Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Scientists identify 4 personality types...


Study: people tend to cluster into four distinct personality “types”

New sorting algorithm yields more robust, replicable results than other methods.

People love taking online quizzes; just ask Buzzfeed and Facebook. A new study has sifted through some of the largest online data sets of personality quizzes and identified four distinct "types" therein. The new methodology used for this study—described in detail in a new paper in Nature Human Behavior—is rigorous and replicable, which could help move personality typing analysis out of the dubious self-help section in your local bookstore and into serious scientific journals.
Frankly, personality "type" is not the ideal nomenclature here; personality "clusters" might be more accurate. Paper co-author William Revelle (Northwestern University) bristles a bit at the very notion of distinct personality types, like those espoused by the hugely popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Revelle is an adamant "anti-fan" of the Myers-Briggs, and he is not alone. Most scientists who study personality prefer to think of it as a set of continuous dimensions, in which people shift where they fall on the spectrum of various traits as they mature.
What's new here is the identification of four dominant clusters in the overall distribution of traits. Revelle prefers to think of them as "lumps in the batter" and suggests that a good analogy would be how people tend to concentrate in cities in the United States.
"We're not saying that everyone is in one of those four categories."
Divide the country into four regions—north, south, east, and west—and then look at how the population density is distributed. You will likely find the highest concentration of people living in dense cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Houston. "But to describe everyone as living in one of those four cities is a mistake," he says. Similarly, "What we're describing is the likelihood of being at certain parts of that distribution; we're not saying that everyone is in one of those four categories."
The Northwestern researchers used publicly available data from online quizzes taken by 1.5 million people around the world. That data was then plotted in accordance with the so-called Big Five basic personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The Big Five is currently the professional standard for social psychologists who study personality. (Here's a good summary of what each of those traits means to psychologists.) They then applied their algorithms to the resulting dataset.

The four “types”

Revelle admits that when his Northwestern colleague and co-author Luis Amaral came to him with the initial findings using traditional clustering algorithms, he had found 16 distinct clusters. Revelle was instantly skeptical: "That was ridiculous," he says. He didn't think there were any types at all lurking in the data, and challenged Amaral and another co-author, Martin Gerlach, to better refine their analysis.
"These statistical learning algorithms do not automatically produce the right answer," says Revelle. "You need to then compare it to random solutions." That second step made all the difference, by imposing extra constraints to winnow down the results. The researchers ended up with four distinct personality clusters:
Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.
Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

All the young dudes: teenage boys are most likely to fall into the Self-centered category.
Enlarge / All the young dudes: teenage boys are most likely to fall into the Self-centered category.
Paramount Pictures

Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. "These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas," says Amaral. "These are good people to be in charge of things." Women are more likely than men to be role models.
Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.
The team used one data set on the first analysis and then replicated the same result on two other independent data sets, meaning their methodology is replicable—at least on similarly large datasets, which are much more common today, thanks to the Internet and rise of open access. "A study with a dataset this large would not have been possible before the web," says Amaral.

Want to measure your personality? Go to

Saturday, September 15, 2018

10 Reasons to be Okay with Being Disliked

10 Reasons to be Okay with Being Disliked

Do You Like Me
“If your number one goal is to make sure that everyone likes and approves of you, then you risk sacrificing your uniqueness, and, therefore, your excellence.” ~Unknown
We all know at least one hardcore people pleaser. You know the signs: She sleeps out in the rain and gets sick so her friend's dog can fit in the tent. She's 100 percent Republican but pretends she’s Democrat solely because her friends are.
If a friend calls her stupid, she whips up a batch of cookies and makes a card that reads, “I'm sorry for disappointing you.” And despite all her efforts to be liked by everyone, many people disrespect her.
Maybe that's you, maybe it's not—but odds are, you can relate at least a little to the desire to be well-liked. Who doesn't want to feel accepted, respected, and appreciated?
For most of my life, my need to be liked overshadowed all my other needs. I was always trying to manipulate perception, adapting myself to receive validation. It was draining and counterproductive, since very few people actually knew me—the real me—which is a prerequisite to liking me.
I've since learned it's actually a good sign if there are some people who don't accept or agree with me.
I'm not suggesting we should be rude, inconsiderate, or disrespectful. This post isn't about disregarding other people's feelings.
This is about releasing our stress about other people's opinions.
When you’re comfortable not being liked by everyone:

1. It allows you to be true to yourself.

The biggest disservice you can do yourself is shapeshifting to please your “audience” of the moment. It's exhausting (even to watch) and, more importantly, pointless. No one will get to know who you really are, which will leave you feeling empty.

