This book does a great job in analyzing the traits of the great wealth creators. I've read several books on this topic and mos...  Read More

This book does a great job in analyzing the traits of the great wealth creators. I've read several books on this topic and most of them are very unfocused and biographical instead of focusing on the traits (not the person) and making an argument on why they are important. The book is very well-written and focused and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in what makes these successful people tick.  Read Less

Like the other prior customers reviewing Locke's book, I thought it was terrific. However, I must say a few words about the ho...  Read More

Like the other prior customers reviewing Locke's book, I thought it was terrific. However, I must say a few words about the horrible editorial review of the book written by someone at the Industry Standard. I am concerned that a person who has not read the book may be mislead by the ad hominem arguments and sarcastic tone of this incompetent critique.The reviewer would have you believe that the traits of great wealth creators discussed by Locke are glaringly obvious. If this is true, why aren't there more great wealth creators? Why are there only a handful of people like Bill Gates, Mary Kay Ash, and Jack Welch? The answer, the reviewer suggests, is because the traits, while obvious, are not truly important. Rather, any effort to boil down the traits common to [great wealth creators] will lack the precision and insight needed to guide others on a similar path . . . commonalities will be overly broad and generalized. But if this is so, then why (according to the reviewer) do entrepreneurs and billionaires with half a brain know them? And what of the massive evidence provided in Locke's analysis that the traits are, in fact, essential to wealth creation? The reviewer apparently believes we should take his or her word on faith rather than consider the facts identified and explained by Locke.The reviewer also does not care for Locke's political views, and finds his attack on anti-capitalism extreme and outdated. Well, Locke's views are radical: radically rational, radically capitalistic. Anyone who thinks a fervent defense of capitalism is unneeded is either ignorant or worse. The continuing application of arbitrary anti-trust laws (as in the MicroSoft case), demands for increased government regulation of industry (e.g., health care, electrical power, oil), and the numerous pitfalls of our mixed economy amply illustrate the necessity of standing up for free minds and free markets.It is true that Locke does not devote much space to discussing how to reform the economy and move towards a freer society. The focus of the book is on the traits of great wealth creators, and Locke discusses societal factors only in this context. Similarly, to maintain his focus, Locke does not provide a full justification for his Objectivist philosophy. Rather, he refers interested readers to the works of Ayn Rand, where the philosophy is explained and justified in great detail. Locke also supplies an appendix written by Peikoff that further explains why business people need philosophy.The Industry Standard review asserts that Locke exaggerates the moral worth of wealth creation and great wealth creators. In fact, Locke explicitly acknowledges that some great wealth creators were flawed human beings. He points out several times that virtues such as rationality, honesty, and integrity are what make a person good, and that the flawed wealth creators were flawed because they did not consistently integrate these virtues into their personal lives. As for the value of wealth creation, it is true that a productive economy is not the only thing that makes a good society - but, as the Soviet Union discovered, without wealth creation a society is doomed. Locke certainly recognizes this and, for that reason, stresses the importance (to individuals and society) of holding the right philosophy. Such a philosophy integrates productivity and wealth creation into the broader realm of ethics. Objectivism is the only philosophy that accomplishes this.Neither does Locke ignore non-trait factors in wealth creation. Indeed, his discussion of the political context required for wealth creation is offered for this very purpose. However, his primary focus is on factors within a person's control - the traits that an individual can develop to become a better person and a more successful wealth creator. This is what makes the book compelling to anyone interested in the topic.In sum, I strongly urge potential readers of The Prime Movers to ignore the petty and worthless editorial review. The reviewer's sarcasm masks, unsuccessfully, his or her inability as a reviewer and, if anything, serves to underscore the need for the book. But don't take my word for it. Read and decide for yourself.  Read Less