> Meanwhile you're earning nothing on it, This is not what he's saying. The premise of the argument is that with $100,000 (or, if that's a lifetime of savings,

> Meanwhile you're earning nothing on it, This is not what he's saying. The premise of the argument is that with $100,000 (or, if that's a lifetime of savings, $20,000) you can earn more by investing this in yourself than your 401k would. He asserts that this is true because that's what he did, and it worked for him. I would counter that this sort of good result does not work for everyone. If there was such a foolproof investment technique (Flipping houses? Picking stocks? Some secret in the "How to get rich quick" book he's selling?) then your 401k managers would do it. Many entrepreneurs and small business lose money, and you can't extrapolate the results of a few successes over all potential entrants, except as a distribution. A few angel investors have made this work, but that doesn't mean everyone can do it.