2. It gives you the power to say no.

I believe people are good at heart. Still, it’s human nature to test each other’s boundaries. When you're willing to risk being disliked, you're able to say no when you need to. Your yeses and nos shapes your future, so choose them wisely.

3. You're more comfortable exploring your feelings.

Doesn't it feel good to just be where you are without pretending for someone else's sake? I'm not saying you should act in anger or fear, just that it's pretty exhilarating to say, “Hell yeah—I'm terrified” (or lonely or weak or struggling) regardless of what people will think.

4. Your candor can help other people.

An angst-filled younger me made a fake voodoo doll for a middle school teacher who was hard on me, but forever changed my life (not my proudest moment). It's often the least popular people who strike the deepest chord in us. Be unpopular when necessary and push people to be their best. You just may save someone's life.

5. You can freely express your thoughts.

One of the kindest things you can do for someone else is listen without judging. You deserve that same kindness, but you won't always get it. People will form opinions as you speak. Talk anyway. Let your words be kind but fearless.

6. It prepares you for greater success.

Pick a popular Twitter user and look at their @replies. Odds are they field their fair share of harsh comments. The higher you rise, the more attention you'll receive, both positive and negative. A willingness to be disliked helps you deal with the added scrutiny.

7. It teaches you to offer kindness and compassion without expectations.

It's not difficult to offer compassion to someone who treats you with respect and kindness. What's more valuable for your personal development, and to humanity as whole, is the ability to do what's right because it's right—not because you get something in return.

8. You can inspire other people.

There is someone I know who has the uncanny ability to keep going even when others try to pull her down. I learn from her every day. To this woman, anyone who doesn't appreciate her assertive, over-the-top personality is a reminder that she is unique and unafraid.

9. You can use your time wisely.

If you want to be liked by everyone, odds are you're spreading yourself way too thin trying to keep them all happy. We need to use our time judiciously to enrich ourselves and others instead of worrying about everyone’s perceptions.

10. You can choose to smile anyway.

You could use your energy to make daily inventories of everything that's wrong—the money you don't have, the esteem you didn't earn, the people you disappointed. Or you could commit to being your best, and then just sit back and smile. Life will always be a balancing act. Learn to teeter in serenity.
Do you like me image via Shutterstock

About Lori Deschene

Lori Deschene is the founder of Tiny Buddha and Recreate Your Life Story, an online course that helps you let go of the past and live a life you love. Her latest book, Tiny Buddha's Worry Journal, which includes 15 coloring pages, is now available. For daily wisdom, follow Tiny Buddha on TwitterFacebook & Instagram.


Published by "Globe In" April 27, 2015


Hint: fair trade isn't fair; 
free trade isn't free.
They may sound similar, but fair trade and free trade are often arch enemies.
Fair trade places restrictions on farmers and producers. It forces them to pay minimum wages, adopt safe working conditions and pay lip service to planetary protection.
Free trade removes all boundaries for all parties. It affords unfettered international export and import, free from taxes, tariffs, worker protections or pesky minimum wages.
Globally: fair trade makes things more expensive, free trade makes things cheaper; fair trade means workers earn more, free trade means workers earn less. So while free does mean cheap, it also means we earn collectively less money with which to buy all that cheap stuff.
Here’s a simple explanation of the difference between fair trade and free trade.


