Tuttle Twins Ban – Episode 620

This transcript was auto-generated and may contain errors.

[00:01] Welcome to the Prosperity Podcast. Prosperity thinkers, on this episode, we’re going to be talking about the Tuttle Twins and some news that has happened with them. Kim, do you find the Tuttle Twins to be controversial? We’re going to start with that question. Yes and no. It depends on your community, right? So in many of the communities that I run circles in, the Tuttle Twins are literally celebrities. The stories that they tell, the cartoon that they have, the myriad books, their newsletter, etc. A lot of the communities that I run circles in, those are precious items. They are read by parents, grandparents, and children. And of course, Tuttle Twins even has books for babies, like the little cardboard

[00:53] books, ABC for economics, and 123 for, I don’t remember what they’re called, but I’ve given those so many baby presents. My daughter rolled her eyes and was like, oh, of course you would give this. I love it. That’s awesome. Nevertheless, I will readily admit that in some communities, you better believe their thinking, their questions, their stories that they bring up are absolutely controversial. Yes. So I’m going to tell you how controversial they are. It’s not that they maybe made someone mad because I mean, hey, listen, if you get someone to think, that’s dangerous. So this is what it is. They ended up having their books banned in a library. And here it is, quote, it says, they promote a specific

[01:48] political and economic perspective that clashes with the library’s policy to include all points of view. Can you believe it? Wow. I can believe it. And how sad. Okay. In fact, just stop right there. They want to include all points of view. That’s their policy. Then why aren’t they including that point of view? Points of view that fit their agenda. Come on. Oh, I didn’t get that. That’s the silent stuff that you can’t say. I mean, come on now. So let’s look at it from their point of view, a library’s point of view. Why could this be dangerous material? And I’m not saying this in sarcasm, like in reality, why could this be dangerous material? Because as you stated, it does cause people to think it causes people to step back,

[02:48] families and look at their local community businesses in a different light, to look at things like capitalism in what could be a different light, and to look at things like what kind of information you’re sharing with your children at some fairly young ages in a different light. Because I think a lot of people would look at that and say, my kids don’t need to know that. Yes, they do. The children that are literally two, three, four years old. I mean, I’m not going to kid myself. I’m well aware that my baby granddaughter did not learn anything from her ABCs of economics from the total twins. Nevertheless, when she is one and a half, two and a half, three years old, she absolutely is picking up on these things. And it’s already proven. I mean, at one and a half,

[03:52] she can’t really speak yet, but she can understand. It’s already evident. Does she have, as she’s going through her day, a value creation, mentality, mindset, way of being? Or does she have an entitlement, everything’s about me, everyone’s here to serve me, mindset, creation, way of being, etc. And it’s uber obvious when it is one or the other and the total twins espouse that value creation space. They do. You know, as I think about some of the reasons why a library would want to ban this, it’s also because on top of challenging the thought, it gets them to tread in unknown water. And a person that’s not educated can’t handle that. They can’t. Right. Or is closed minded with a fixed mindset that says,

[04:59] I can’t learn anything new. I don’t want to learn anything new. I’m stuck in my way of thinking and I’m going to stay here. Yeah. You know, there’s something, we’ve actually saw the pendulum swing the opposite way. And this will be a question that I’m going to ask you, because you’ve worked with a variety of people. And which is this entrepreneurship and business ownership has risen in popularity over the last, you know, two decades, we’ll say. But there’s a lot of people that say you can only be successful if you’re an entrepreneur. Do you agree in that or not agree with that? I do not agree with that because we’ve got numerical and family proof where somebody that’s just earning regular money at a regular job can without investing get to that what is today’s

[06:01] kind of a magical $3 million mark. If you go interview all kinds of financial experts, they’re going to say that in order to quote retire, which nevermind that I don’t like that idea, you need at least 3 million. You know, people quote a million all the time, but that’s not the number. So 3 million is kind of that number. Well, we’ve absolutely positively proven that you can, at very basic income levels, get to $3 million without investing. So I’m not talking about, you know, the one off person that happens to hit it big, which happens, but then the many people that lose everything from trying to hit it big. It’s not what I’m talking about. I’m just talking about basic savings behavior, cashflow control that can occur to get somebody that $3 million.

