Additional Titles









The Difference Between Wealth and Profit








PART 4 of 4


By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 19, 2012

[Note: This is article 4 of a four part series. You can read part 1 here and 2 here. The original article explaining the differences between Actives and Passives is here.]

Active investors innovate… they are the independent business owners of the world. Passives build on the creative energies of the Active group. Passive investors like things “big” because big is safer than small. Actives are risk managers; Passives are risk avoiders who use the words “risk taking” rather than “risk management.” Actives are conservative; Passives are liberal.

In the fall of 1970, Henry Kissinger made a secret trip to China. Nixon met with the Chinese communists in 1972 to discuss international trade (and to give them intelligence information about the Soviet Union). American economic stability began to be dependent upon and controlled by international, not national, markets. A new phenomenon emerged: the military-industrial complex. Change was in the wind and change is disliked by those with low-risk management skills (Passives).

In 1960, traditional social values were rejected by Hippies and Yippies ... a fitting end to a Passive cycle. A drug culture emerged and the Active cycle began that very year. When we move into an active cycle, we almost always have an economic base change (never when going from Active to Passive). In 1960, we moved from an industrial/manufacturing base to technology, information, and service. In the late 1980s, George Herbert Walker Bush began talking about a “New World Order.” Americans didn’t like it and he lost his Presidential bid for re-election.

Traditional political values were questioned. Previously unheard of demonstrations against America’s military and political involvement in the Vietnam War – a war started by Passives and ended by Actives – were almost daily occurrences. Non-traditional civil rights for minorities caused rebellion in our streets. Those who fought in Vietnam were spat upon by Passives as they returned from their military service. Passives ran away to Canada. Active citizens inherited in 1960 a government grown too big, too arrogant, and too motivated by power to control.

In 1960, we also moved from a traditional national economy to an international economy. Traditional wealth (including giant corporations) that were relics of the industrial era began to lose their power base as Americans found higher paying jobs programming computers than they earned on production lines. Older employees unable to grasp the requirements of information age knowledge (or had such opportunities withheld from them because of age) didn’t find new jobs. America’s giant corporations were almost exclusively controlled by members of the Passive energy group and moved into the arena to fight for its ongoing right to power. Corporate leaders began shipping traditional American jobs to foreigners as the giant sucking sound of NAFTA happened as Ross Perot predicted it would. As American jobs disappeared, so too did our industrial and manufacturing base. There has been no conservative leadership since it happened to re-invigorate that base.

If you examine the personality traits of the Active energy group, you will see why that group dominated the changes that occurred in 1760, 1860, and 1960.

If you examine the personality traits associated with the Passive energy group, you will see where that group's motives formed policies during the changes that occurred in the cycles of 1710, 1810, 1910, and again in 2010.

It appears one can take a cursory look at American history and project pretty clearly that Active cycles occur every fifty years, only to be replaced by Passive cycles that also last fifty years.

One of the greatest downsides in communist and socialist regimes is the loss of creative energy. It appears to flow only in a free society where:

a) The risks required to innovate are rewarded rather than penalized – innovation requires failures before success can be enjoyed (under tyrannical governments one can lose one’s life for a failed experiment); and,

b) Risk management is not impeded by government regulation – the Obama Problem caused by innate power drives geared to make Passives feel more important than they really are but which prevent Actives from agreeing to manage the risks government dictates they must if they want to be entrepreneurs.

c) Cradle-to-grave government care programs have not yet dimmed the survival instinct of the human beast.

If you want to know the real reason the Obama Administration cannot create jobs in the current economic environment, re-read a, b, and c.

As it pertains to the most recent cycle from 1960 to 2010, it was driven socially (if not politically) by principles that motivate the Active energy group... control and contraction (privatization) dominate. This cycle gave America the greatest number of new business start-ups ever recorded. The fact that a large percentage of these new businesses are owned by minorities and women is further evidence that civil rights prosper during Active cycles (liberal spin to the contrary).

As of 1994, politicians other than Democrats controlled both Houses of the Congress for the first time in fifty years. Unfortunately, the social legislation Passives passed during their 50-year political dominance was not reversible. Also unfortunately, conservatives were no longer the norm of the Republican Party. They did not perform their fifty-year cyclical jobs – and as I predicted in the 1990s, if conservatives did not perform their cyclical jobs as conservatives, they would lose the right to dominate until the 2010 cycle dictated a change to Passive power. It appears that prediction came true – and persists. The Republican Party has forgotten its roots and ignores the wishes of the people. As a result, we have been burdened with a Liberal Congress since 2006 and a Liberal White House since 2008.

The arrival on the scene of neo-conservatism (liberal light) subscribed to by George W. Bush during his eight-year presidency caused the first ripple in the heretofore very predictable 50 year cycle waves. Passive liberals re-took control of the House and the Senate under the Bush Presidency in 2006, during this Active cycle. It shouldn’t have happened. They weren’t scheduled to regain power until 2010, but thanks to the liberal behavior of the neo-conservative Republicans, the GOP lost its traditional support base. The stage was set for Obama’s Presidential victory in 2008. It is clear that Republicans at the State and National Party level do not understand the risk management objectives of their constituents or how to achieve them. They believe avoiding risk altogether (a Passive trait) is the same thing as managing risk. It is not – and it represents the reason the Republicans have been unable to put forward a political candidate for the Presidency that garnered the enthusiasm and support of the core base that gets Republicans elected to the Oval Office.