fair trade = price + premium
Fair trade standards set two payouts for producers — a “minimum price” and a “premium.”
The minimum price is meant to set a floor to keep farmers afloat in the event of a global commodities collapse. When market prices are above the minimum, which is typical, producers receive the market rate.
The premium is a bonus with restrictions. The premium doesn’t go directly to individual workers. Rather, the money must be used for worker welfare programs such as education, child care, facility improvements, etc…
Jonathan Rosenthal, Co-founder of Equal Exchange, says that “fair trade” could be more accurately described as “trade which is less unfair,” a fair criticism. In fact, going fair trade can actually mean less money for a producer. It costs a fair amount of money for producers to maintain fair trade certification. Meanwhile, market demand for fair trade products may not be high enough for producers to sell all of their crops under a fair trade label, forcing them to sell their remaining crops sans premium.
Fair trade is certainly not egalitarian, but it’s fair-er than free.


free < fair
Free trade is a bilateral agreement between countries to allow unrestricted import and export of goods.
The advantage to free trade is that it taps into the efficiency of global markets. Free trade can spur economic growth while making goods less expensive.
The downside is that all those goods get less expensive for a reason. It may be cheaper to build solar panels in China the US, which is all well and good (Who doesn’t want cheaper solar panels!), but those panels may be cheaper because workers are cheaper. So in addition to importing affordable Chinese solar panels, we’re exporting affable American jobs.
Especially frightening for the fair trade movement, free trade threatens to forgo worker protections and environmental standards Far from emancipating, free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic Partnerships threaten to force the world’s least empowered workers into feudalism.

Friday, September 14, 2018

by Bill O'Reilly  September 12, 2018  12:44 p.m.

To understand true evil, you have to see it.  That’s why the yearly 9/11 memorials are so important.  Millions of Americans saw their lives grossly harmed after Muslim terrorists committed mass murder on that day in 2001.  Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was pure evil and eventually was killed by Navy SEALs. 
But that event did not assuage the pain he caused.

In my town there lives an elderly man whose two sons were killed in the World Trade Center.  This man has led a life of honor, contributing mightily to his community and to his country.  He and his devoted wife suffered unimaginable pain 17 years ago and every day since.  There are tens of thousands of other Americans suffering as well.

The man in my town still believes in a just God even though no justice was granted him.  He well knows that he will never understand why evil visits the virtuous.  He simply accepts the fact.

In America, many of us tend to look away from evil.  
How can thousands of murders take place in Chicago without a national outcry?  How can some call dope pushers who sell deadly substances “non-violent” criminals?  How can clergy abuse children?  How can people falsely accuse others for money or power ruining lives?

The evil list is extensive.  But those who actually acknowledge an evil presence in the world are relatively few.

In writing my upcoming book “Killing the SS,” I saw first hand that evil lurks in every human being.  The Nazi SS guards who oversaw massive murder and torture in Hitler’s concentration camps were usually common folks before the war; farmers, merchants, laborers.  Yet they killed babies, children, and adults without objection.

Then they ate dinner.

Millions of Germans looked away from the evil of The Third Reich and some even helped the war criminals escape.  It is simply incomprehensible.  But it happened.

Today, we give lip service to fighting ISIS and other evil barbarians.  But very few Americans actually do the brutal work that needs to be done.  The rest of us often take a “pass” when evil drives by - especially if it doesn’t attack us.

But evil does, indeed, affect the righteous and the awful alike.  It exists inside each human being and it is active in villains everywhere.

We must see evil for what it is and fight hard against it.  We must also understand that no one is immune from it.  A good man on Long Island can tell you that first hand.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

US bosses now earn 312 times the average worker's wage, figures show

Thursday, July 19, 2018

The fall of GE and the legacy of Jack Welch

The fall of GE and the legacy of Jack Welch
by Allen Laudenslager & Bryan Neva

The legacy of John Francis "Jack" Welch Jr. is epitomized in the recent downfall of GE, an American titan of industry. GE was co-founded by Thomas Edison in 1892 and was one of the earliest companies listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average but was recently dropped due to its falling stock price and loss of value.

The company's difficulties can be traced directly to the management decisions made over the last 38 years beginning with the hiring of Jack Welch as CEO in 1980 and continuing with Jeff Immelt in 2000. GE shifted from a manufacturing company, which created world-class products and developed new and innovative manufacturing methods, into a finance and mergers & acquisitions (M&A) firm.
More than any other person, all those decisions can be traced back to Jack Welch's vision in which he charted the short-term thinking and profit-at-any-price mentality that typified the policies and practices at GE that lead directly and inevitably to it’s current reduced state. And what is most appalling is that so many people saw the trend and publicly warned GE's board of directors that they were building a house of cards that would eventually collapse.

