead capital." They love to focus
on the supposed productivity of social overhead capital. Yet they
are well aware of boondoggles. Boondoggles are sold to voters as
social overhead capital.
What is really
significant as social overhead capital is the religious and legal
framework of society, which is established by custom. But economists
and historians ignore this, because its effects are so widespread
and filled with noise. No one invented custom. Rarely can a custom
even be dated, other than a few holidays. The integration of customs
was not designed by anyone who gets into the history books.
In a free
society, each of us has an opportunity to make a breakthrough that
leaves a legacy. This can be for good or evil. But the great thing
about custom is that good developments tend to get imitated, while
bad ones get quarantined mostly by custom.
The worst
customs that evade the quarantine process are likely to have the
backing of the civil government. The government thwarts the system
of positive and negative feedback that custom supplies and the free
market institutionalizes through accounting: profit and loss. Government
taxes the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful.
When we see
early in life what our legacy should be, we can work on it, even
fund it from our productive efforts to meet market demand. Our legacy
may be our work in our jobs. But for most of the really creative
people who make it into the history books call them social
entrepreneurs their jobs are not their legacy. Their jobs
fund their legacy.
When your
job is your legacy, then your legacy will not be visible for long.
As a pastor of mine once put it, "You will be remembered slightly
longer than it takes for the water in a bucket to fill up the hole
that your hand left when you pulled it out of the water."
What next?
Job or legacy? How do they interrelate? What is your budget for
each? In money? In time?
The tyranny
of the urgent is a ruthless tyranny. It is the main source of the
words, "You will be 30 before you know it."
You will be
50 before you know it. Or were.
WHICH
LAYER ARE YOU?
I was fortunate.
In 1959, almost 50 years ago, I was in a classroom at my high school.
It was lunch time. I had a flash of insight. I had been in that
same room a year before at lunch time. Something in my perception
of time went "click." I knew I was running out of time.
In 1960, I
decided what my legacy should be: a study of what the Bible has
to say about economics.
In 1961, I
moved to the second layer.
The second
layer is when most people master their jobs and begin their legacy.
The third layer is the period of finalizing the legacy.
For me, the
timetable is on schedule. I plan to finish my economic commentary
on the Bible by the end of 2009. It will be about 25 volumes long.
If I do this, God willing, I will be two years ahead of schedule.
I had targeted 2012 as the deadline for the completion of the exegetical
foundation. I made that estimate in 1977. I have allocated 10 hours
a week, 50 weeks a year to this task, with part of one year off:
1999.
The finalization
process will be a series of books on the summation of the commentaries
and structuring this information into a coherent pattern. I produced
the outline in my 1987 book, Inherit
the Earth. I must fill in the gaps and add the footnotes.
A good model
for developing a legacy is Ludwig von Mises. He finished his first
major book in 1912: The
Theory of Money and Credit. This book reconstructed monetary
theory by reworking his teacher Böhm-Bawerk's theory of capital.
That was a major theoretical book. Mises was 31 years old.
Eight years
later, he took his insight into capital pricing and wrote an
essay that showed why socialism is irrational: no system of
pricing by asset owners. In 1922, his full-length refutation of
socialism was published: Socialism.
He continued
to rework economic theory in terms of these insights. His career
illustrates the saying, "You cannot change just one thing." He modified
Böhm-Bawerk's theory of capital in 1912, and he was not finished
in 1922.
In 1940, he
published a large treatise of economics in German. He was living
as an exile in Switzerland. In 1949, his magnum opus, Human
Action, was published by Yale University Press. Here was
a treatise on economics that was both consistent and comprehensive
not quite violating Gödel's theorem, but close. There had
never been anything like it before. He was 68 years old. By that
time, he had been a third layer man for almost half a century: 1903.
He stayed
on the job for another two decades, retiring from teaching in 1969.
Because he stayed on the job, Murray Rothbard and George Reisman
became his students, the former as an auditor and the latter as
one of his Ph.D. students. Also in this august group were Hans Sennholz
and Israel Kirzner. Only one of Mises's four Ph.D. students did
not attain a lasting academic legacy: Louis Spadaro. Four Ph.D.'s
in an academic career spanning over half a century does not seem
like much. In terms of impact, it was.
When you are
on the top layer, the clock should tick louder. Even though your
hearing is declining, you should hear that clock.
How loud is
it?
IMPLEMENTATION
If you are
a second-layer person, you must work on your legacy. You must begin
to budget for it. The time must be paid for. If you have a 40-hour
week, and you want to launch a business on the side, then the second
business will cut into your legacy time. I suggest that the second
business be related closely to your legacy.
If you do
not have the energy for a second business, then adopt a second unpaid
career as a volunteer.
If you do
not have time for a second career, I suggest that you take a pair
of wire cutters and cut the wire on your television set. (Unplug
it first.)
Your best
strategy is to translate whatever you know of potential significance
into a blog site or a web site. If not, then make sure you organize
it by using a good free-form data base. I like NoteScribe.
Your goal is to assemble the foundations of a package: a video project
with screencasts, a PDF manual, and a PDF workbook, plus audio MP3's
for training. A free screencast program is CamStudio. Some good
examples of teaching screencasts are on the NoteScribe site.
Here
is a site that will get you started.
Get something
in print or on-line. This discipline is crucial for leaving a legacy.
The legacy must be passed down to people who will put it to immediate
use and then extend it.
CONCLUSION
Moving to
the third layer is a rite of passage. It should be a turning point
in your life. There is no layer between you and the darkness.
Dylan Thomas
said not to go quietly into that night.
Not with YouTube
available, we shouldn't.
December
17, 2008
Gary
North [send him mail] is the
author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright ©
2008 LewRockwell.com
Gary
North Archives
|