Featured Book Review: Secrets of the Millionaire Mind by T. Harv Eker

By Anthony Zanetti Jul 25, 2007, 15:18 GMT

The main thesis of Secrets of The Millionaire Mind, by T. Harv Eker, is that everyone has a ‘financial blueprint’ that determines the level of success each person can have. Eker claims that a person can revise the ‘blueprint’ that makes them rich or poor, allowing them to increase their wealth. In addition to going over how to make these changes, he offers some basic strategies for money management. While Eker does provide some useful tips, he also makes some absurd statements, and many of his points aren’t really ‘secrets,’ but should probably be common sense.

Most of the book is devoted to having readers begin to ‘revise their blueprint’. Unsurprisingly, parental influence is the primary culprit when discussing the source of one’s financial blueprint. Using pop psychology to explain his theory, Eker argues that what we hear, see, and experience growing up shapes how we handle our money, and provides the basis for negative attitudes towards wealth. He then discusses unlearning old habits, and how to begin thinking like rich people—though if you really want to be successful, you’ll have to sign up for one of his seminars for further instruction.

Some of the most practical advice Eker provides is towards the end of the book, when he is discussing net worth. He identifies four factors that contribute to a person’s net worth: income (active and passive), savings, investments, and simplification (cutting expenses in one’s life by eliminating unnecessary things). Even if a person were not aiming to be a millionaire, they could reasonably increase their net worth by properly managing these areas, as per Eker’s suggestions. Though his advice is hardly groundbreaking, Eker’s tips are relevant in an age where many North
Americans who would not be considered ‘poor’ are living beyond their means and are heavily in debt.

Beyond this, Eker has some questionable views on class divisions that emerge when he is discussing how a poor person’s blueprint is different from that of a rich person’s. He states, “It’s amazing to witness the resentment and even outright anger that many poor people have toward the rich. As if they believe that rich people make them poor.” While Eker wants to convince his reader that rich people are actually generous, law-abiding, and ethical citizens, he doesn’t consider how rich people might perpetuate tremendous divisions in wealth. For example, a business owner may be following the law by paying his employees an unliveable minimum wage, but how can this be described as ethical? Eker responds to this by saying:

‘At my seminars, I often meet salaried or hourly wage employees who complain to me that they’re not getting paid what they’re worth. My response is “In whose opinion? I’m sure your boss think you’re being compensated fairly.”’

He then advises asking to be paid on performance, or starting one’s own business. While it is important to remind people that alternatives do exist, I don’t believe that those who are paid unliveable wages are truly being paid what they are ‘worth’. In my view, this has less to do with truly assessing value and providing fair compensation, and more to do with cutting labour costs across the board to increase profits.

Eker’s view of charity is similarly an uncritical one. He reminds readers that rich people frequently give away some of their wealth to ‘worthwhile causes.’ In one anecdote, he states:

‘One day, I was driving through a lower-end neighborhood in San Diego, delivering turkeys for a charity at Christmastime. I had the sunroof open and I noticed four grimy guys perched on the back of a pickup truck behind me. Out of nowhere, they started playing basketball with my car, by attempting to shoot beer cans into my open sun-roof. Five dents and several deep scratches later, they passed me screaming, “You rich bastard!”’

Regardless of the ‘truth’ in this anecdote, the way he presents himself and his antagonists is self-serving. Eker wants to dismiss the notion that people want to become multi-millionaires out of pure self-interest, and to portray the poor as merely envious and unwilling to exercise their option to change. In another example, everyone at a party in a wealthy neighbourhood whips out their chequebooks to donate to one attendee’s charity. Eker never mentions that these acts of giving are, by necessity, highly public and tax-deductible—whether by individuals or corporations. When reading these examples, I was reminded of a scene in Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, where the young protagonist recognizes the underlying self-interest that motivates such charity.

Generally, Eker promotes an uncritical admiration of the rich. He wants his readers to use the rich as models simply because of their wealth. Yet a rich and successful person is not necessarily an admirable one [see Conrad Black for more of that]. Demonstrating that even the wealthy can be impoverished, Eker states:

“I love Oprah. That woman has affected more people in a positive way than almost any one else on the planet, and consequently she deserves every penny she’s got…and more!”

Oprah’s financial success is undeniable, yet her ‘positive contributions’ to North American culture are questionable. Though some have lauded her for promoting literacy, Oprah’s book club selections, and her discussions, seem to have a more therapeutic than artistic value. Generally, her show does little to promote critical thinking, or independence, in her viewers. As Dan Schneider has argued in an essay, Oprah’s success has contributed to intellectual poverty in North America—what is admirable about that?

On several other occasions Eker demonstrates that he is clueless when it comes to issues of quality. When discussing author Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad), Eker says, “every business, including writing books, depends on selling. [Kiyosaki] notes that he is recognized as a best-selling author, not a best-writing author. One pays a lot more than the other” [emphasis Eker’s]. Elsewhere, he states:

“Success is a learnable skill. You can learn to succeed at anything. If you want to be a great golfer, you can learn how to do it. If you want to be a great piano player, you can learn how to do it.”

Of course, this is completely untrue. The best artists and athletes have a natural talent, which, combined with skill and hard work, allows them to excel beyond what most people can do. Most of us will never be able to become a great pianist, let alone a good one. To tell people otherwise is to delude them, and perhaps that is the effect that books like Eker’s have.

This attempt to delude people is most apparent in the Secret-like nonsense that is mixed with Eker’s more practical advice. His reference to a “kind universe” that supplies “abundance” upon request ignores the brutal realities of nature, and for that matter, business. Is success in business, and wealth in general, really due to “the law of attractions,” or is this just a creation of the business book genre? Eker offers further silliness when he recommends hiring a “personal success coach” and a financial planner, both of which are an obvious waste of money, particularly for those who have none. What people need are the basic skills to function independently as an adult—not more dependency.

Despite having some good suggestions, Eker’s outlook will not enrich you in any way outside of money. At its best, Eker’s writing is purely functional; “best-selling” is the best he can do. The real goal of Eker’s book is to get you to spend more money; most of the shared “fan letters” and “success stories” that litter Eker’s book are really just advertisements for Eker’s seminars. What effect do Eker’s books & seminars (and those like them) have in improving people’s financial well-being? What objective data is out there? There is much profit to be earned from business books & seminars, after all; in the ads for Eker’s seminars at the back of the book, it notes that a ‘trainer’ can earn $20,000 per weekend giving seminars. For those who insist on reading Eker, follow one of his orders and insist on having both: take the best of his advice and become a millionaire, but toss the rest and keep your intellect intact.

 Visit Anthony Zanetti's blog at http://rocket-to.blogspot.com/