[06:47] Now, that being said, I think it’s uber important that somebody in the family is entrepreneurial for that additional upside opportunity and the thinking that goes with it. Nevertheless, you do not have to own a business to become financially successful. Yeah, I really like that because it’s on the opposite side, meaning the books, the tunnel twins books getting banned because that’s going to challenge our thought. The opposite side is we can only do things if we’re an entrepreneur and we risk it all and go big. And those are two extremes. And the prosperous thinking way does not sit there. But you said one thing, which you’ve mentioned in other podcasts, and it was about retirement. Give us the snapshot, your disdain for retirement real quick. It is selfish. Retirement is a

[07:37] selfish act. The definition of retirement is taking yourself out of service. We were put on this earth to serve. And as a human being, if I’m going to make my entire day about me and travel and chilling out and relaxing, you know, all the definitions of retirement, that’s extremely selfish because I am not utilizing the talent that God gave me and serving others with that talent. And so it is imperative that we shift our thinking around this societal construct, which has only been in society since about the 1930s. Prior to that, arguably, people didn’t live that long, but it didn’t matter. They weren’t thinking about retirement. It’s been quoted numerous times. Retirements never mentioned in the Bible.

[08:30] Yes, you have to be saving for some time in the future, yet the typical concept of retirement is detrimental. There’s a few people that can pull it off financially, and there’s a few people that can pull it off emotionally and socially and psychologically. But for most of us, it’s a selfish act. It doesn’t go well. It’s not helpful. And it doesn’t even serve the person that is trying to be served ourselves because we’re taken out of our purpose. No sense at all. I love it. That’s so good. Okay. So I’m going to pull in, this is going to sound like a curve ball. All right. But I’m going to connect the two. I think I can do this. We’re going to try. I saw this interview clip with Jordan Peterson,

[09:17] and I love the way he thinks. He was asked a question. And the question was, what is one of the biggest lies that has been sold to society and this generation? He said the food pyramid. He goes, they were bribed by the agriculture department to talk and to push the grains and to push these sugars. And the scientists in the food department knew, and this is what he goes, they knew that it was going to cause an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and cancer, but it wouldn’t come in haunt until the next generation or the further. So Kim, let’s take that statement, a food pyramid, and let’s apply that to finances and what you’re teaching. Well, it is absolutely the same thing because what has been sold as a bill of goods, in addition to the retirement that I’ve already spoken about,

[10:24] is investing. And the concept of, if you take on more risk, you get more reward. It is absolutely stated as if that’s an absolute, and it’s not. The definition of risk is the propensity for loss. And so we have a whole generation that is swinging for the fences every single time. They expect every investment to do really well, and there was a good 30-year period of time where most investments didn’t do really well. Nevertheless, first of all, I think we’re in a different era. And second of all, the younger generation, they’ve seen what happened in 08, 09. They saw what happened in 2020. They’re not interested in putting their money at risk when they could potentially lose it. So that’s the next bill

[11:24] of goods. That is a solid bill of goods. I think there’s one other piece to it this way, which is the prosperity thinkers brand, which is there are a lot of these Gen Z and millennials that have lost hope. They feel like they can’t ever buy a house. They feel like they can’t do anything else. And so we see the boomers retiring and being taken out of service. We see the Gen Zs not even willing to go all in. And so we need to fix that. I’m grateful that you’re fixing that. For any of you listeners, if you’re in that Gen Z or that young family, that millennial family, and you’re like, Hey, there’s got to be another way. There is. Send an email to hello at prosperity thinkers. If you’re older and you don’t want to be

[12:18] taken out of service, then send the email, find out how to do it. If you want to be taken out of service, probably not one of our listeners there. Cool. Thank you.