The cycle will begin again ... somewhat cleaner at the start, edging closer and closer to power-abuse and corruption as their 50-year cycle ends in 2060 (though how it could get any more corrupt than it is in 2012 is hard to figure). The cyclical objective of Passives/liberals is to take the new startup companies of Actives/conservatives and make them bigger and more stable, more secure. The socialists have prostituted that purpose and turned the objective into increasing the size of government, instead. The 2012 voting results will determine just how much power Liberals will have during the start-up phase of their 2010 50-year cycle.

The downfall of Actives is usually caused by the strong individualist nature of the beast. Too many people trying to make control of individual lifestyles its rallying cry seldom results in a unified purpose. Trying to get the diverse beliefs of conservatives to act in unison is like getting your arms around the wind. Conservative politicians have difficulty effectively communicating their positions because they focus on issues rather than philosophy. Issues derive from philosophy; philosophy does not derive from issues. Mitt Romney focuses on issues rather than philosophy – and that’s why conservatives don’t like him. They know their beliefs stem from a philosophic base, not issues that result from not having a philosophy of right and wrong. Adding Paul Ryan, a man who clearly understands the need to deal with problems rather than merely issues, to his ticket will help solve that problem – but it also opens up some dangerous doors. Have no doubt, Liberals will jump on the opportunity to further divide and conquer based on the problems Paul Ryan has already identified and presented to the American public.

Rather than increasing the size of new companies created by Actives during their 1960-2010 cycle, Passives are creating jobs through the public sector (government), utilizing taxes as a way to enhance the lifestyles of the lower and middle classes… destroying the middle class in the process. Is it part of a plan? Probably. When the tax burden on those who create wealth and jobs becomes too great because government is too large, companies – including major corporations – begin axing employees. Small businesses stop expanding. As business taxes go up, they must make cutbacks – and that is usually the end of the Passive cycle. This time, it is happening at the beginning of the 2010 Passive cycle. It’s never happened before…

But a very interesting thing has happened. Both political parties have become totally corrupt. Both have abandoned the rule of law under the Constitution and this leaves the marketplace which, if left alone, would continue to function in its 50-year cycles, without direction. Thus, the political system is corrupt – including the courts – and the people who still function on the 50-year cycle principle (free enterprisers) find themselves with no representation in government.

The 2010 cycle is different in other ways, too. The populace of this nation is almost 50 percent dependent upon government for its existence and ongoing survival. There is no doubt great effort has been put forth to encourage people to become more dependent upon government and the services it offers… from classes before and after school so parents largely depend upon government to raise their children, to unwed mothers being paid more than women who work to stay home on welfare and have babies. Government advertises on television about how to qualify for food stamps, for heavens sake!

Republicans (not conservatives, Republicans) seem determined to force us into global governance via fascism; Democrats seem determined to force us into a world government via socialism. The point is, both political parties want one world government… shades of George Herbert Walker Bush’s New World Order. And the thrust to gain precisely that was begun under the Bush 41 presidency (though the plans for world government had been ongoing for many years).

What we are living through now is a merging of wave cycles of other nations as the total political structure seeks one world government. It is causing economic tsunamis.

The difficulty behind the current change is the move to an international economy. It is a new element and makes things more difficult for any one group to exercise control or power. The number of players upon which our economy is now dependent has increased. They have their own power bases, their own control groups. They have their own self-vested interests to attend. And, the 50-year economic cycles of other nations are not compatible with our own. They have their own cycles… an event I do not believe the powerful manipulators of power properly assessed. It is why their plans are not working.

Western Europe appears to have entered its Active cycle in about 1975 while the U.S. entered its Active cycle in 1960. The Maasricht Treaty established the European Union under its current name in 1993. The nations of that Continent, all running on their own economic cycles, were forced by political (rather than market) conditions to change cycles before they were individually ready as nations… and it stripped their gears. They were never ready for the major changes that the loss of sovereignty would cause each of them. Those elected to office within the European Union dealt with the problem much like an impatient and unprofessional doctor: “They’ll get over it!”

They thought they were dealing with a temporary disease – a cold – but the various patients/nations had pneumonia… including America.

If standards that encourage independent business start-ups and expansion are not put in place soon, the entire economy will fail. That is the segment that provides the greatest number of new jobs in America. What are those standards?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

1. Don’t ask independent business owners to manage risks controlled by government. Only a fool manages risks controlled by someone other than him/herself (especially when that someone is a government with no respect for the Rule of Law).
2. Get regulations out of the way – especially OSHA and EPA. It adds many thousands of dollars to the cost of new business start-ups.
3. Stop proposing tax increases for the very rich only. Independent businesses are usually S-Corporations where business income is declared as personal income. Business income, however, is used for business expansion, not personal income. If anyone in government had ever started his/her own business, he/she would know that.
4. Get the uncertainty of health care costs out of the way.
5. Get a floor under the real estate market because that is the asset most independent business owners use as collateral for business purpose loans to individuals. As long as real estate values are sinking, it will be very difficult for independent business owners to borrow.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4,

� 2012 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site:

E-Mail: [email protected]










If standards that encourage independent business start-ups and expansion are not put in place soon, the entire economy will fail. That is the segment that provides the greatest number of new jobs in America. What are those standards?