Welch, Immelt, and GE tried to defy the natural law in building their house of cards: if you don't build your house on a firm foundation, eventually, it will collapse! And the other natural law that you'll reap what you sow: you can't plant weeds and expect beautiful flowers to grow; you can't plant ugly, nuisance trees and expect to harvest a bountiful crop of delicious fruit. 

Welch and Immelt treated their employees as expendable units-of-production. They didn't take care of the assets that helped generate revenue for the company. Instead, they made money their god. The only thing that mattered to them was their stock price.

While the GE family of employees, customers, and suppliers will now have to pay the bill for all of GE's short-term thinking over the past 38 years, GE's management gets off scot-free with golden parachutes.

Monday, July 16, 2018

What the sad decline of GE tells us about America's cultish CEO worship

What the sad decline of GE tells us about America's cultish CEO worship

GE's problems are the fault of Jeff Immelt, but also of Jack Welch: Our view

The fall of General Electric has been nothing short of spectacular. The world’s most valuable company in 2000, it has been in a state of accelerating decline ever since. It has sold off key units. Just last month it announced plans to spin off its health care division and unload its 62.5 percent stake in an oil field services company. It has also shed value through its declining stock price — more than $150 billion since January 2017. And last month it suffered the indignity of being tossed out of the famed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Naturally, much of the blame has fallen on Jeff Immelt, CEO of the company from 2001 until last year, and on the GE board of directors that kept him on for so long.
Immelt has an impressive record for bone-headed and ill-timed acquisitions. He took his storied company into the subprime mortgage business in 2004, just as a credit bubble was getting ready to pop. In 2015 he bought the power generation division of French multinational named Alstom. In so doing he expanded GE’s position in coal-fired turbines just as utilities were moving to natural gas and renewables. He also ensnared the company in France’s notoriously rigid regulatory climate.
But there is more to the story than villainizing a corporate villain. The fall of GE is at least in part a story of excess adulation of its erstwhile super CEO, Jack Welch. One of the reasons GE’s valuation has dropped so much is that it was vastly inflated in the 1990s as gullible Wall Street analysts bought into the myth of Welch.
The company reached a peak market capitalization of $601 billion in 2000 as Welch delivered quarter after quarter of increasing profits. In reality, these profits came by shortchanging capital investments, a move that would hurt the company later, and by tweaking the numbers in the financial unit known as GE Capital. When the financial crisis hit, GE Capital was so undercapitalized that the company needed what was billed as an investment, but was more of a bailout, from Warren Buffett.
This is not to say that Welch was as bad as Immelt. He was not. He did a lot of things right at GE to offset some of the more questionable moves he made.
But it is to say that he was far from the best CEO of his generation, or of the 20th century, as some of his champions proclaimed in the 1990s.
In fact the whole GE story should be an object lesson in the dangers of buying into the idea that the right, extraordinary, CEO can deliver outsize returns. This argument has been used widely to justify excessive compensation packages for senior executives while not delivering promised long-term returns.
On far too many occasions, CEOs have been awarded massive pay packages and retirement deals for returns later shown to be the product of financial engineering or macroeconomic trends they had nothing to do with.
It is time to revisit the cultish search for the super CEO. The GE story shows how overdue that is.
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Humanity is more important than money — it’s time for capitalism to get an upgrade

Humanity is more important than money — it’s time for capitalism to get an upgrade

Jul 13, 2018 Andrew Yang | TEDx 

What capitalism prioritizes, the world does more of. So how can we change capitalism so that it focuses on what humans really want and need? Entrepreneur Andrew Yang has a surprising proposal.

