I had lunch with an ex-colleague from my corporate-duty-days yesterday.
She asked me how was it possible (sic!) to achieve financial freedom by the age of 44? 
Hmm, that made me think.
I was not able to come up with a simple straightforward answer that could be fit into one crisp sentence that could be comprehended while munching on a bowl of uncooperative Pasta Carbonara.
So afterward, I started to list down some factors that worked in my case (individual results may vary):
- Sleep (not too much, but regular sleep of at least 6 hours)
- Not smoking (not even passive)
- Not gambling (not even socially)
- Not too much of alcohol (besides the occasional social drinking)
- Sex (lots of it and predominantly social)
- Not following the herd (different is better than better)
- Not having great material possessions but having few wants (spend less because the power of wanting trumps the satisfaction of getting)
- Not living a life by default but by design (break some bullshxx rules)
- Saving early (time in the market for the magic of compounding to take its course)
- Not timing the market (investing regularly and staying invested)
- Not putting all eggs in one basket (real diversification across asset classes and geographies)
- Not following my brain’s native leanings (being aware of my cognitive biases and thinking slow – often)
- Sharing my life with a wife with few wants who puts other’s interest above her own (that includes putting up with me)
- LUCK (Learning Usage of Correct Knowledge)
This is it.
That’s what my flawed brain came up with.
There could be more. I can’t remember.
There should be more because my memories are incomplete – always.
My memories are wrong at least as often as they are right. My brain happily reconstructs memories, though I am frequently fooled into thinking that the reconstructions are seamlessly recorded recollections. They are not. My brain is a superb miracle of errors and no one, except the brainless, is exempt.
Anyway, wherever you go, there you are.
What else?
Andy,
LOL!
Just verifying mah!
I thought “social” = group 😉
And that’s what Sweden is “famous” for…
Ah! You definition is “not solitary” DIY kind.
Got it!
Phew!
For a moment, I thought you were really “liberal”!
Of course, I am liberal. Always open to new ideas. And willing to respect behaviour or opinions different from my own.
Andy,
You must tell me about social sex!!!
Somehow I am guessing its not the Swedish “togetherness” kind 😉
LOL!
Jared, you really do have the talent to spot and succinctly point out the key message of any post you come across.
Without having any clue what “Swedish togetherness” is, I guess your guess is right. In my case “predominantly social” means “not solitary”. Social, in the greater sense of living and breeding in more or less organized communities especially for the purposes of cooperation and mutual benefit. Mind you, 2 is a community already.