From Secrets of a Millionaire Mind – T. Harv Eker:
[He says “Rich”, I prefer “Wealthy”]

Rich people believe “I create my life”.
Poor people believe “life happens to me”.

Rich people play the money game to win.
Poor people play the money game to NOT lose.

Rich people are committed to being rich.
Poor people want to be rich.

Rich people think big.
Poor people think small.

Rich people focus on opportunities.
Poor people focus on obstacles.

Rich people admire and respect other rich and successful people.
Poor people resent rich and successful people.

Rich people associate with positive, successful people.
Poor people associate with negative or unsuccessful people.

Rich people are willing to promote themselves and their value.
Poor people think negatively about selling and promotion.

Rich people are bigger than their problems.
Poor people are smaller than their problems.

Rich people are excellent receivers.
Poor people are poor receivers.

Rich people choose to get paid on results.
Poor people choose to get paid based on time.

Rich people think “both”.
Poor people think “either/or”.

Rich people focus on their net worth.
Poor people focus on their working income.

Rich people manage their money well.
Poor people mismanage their money well.

Rich people have their money work hard for them.
Poor people work hard for their money.

Rich people act in spite of fear.
Poor people let fear stop them.

Rich people constantly learn and grow.
Poor people think they already know.

Jim’s additions – May 2010:

Wealthy people lead
Poor people follow

Wealthy people embrace risk
Poor people avoid risk

Wealthy people inspire people
Poor people brings others down

Wealthy People think positively ( glass is half full)
Poor people think negatively (glass is half empy)

Wealthy people embrace change (if it ain’t broke, break it)
Poor people avoid change (let sleeping dogs lie)

Wealthy people say “I can do that”
Poor people say “I can’t do that”

Wealthy people are reliable
Poor people are unreliable

Wealthy people help others
Poor people help themselves

Wealthy people spend 90% of what they earn
Poor people spend 110% of what they earn

Life is all about choices…

I guess I just don’t “feel” conservative anymore. Unlike most people, I seem to be getting more liberal as I age. One of the reasons I’m having trouble identifying with conservatism is that I’ve recently noticed a disturbing habit of some conservatives (certainly not all) to wear their ignorance like a badge of honour. Case in point, I received a phone call last evening from an aspiring candidate for the provincial Conservatives in the upcoming Fall election. She was looking to sign me up. We were having a lovely chat until I mentioned I was in the renewable energy business. Well. She certainly was having none of that. This Liberal green scheme, buying jobs on the backs of taxpayers was going to put us all in the poorhouse! Why in God’s name would we pay more than 6 cents per kWH, when it’s readily available at that rate from nuclear?? When she had run out of steam, and I had a chance to get a word in edgewise, I explained to her that we already pay much more than 6 cents when you factor in delivery charges and ‘debt reduction’, we BUY electricity from NY and QC during peak summer hours for $1.35 per kWH, and that if we factored the real cost of nuclear we’d be paying much, much more (It costs about $35B to build one nuclear plant, and that doesn’t take into account the ongoing maintenance costs). I also explained that less than 1% of the entire FIT program will pay the highest rate – 80.2 cents, and that the entire program over 20 years is forecasted to cost about the same as what the Federal Conservatives paid for the recent G20 Summit in Toronto over one weekend – $2B. The total cost of the FIT program over twenty years will amount to about $3.50 per monthly bill, per power consumer, about the cost of a large Starbucks. It will create some say 50,000 jobs. Ontario has a long history of subsidizing industries (witness the automotive industry in Ontario) to create jobs, and grow the economy. So, how is this different?

She paused and said “Maybe I don’t have all my facts straight, but I know I don’t like it”. That says is all.

Do I think 80.2 cents is economically viable? Not in this lifetime. But is hydro electricity economically viable? Is Nuclear electricity economically viable? What the OPA is charging for electricity (6.5 cents/KWH) doesn’t even come close to covering the real costs of those two whoppers. 80.2 cents is a drop in the bucket when you compare the real cost of other methods of power generation. And what about during peak summer hours when Ontario buys electricity from NY state at $1.35/KWH?

And let’s not forget that they’re doing something very interesting here – they are decentralizing the power production (lowering risk), and outsourcing power production (many small independent producers) so they absolve themselves of all the capital costs of power production, and future maintenance costs for 20 years. And with Ontario Content requirements, they are also creating a ton of manufacturing jobs, and tax revenue in the process. Over all, it’s not as expensive as it looks, and for once, I think the Government got it right.
Oh, yeah, and it’s GREEN – how sweet is that??