Think of the activities on the list below:
Parenting or caring for loved ones
Teaching or nurturing children
Creating art, music, dance
Working in struggling regions near our hometowns
Preserving the environment
Reading or writing for pleasure or personal growth
Preventative health care
Character-building for your kids, your team, yourself
Building community connections
Having a hobby
Becoming involved in local government

Most of us do some or many of these things — and usually, we don’t do them for money. What these activities add up to is what we might call a normal life, a well-rounded life of care and character, rich with community and creativity and balance. When you do these things, you don’t think of yourself as participating in capitalism.

But the fact is, capitalism moves and energizes the modern world. And what capitalism values, our world does more of; what it doesn’t, we do less of. Many of us feel like the activities of a normal life are becoming harder and harder to accomplish. So the question becomes: In a system where capitalism is a prime determinant of value, how can we preserve what we truly value as humans, what matters to us beyond money?

I’m someone who was educated to thrive and dominate in our capitalist system. And my deep conviction now is: it has to change. I’m an Ivy League graduate who followed the 59 percent of my peers into one of the four jobs we all take — lawyer, business consultant, finance, technology — in one of the four US cities we all move to, and in the process abandoning our hometowns and the dreams that first inspired our academic success. I watched the country’s best-educated young people fall into jobs that were designed to harvest and concentrate wealth, working insane hours to pay off insane loans. And my hometown friends who didn’t end up on the Ivy League track are facing a bleaker future, as automation destroys more and more jobs in towns across America, disrupting communities and families. No matter where we stand on the socioeconomic ladder, the future of the “normal life” doesn’t look good.

In the US, and in much of the developed world, our current form of capitalism is failing to produce an increasing standard of living for most of its citizens. It’s time for an upgrade. Adam Smith, the Scottish economist who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, is often regarded as the father of modern capitalism. His ideas — that the “invisible hand” guides the market; that a division of labor exists and should exist; and that self-interest and competition lead to wealth creation — are so deeply internalized that most of us take them for granted.

Today, many people contrast “capitalism” with “socialism,” the social ownership or democratic control of industries. The perception is that capitalism — as embodied by the West and the United States in particular — won the war of ideas by generating immense growth and wealth and elevating the standard of living of billions of people. By contrast, socialism — represented by the Soviet Union, which collapsed in 1991, and China, which moderated its approach in the 1980s — didn’t work in practice and was thoroughly discredited.

This assessment of capitalism triumphing over socialism misses a couple of important points. First, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist system. There have been many different forms of capitalist economies ever since money was invented around 5,000 years ago. The current form of institutional capitalism and corporatism is just the latest of many different versions. Similarly, there are many forms of capitalism in service around the world right now. For example, Singapore is the fourth richest country in the world in terms of per-capita GDP. It’s had an unemployment rate of 2.2 percent or lower since 2009 and is regarded as one of the most free and open, pro-business economies in the world. Yet the government in Singapore routinely shapes investment policy, and government-linked firms dominate telecommunications, finance and media in ways that would be unthinkable in America, Norway, Japan or Canada. Like Singapore, many countries’ form of capitalism is steered not by an unseen hand — but by clear government policy.

Imagine a new type of capitalist economy that’s geared toward maximizing human well-being and fulfillment. These goals and GDP would sometimes go hand-in-hand, but there would be times when they wouldn’t be aligned. For example, an airline removing passengers who’d already boarded a plane in order to maximize its profitability would be good for capital but bad for people. The same goes for a drug company charging extortionate rates for a life-saving drug. Most Americans would agree that the airline should accept the lost revenue and the drug company accept a moderate profit margin. But what if this idea was repeated over and over again throughout the economy? Let’s call it human-centered capitalism — or human capitalism for short.

Human capitalism would have a few core tenets:
1. Humanity is more important than money.
2. The unit of an economy is each person, not each dollar.
3. Markets exist to serve our common goals and values.

In business, there’s a saying that “what gets measured gets managed for,” so we need to start measuring different things. The concepts of GDP and economic progress didn’t exist until the Great Depression. However, when economist Simon Kuznets introduced it to Congress in 1934, he cautioned, “The welfare of a nation can … scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.” It’s almost like he saw income inequality and bad jobs coming.

Our economic system must shift to focus on bettering the lot of the average person. Instead of having our humanity subverted to serve the marketplace, capitalism has to be made to serve human ends and goals.

