Wondrously, on a sub-glacial level at least, the author has acquired the skills to embark upon a career as a movie scriptwriter. To satisfy the skeptics, who else has the capability to crucify a theme simply by creating sequels upon sequels? Verily, the analogy may be harsh. While in most cases continuations are simply mundane, entertaining the masses requires genius level imagination and sometimes 90 minutes or one article for that matter, are insufficient to encompass the limitless horizons of the mind.
Accordingly, on the narcissist assumption that the previous two parts of this series of articles have undoubtedly established that profit is the lifeline at all levels of society; we need not justify the need for forging ahead. So if it is all about profit, how do you make profit? Unfortunately, while there are many best-sellers which claim to have the answer, there are no free lunches. Realistically, if making profit could simply be mastered by reading a book, this article would ab initio be redundant. And logically, if someone did actually stumble upon the secret, why would the person waste time writing a book about it?
Evidently, profit-makers don't even have time for an autobiography; they hire others to do a biography while they continue making money as long as health permits. Again reading biographies of the profit makers with a view to cracking the "profit code" is a waste of time and energy. If at all that was possible, the secrets, by now, would have been compiled in a book, which brings us back to the previous paragraph! At best biographies have an entertainment value and probably placate our vanities, fantasies and complexes.
Accordingly, if the secrets of profit making cannot be articulated in a tangible form, they can hardly be a part of any curriculum. Schools and university can teach you medicine, but they cannot teach you how to be a rich doctor. Once more if the teachers understood profit making, why would they be teaching?
Observing and imitating the habits and evident characteristics of profit-makers is another exercise in futility. Reasonably, close family would have the best shot at this strategy, but how many examples exist where spouses, siblings and off springs of profit-makers achieved similar status. Additionally, this hypothesis has endless outcomes, since if the sibling achieved the status of a profit-maker his immediate family would also be a beneficiary, so on so forth. In this scenario everyone would have been rich, and we know that is not the case.
As the unconfirmed story goes, Henry Ford, on a polite inquiry by a waiter at the Club House relating to his usual USD 1 tips and his sons extravagant USD 100 tips, retorted, "His father is a rich man". Irrespective of whether the story is factual or hearsay, it eloquently establishes the principle that profit-making skill is not genetic. One can also point out that profit makers loathe spending their hard-earned money. True, but the story does not elaborate on how they earn it in the first place.
Having argued that profit-making skill can neither be taught nor inherited, we move towards the improbable. Divine intervention, or more simply luck, is the key ingredient for making profits. But if this was true, only the faithful should be rich. Further, Mr Rockefeller, if he was alive, would be extremely disgusted if the creation of Standard Oil was attributed to luck. While the outcome is ordained by Allah SWT, honest hard work is vested with mankind.
On a lighter note, analysts hastily associate economic growth during the previous regime with luck. If that was the case, how stupid are we for removing it as opposed to continuously cashing in on a lucky streak.
On a serious note, we seem to be getting nowhere in solving the mystery of the profit-makers. "Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them." - William Shakespeare. Personally, outside of Taqwa, the ability to make profit is the sole criteria for adjudicating greatness. As propagated in the earlier article of this series, profit on a national level is simply increasing national assets. While the mode may be different between medieval and modern times, ie conquest and economic growth respectively, the objective has always been the same, profit. Ergo, great leaders, great warriors and great entrepreneurs fall within the same category.
Admittedly this is a highly materialistic and microscopic methodology to adopt, but hey Bill Gates is a great philanthropist because he made profits. Minus tangible gains, all else equals zero. Shakespeare may now be labelled great, but in his time he was simply trying to earn a living. Behind every motivated person is someone trying to make a buck!
For the persistent critic, a final explanation, the exclusion of morality includes great men with a higher purpose in life. In addition, espousing of profit for these submissions is limited to its economic and tangible connotation only. Definitely, it can have a different interpretation when considered in the context of life after death, which is outside the scope of our deliberations.
Persevering ahead, it would seem that Shakespeare might just have hit the nail on the head, well almost. Since achieving greatness would only be possible or having greatness thrust upon you could only bear fruitful results, if you were born great. Otherwise, the result invariably would be an obscure failure completely ignored by history.
Indubitably, attributing profit-making skills with birthright is akin to using the escape hatch when the heat gets unbearable. In the author's defence, others have attempted to solve this riddle through multiple techniques but nobody to date has invented a profit-maker. Either you have it or you don't!
This deduction can probably, also be supported by profiling a profit maker through available literature on their habits and biographies. He is intelligent, hardworking, focused, perceptive, visionary, risk-taker, fearless, confident and austere. In a villainous depiction he is shrewd, selfish, calculating, miserly, greedy and an opportunist. What are, however, common in both versions are hard work, vision and risk-taking, in short a person driven!
So how do you consolidate all these virtues or sins, depending upon how you view the profile, in one person? Most of us fail on the primary criteria, risk-taking. The fear of loss alone is sufficient for the vast majority to prefer inaction over uncertainty. Speculative investing motivated by greed is better linked with stupidity than risk-taking.
At this point it is necessary to explain the two sides of the above profile and stratify our data. The key difference is that Profit makers reasonably adhere to the norms of society; conversely they are branded as criminals. But remember civilisation has evolved, while conquest were the norm previously, optics require international acceptance of any similar misadventure. Within the acceptable norms of modern times we are concerned only with the profit makers.
Nonetheless, the attributes identified earlier have more to do with the soul than the body. Lacking the knowledge to bisect the soul, we go with the hypothesis that profit-makers are born. Reflection is tiring, especially when limited to a singular dimension. Having concluded that generating profit is essential and you need a profit-maker to do so, we take a break till next time. Our objective for the next part than is how to identify and select a profit-maker.