Richard W Friesen

Richard Friesen is the author of "A Private Conversation with Money." What stops you from rapport with money, meaning, and success? Let's examine the drivers.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@MetamateDaz This is a wonderful question! Where does the productivity go? Here is a different view:

https://t.co/O7D5eGQAHz

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

https://t.co/8XdacApGyc

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@ArthurMacwaters Crime, Justice and the Death of Free Will
https://t.co/GGbeGtQUQu

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

https://t.co/9gYmkVjYui

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

For the active day traders who follow my X account, I have a gift that expands your master trader’s mindset. Many of my trading clients have a strategy that has an edge, and yet they fail to execute it consistently. Why? Find out my taking this free assessment.

https://t.co/4jVW9Ktx4T

Once completed, let’s talk about the result and create a new path to trading consistency. Email [email protected] to set up the conversation.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

“The 20th-century fight was capitalism versus socialism. Now it’s who owns the exponential surplus, who owns Abundance, and how do we distribute it.” – Dave Blundin, Venture Capitalist @DaveBlundin

Whenever someone says “how do we distribute it,” pay attention. That “we” + imperative is the tell. It quietly assumes a centralized authority that decides who gets what from the exponential surplus. Who exactly is this “we”? The state? The experts? The venture capitalists? The “enlightened” few?

Once you name the “we,” the moral-sounding call for distribution collapses into the same old authoritarian question: Who has the power to take and redistribute? Abundance shouldn’t be managed by a ruling “we.” It should emerge from clear property rights, voluntary exchange, and open competition.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

"Mangione Will Mount Psychiatric Defense at Trial" WSJ June 18, 2026

Judge the act. Not the competence.

https://t.co/GGbeGtQUQu

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

https://t.co/9gYmkVjYui

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

When friends say “We need to…” I always ask: “Who exactly is ‘we’?” Walking down the street — how do I tell the “we” from the “not we”? The question usually triggers a perplexed stare. Because answering it exposes the hidden assumption.

Public figures do the same:

Bernie Sanders: “We can’t allow a handful of billionaires…”
Hillary Clinton: “If platforms don’t moderate the content, we lose total control.”
Ron DeSantis: “We must wage a war on woke.”
Donald Trump: “We have to drain the swamp.”

The contradiction? Once “we” is defined, the “not we” are outsiders who must be made to comply — usually by government force, regulation, or pressure. Test it yourself. Take any “We must…” statement and add:

“…without force, threat of force, legislation, regulation, coercion, or social pressure.”

Does it still work? Rarely. Next time someone says “We should…”, ask “Who is we?” — then run the no-force test. You’ll quickly see how often the collective “we” is really a call to compel the “not we.”

Language reveals power. Be precise about who wields it.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@TheGuySwann https://t.co/O7D5eGQAHz

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

https://t.co/8XdacApGyc

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@Pardon_Me_Again @elonmusk OR...a better format for Community Notes. This video is from my project that never came to be for funding cuts.

https://t.co/Lxerw7IWC1

[Handre @Handre]

The period from 1870 to 1913 witnessed the most spectacular economic growth in human history, and you can thank the gold standard for making it possible. Real wages doubled in America. Railroad mileage exploded from 53,000 to 254,000 miles. Steel production increased twenty-fold. Population centers transformed into industrial powerhouses virtually overnight. Sound money created the foundation for genuine capital accumulation.

Under gold, entrepreneurs could calculate decades into the future without worrying about central bankers debasing their savings. Andrew Carnegie built his steel empire because he knew the purchasing power of his profits wouldn't evaporate through monetary manipulation. John D. Rockefeller revolutionized oil refining because stable money allowed long-term planning. These men risked enormous sums precisely because gold prevented government from stealing their wealth through inflation.

The productivity gains were staggering. Between 1880 and 1900, manufacturing output per worker increased by 65 percent. Prices fell consistently (deflation was normal and healthy), which meant your purchasing power grew every year you delayed consumption. Real interest rates reflected actual time preference and productivity, not central bank targets. Capital flowed to its most productive uses because price signals weren't distorted by monetary debasement.

Compare this to our fiat era: since 1971, productivity growth has stagnated, real wages have barely budged, and asset bubbles have replaced genuine wealth creation. The Federal Reserve calls 2% annual theft "price stability" while wondering why inequality keeps rising. They've replaced the automatic discipline of gold with the arbitrary whims of PhD economists who think they can fine-tune a $26 trillion economy.

You want to understand why your generation can't afford houses while previous generations built transcontinental railroads? We abandoned the monetary system that funded the greatest economic boom in recorded history.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Unpopular opinion:

The debate between MAGA and the left is increasingly a debate over who should be the central planner, not whether central planning is legitimate.

Trump is many things, but a laissez faire, hands off leader isn't one of them.

The argument is drifting from freedom versus control to competing brands of control.

This is the inevitable consequence of placing faith in politicians and then granting them unaccountable sanction. Once political power becomes the solution to every problem, the only remaining question is who gets to wield it. The debate shifts from limiting power to capturing it.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

What if AI is able to review billions of outcomes and probabilities. What impact will this have? Government policies will have unintended consequences staring them in the face...and the political establishment will shut it down. Ask predictive AI the odds of allowing it to blossom. :-)

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

https://t.co/WXwwWBYGec

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@CynicalPublius https://t.co/oyZE3e5qEF

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

Climate and Religion
https://t.co/dXV0WNFUkg

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@PeopleOfTheInt Raymond Reddington

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

@LawrenceLepard @BitPaine https://t.co/4pAJZwvhq5

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

https://t.co/8XdacApGyc

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

Way back when X first introduced the Articles feature, an article on "agency" was one of my first efforts, which received almost no visibility.

I have dusted that off, edited it some, and here it is again now that Articles seem to be working.

The Right believes we should have agency over our own lives and receive the rewards or suffer the logical consequences of our own decisions.

The Left believes we are not smart enough to exercise agency and they believe an all-powerful government must step in to make sure no one receives too many rewards or suffers too many logical consequences.

My article below explains in more detail.

[Richard W Friesen @RichsReframes]

"AI is functionally injecting credit into the economy without a bank. That is the single most underpriced macro variable. When AI lets you spin up a company, market it, and build a brand with less upfront capital, that is a liquidity impulse. You need less capital to start a business, which is a supply and demand shift in capital itself." @Globalflows