In addition to GDP and job statistics, the government could adopt measurements like:
Average physical fitness and mental health
Quality of infrastructure
Proportion of the elderly in quality care
Marriage rates and success
Deaths of despair; substance abuse
Global temperature variance and sea levels
Re-acclimation of incarcerated individuals and rates of criminality
Artistic and cultural vibrancy
Dynamism and mobility
Social and economic equity
Civic engagement
Responsiveness and evolution of government

It would be straightforward to establish measurements for each of these and update them periodically. It would be similar to what Steve Ballmer (TEDxPennsylvaniaAvenue talk: Our nation in numbers) set up at Everyone could see how we’re doing and be galvanized around improvement.

This could be tied into a Digital Social Credit (DSC) system, in which people who help move society in a particular direction might be rewarded. For example, a journalist who uncovered a source of waste or an artist who beautified a city or a hacker who strengthened our power grid could be rewarded with social credits. So could someone who helped another person recover from addiction, or helped acclimate an ex-convict into the workforce. Even someone who maintained a high level of physical fitness and helped others do so could be rewarded and recognized.

Maybe you smile in disbelief at the concept of “social credits,” but it’s based on a system currently in use in about 200 communities around the United States: Time Banking. In Time Banking, people trade time and build credits within their communities by performing various helpful tasks — transporting an item, walking a dog, cleaning up a yard, cooking a meal, providing a ride to the doctor, etc. The idea was championed in the US by Edgar Cahn, a law professor and anti-poverty activist in the mid-1990s as a way to strengthen communities.

Despite the success of Time Banks in some communities, they haven’t caught hold that widely in the US in part because they require a certain level of administration and resources to operate. But imagine a supercharged version of Time Banking backed by the federal government where in addition to providing social value, there’s real monetary value underlying it.

The government could put up significant amounts of DSCs as prizes and incentives for major initiatives. For example, they could allocate 100 million DSCs to reduce obesity levels in Mississippi or 1 billion DSCs to improve high school graduation rates in Illinois, and then let people take various actions to collect it. Companies could help meet goals and create and sponsor campaigns around various causes. Nonprofits and NGOs would generate DSCs based on how much good they do and then distribute it back to volunteers and employees. New organizations and initiatives could be crowdfunded by DSCs instead of money, as people ‘vote’ by sending points in.

We could create an entirely new parallel economy around social good.

The most socially detached would likely ignore all of this, of course. But many people love rewards and feeling valued. I get obsessed with completing the 10-punch card for a free sandwich at my deli. We could spur unprecedented levels of social activity without spending that much. DSCs could become cooler than dollars, because you could advertise how much you have and it would be socially acceptable.

The power of this new marketplace and currency can’t be overstated. Most of the entrepreneurs, technologists and young people I know are champing at the bit to work on our problems. We can harness the country’s ingenuity and energy to improve millions of lives if we could just create a way to monetize and measure these goals.

I’m no fan of big government. The larger an organization is, the more cumbersome and ridiculous it often gets. I’ve also spent time with people at the highest levels of government, and it’s striking how stuck most of them feel. One Congressperson said to me, “I’m just trying to get one big thing done here so I can go home.” He’d been in Congress for 7 years at that point. Another joked that being in DC was like being in Rome, with the marble there to remind you that nothing will change.

But I’ve concluded there’s no other way to make these changes than to have the federal government reorganize the economy. Even the richest and most ambitious philanthropists and companies either operate at the wrong scale or have multiple stakeholders that make big, long-term commitments difficult to sustain. We’re staring at trillion-dollar problems, and we need commensurate solutions. We’re in a slow-moving crisis that is about to speed up.

Excerpted from the new book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America’s Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future by Andrew Yang. Copyright © 2018 by Andrew Yang. Used with permission from Hachette Books. All rights reserved.
Watch Andrew Yang’s TEDxGeorgetowntalk here:

Featured Post

Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Distributism

Capitalism vs. Socialism  vs. Distributism by Bryan J. Neva, Sr. Since ancient times, people have bought, sold, and traded land,...