Recently, however, we’ve been hearing about vocal opponents to the land lease model who are doing their best to discourage land-owners from having anything to do with companies like ours. I heard about one land lease nay-sayer who said something like “Whatever you do, don’t enter into a land lease – they make all the money!”. Let’s think about that logic (or lack thereof) for a minute. That’s like saying a building owner should never lease out space in his building because businesses will come along, pay them rent to be there, invest large sums of their own money in their venture, take all the risk and make money in the process. If land owners want also to be solar business entrepreneurs, let them fill their boots. But, if they just want to be landlords, then why shouldn’t they lease out space on their unused land, on which they are paying taxes, and gather some revenue from it?

That’s what I’m going to say if I ever have the opportunity to rebut one of those idiots.

Jim

Last week I got a call from a government representative asking if I’d be kind enough to give a reference for a former employee. Sure, I said. What time could he come by to interview me, he asked. Uhh… what? What do you mean “come by” and “interview” me. Is that really necessary? Couldn’t we just do this right now over the phone and save all that time and money? Well, said he, I’m not sure they’ll accept it. What?? Who the heck is “They” and why would the information gathered by phone be any different than in person? Alright, he said, and the interview went off without a hitch. During the conversation he revealed the not only was he sent to do individual, onsite interviews with gawd-knows-how-many references, for gawd-only-knows how many applicants, but that he had been sent from Toronto to do the job. So, we don’t have anybody here in Ottawa where the position is to be filled that can handle the job, that we have to send someone from out of town at great per diem expense and put them up in a hotel??

Okay, right about now you’re saying, Jim push your pants back down to your navel, and stop railing against the government, but you have to admit that this is unusual and unnecessary at best, and downright excessive and abusive to the taxpayer at worst. It’s this kind of wasteful behaviour that leads to the unbelievable taxes we all pay. It’s making us less competitive, and it’s driving away investment and talent.

And did it make any difference in the person they hired? Do you think the tax payer got better value because of this process? My guess is probably not. But what do I know, I’m  just a lowly tax payer.

Jim Cummings, President & CEO
Cummings Mitchell Inc.

Story number two: About 3 weeks ago my golden retriever started to limp after having chased a rabbit. One trip to the vet later, and it was determined she needed knee surgery. We were given the name of a veterinary surgeon. Yesterday at 11:00 AM I called to make the appointment. Could I come in at 1:30 PM? Sure, I said. The surgeon spent a good hour explaining two different procedures, and took his time to make sure I was completely informed. I never felt rushed in any way. Then the shocker – would I like to leave the dog with them  now? She can stay over night, have the surgery tomorrow morning, and be ready to go home the following day. The process from initial phone call to completed surgery took exactly 23 hours. She’s fine now (or at least she will be in a couple of months).

This is what’s wrong with our health care system. Why is it that I had to wait a year and a half for surgery, and my dog gets treated in under 24 hours? In terms of quality of service the two systems were virtually identical. The only difference I can see  is that one system I pay for directly, and the other I pay for in my taxes. Oh yeah, and one takes 18 months. Hmm… it seems to me someone needs to take a look at this before all the baby boomers need heart surgery, or new hips. Oh, and by the way, according to the Canada Health Act I have no choice but to wait. There will be no paying to cue jump. So, it really is a dog’s life, I guess. I hope Michael Moore reads this.

Then this – today it was brought to my attention that Enbridge Gas includes in their monthly bills to businesses a “Customer Charge”. Excuse me? A what??? So I called Enbridge, and after the prescribed automated attendant navigation, I finally spoke to a live human being who explained that the Customer Charge was a “cost recovery” mechanism for things like “reading meters”. I’m not making this up. That’s what she said. Let’s be clear here – if it was $3 or $4  a month, it would be an irritant, but my monthly ‘Customer Charge’ is (are you ready for this?) a whopping $165, and we are not a big company. So, let’s get this straight, it’s August, and my business has not burned one cubic millimeter of natural gas in 90 days, and I have to pay $495 for Enbridge to read my meter?? The sad truth is that Enbridge will get away with this outrageous abuse as long as their customers do nothing, and say nothing. It’s rude, it’s ridiculous, and it’s real. And by the way, what brain trust came up with the name ‘Customer Charge’? At the very least they could have made the effort to call it something a little more innocuous or confusing that sounded as if the customer actually received some sort of benefit, like “Delivery Maintenance Charge” or something equally creative. But no, it’s a “Customer Charge”, apparently just for the privilege of being an Enbridge customer. Unbelievable, but true.