What do Arnold Schwarzenegger going vegan, the U.S. advocating for lower carbon emissions, and Warren Buffett calling for higher capital gains taxes all have in common? They are all examples of what I like to call, “Do as I say, not as I did.”
In each of these cases, the person/entity in question was able to achieve success by pursuing one set of behaviors, but now promotes a different set of behaviors for others.
Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t become a famous bodybuilder while on a vegan diet. The U.S. didn’t become a global superpower while lowering carbon emissions (in the 1800s and 1900s). And Warren Buffett didn’t accumulate his wealth while paying a high capital gains tax rate. Do you see the problem?
I’m not saying that people can’t change their mind. But I find it a bit hypocritical for someone to advocate for a certain lifestyle or set of behaviors that they didn’t follow to gain their own success. It’s like, “Hey I used this method to become who I am, but you should do something else.”
It’s also quite convenient that they advocate for such changes after it no longer impacts them. Arnold no longer needs to be in top physical shape, so he can be vegan. The U.S. is already developed so it can push for lower carbon emissions. And Buffett is already wealthy so he doesn’t have to worry about capital gains taxes as much.
I love Buffett, but I’ve been critical of his take to raise capital gains taxes for a long time. It’s not about the policy itself, but the fact that he is calling for it. Think about it. Buffett won the game and then advocated for slowing down the other players.
When he wrote his famous NY Times op-ed “Stop Coddling the Superrich” in August 2011, he was already worth $57 billion (and the third richest person on Earth). So raising capital gains taxes would only affect his future wealth, not his existing wealth. He got to benefit from those lower rates for a good portion of his life and then insisted that they be increased. If he was advocating for higher wealth taxes, that would be a different story. But, he isn’t because that would actually impact him.
Buffett aside, the real place where the “do as I say, not as I did” philosophy becomes a problem is when people start assuming that someone’s current behavior is indicative of how they became successful. For example, I saw someone tweet out that it’s amazing how Elon Musk got to be the richest man in the world despite tweeting all the time.
This is a perfect example of someone’s current behavior having nothing to do with their current success. The fact is that Elon Musk was not spending any material amount of time on social media while he was building the companies he is known for today. However, now that he has these companies and all this wealth, he has the luxury to spend all day tweeting, if he so chooses.
This is why it’s bad to attribute someone’s current success to their current behavior. Because people change their behavior over time! They may change their habits. I’ve personally changed how I work, my exercise routine, and my diet many times in my adult life. It’s possible that I am an exception to the rule, but I bet you’ve changed some of your habits over time as well. And that’s fine, maybe even expected.
The problem is forgetting that other people do that too. So you can’t assume that someone’s current habits are responsible for their current place in life. It was their prior habits, which are likely unknown to you, that got them where they are today.
Think about this anytime you consume content. Ask yourself, “Did this person actually use the advice they are providing?” If they didn’t, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong, but you have reason to be skeptical.
I’ve tried applying this same test to my own content as well. And, if I’m being honest, I’ve been about 90% consistent in practicing what I preach. Starting in 2017, I advocated for Just Keep Buying and have purchased a diverse basket of income-producing assets every month since. In fact, outside of a few individual stocks and rebalancing, I’ve never sold an income-producing asset. Yes, I’ve traded altcoins and gold at various points, but I’ve never touched my diversified, passive holdings.
So, why did I give myself a score of 90%? Because while investing and traditional employment have built the vast majority of my wealth, I have still earned money from selling books. Technically, this isn’t inconsistent with my writing. After all, owning “your own products” is one of the income-producing assets I have highlighted for years.
But, at the same time, this isn’t a core part of my messaging. I don’t believe that you need to write books and create content to become financially successful. Nevertheless, some of my financial success comes from doing such things.
But it’s far less than you might think. Despite selling hundreds of thousands of copies of Just Keep Buying, after taxes it has contributed less than 10% to my total net worth. So, if I had never written a book, I’d be about 10% less wealthy today. It’s not nothing, but it doesn’t compare to the wealth I’ve built through traditional employment and investing. This is why I give myself a 90% score.
Either way, I am a fan of using content to build wealth. If you have the time, skill, and interest, give it a try. It can be incredibly difficult, but also incredibly rewarding. But, once again, this is not necessary. There are other options at your disposal to increase your income and build wealth. Content is just one of them.
I say all this because I care a lot about the consistency between what someone says and what they do. It’s arguably the most important aspect of someone’s character. And while I’m not perfect at this, my goal is to look back one day and say, “Do as I say and as I did.”
Thank you for reading.
If you liked this post, consider signing up for my newsletter.
This is post 429. Any code I have related to this post can be found here with the same numbering: https://github.com/nmaggiulli/of-dollars-and-data
