Skip to main content

US Business News

Leverage: A Practical Framework for Getting More From What You Already Have

Entrepreneur Carson Jones’s new book challenges the assumption that progress always requires more- more money, more time, more connections or more opportunity. Instead, Leverage starts with a different question: What can you do with what you already have?

There was no months-long countdown.

No elaborate pre-launch campaign.

And Carson Jones is not introducing his new book by claiming to have figured out the secret to a perfect life.

That would contradict much of what the book is actually about.

His new release, Leverage: How to Get What You Want, With What You Have, Doing What You Like (or Are Good At), is built around a simpler premise:

You already have something to work with.

Time. Energy. Money. Skills. Proof. Relationships.

The amounts differ for everyone. The combination changes throughout a lifetime. But Jones argues that progress often begins not by focusing on what is missing, but by understanding how to better use what is already available.

“I didn’t want to write a book about me,” Jones says. “I’m not interested in telling people I’m perfect or that I have everything figured out. The book is really about life, looking at what you have, deciding what you actually want, and figuring out how to use one to get closer to the other.”

That distinction separates Leverage from the traditional business book built around a single formula for success.

There is no universal formula here.

There is a framework for thinking.

Start With What You Have

One of the central ideas in Leverage is that people frequently postpone action because they believe they are missing a necessary resource.

They will start the company when they have more money.

Change careers when they have more security.

Build the idea when they have more time.

Create something when they have a larger audience.

Take the opportunity when they feel more prepared.

Jones argues that this way of thinking can become its own trap.

Instead of beginning with the missing resource, Leverage asks readers to inventory the resources already available to them.

Someone without much capital may have time.

Someone without much time may have money.

Someone without either may have a highly valuable skill.

Another person may have relationships, credibility, an audience, specialized knowledge or proof that they can produce a particular result.

Leverage is understanding what you have, and knowing which of those resources to use next.

The concept sounds straightforward.

Its implications are not.

Because once resources are viewed as interchangeable and stackable rather than isolated, the way someone approaches work begins to change.

A skill can create money.

Money can buy back time.

Technology can reduce the energy required to perform repetitive work.

Relationships can create opportunities that would otherwise require years to access.

Proof can eliminate the need to continually convince people of your capabilities.

And an asset built once can sometimes continue creating value long after the initial work is finished.

The objective is not simply to work harder.

It is to make work compound.

Time, Energy and Money

At the foundation of Jones’s framework are three resources:

Time × Energy × Money.

Everyone operates with some combination of them.

The mistake is assuming the ideal strategy is the same regardless of which resource is scarce.

For someone with very little money but abundant time and energy, the rational trade may be to invest those resources into developing a skill, building proof or creating an asset.

Later, when money becomes more abundant and time becomes scarcer, the equation can reverse.

Money can be used to reclaim time.

Systems can reduce unnecessary energy expenditure.

Technology can multiply output.

Delegation can remove low-impact work.

The strategy evolves as the resource mix changes.

Jones sees this as a more useful framework than simply trying to maximize income or productivity.

Because money alone does not determine whether something is working.

Neither does growth.

Neither does being busy.

The more revealing question is:

What does the win cost to keep?

A business might generate significant revenue but require so much of its founder’s time that the founder has effectively created another job.

An opportunity may look impressive while creating enormous stress.

A promotion may increase income while removing the freedom that made the income valuable in the first place.

A company can become larger while the life of the person running it becomes smaller.

Leverage asks readers to consider both sides of the trade.

Hard Work Is Not the Same as Leverage

Jones did not arrive at this philosophy from a career in which every decision worked.

One of the personal experiences he discusses comes from an earlier period of his life selling final-expense insurance door to door in Ohio.

He could work roughly 10 hours in a day and sometimes make only $100 to $200.

He was working.

He was putting in the hours.

He was doing what people are often told to do: work hard and keep going.

But eventually the experience exposed an important difference.

Working hard is not necessarily the same as working toward something.

If the economics of the underlying activity are limited, more effort may simply produce more exhaustion.

That realization would eventually shape the way Jones evaluated opportunities.

What happens after the work is completed?

Does the work create an asset?

Does it create proof?

Does it build a relationship?

Does it increase future earning power?

Can it be repeated without requiring the same amount of effort?

Can technology amplify it?

Can it eventually operate without depending entirely on the person who created it?

In other words:

Does the work create leverage?

From Activity to Assets

That question becomes increasingly important in an economy where technology is reducing the cost of producing certain kinds of work.

Jones argues that the opportunity is not merely to complete more tasks.

It is to build more things that continue working.

A reputation is an asset.

An audience can be an asset.

A valuable skill is an asset.

A relationship can be an asset.

Intellectual property can be an asset.

A business system can be an asset.

A book can be an asset.

And importantly, these assets do not have to exist independently.

They can stack.

An audience can help launch a book.

A book can create credibility.

Credibility can lead to conversations.

Conversations can create relationships.

Relationships can create opportunities.

Opportunities can create new proof.

That proof can strengthen everything that came before it.

Jones describes this as asset stacking, building things that make the next thing easier rather than repeatedly returning to zero.

The Book Behind the Book

The philosophy is also reflected in the way Leverage was developed.

Jones is the founder of Booklore, a publishing technology platform designed around the idea that valuable books often begin with knowledge rather than writing ability.

Many founders, executives, professionals and subject-matter experts possess years, or decades, of accumulated knowledge.

They have stories.

Frameworks.

Lessons.

Opinions.

Mistakes.

Processes.

Ideas.

What many do not have is hundreds of uninterrupted hours to turn those thoughts into a structured manuscript.

Booklore is designed to help capture and organize that existing intellectual material and develop it into long-form work while preserving the author’s ideas and voice.

The relationship between Booklore and Leverage is therefore unusually direct.

The platform itself reflects one of the book’s central principles:

Use what you already have.

The knowledge already exists.

The experience already happened.

The ideas are already there.

The challenge is creating a system capable of turning those raw materials into an asset.

For Jones, a book is one example of what can happen when existing resources are reorganized rather than ignored.

AI Is a Lever, Not the Point

That distinction is particularly relevant as artificial intelligence becomes embedded in more businesses and creative processes.

Jones is enthusiastic about AI’s ability to create leverage, but Leverage does not treat technology as a substitute for judgment.

AI can reduce the cost of execution.

It can compress time.

It can make certain capabilities available to individuals who previously would have needed larger teams.

But efficiency is only useful when applied to something worth doing.

Doing the wrong thing faster is still doing the wrong thing.

The human part of the equation remains deciding what matters.

What deserves your time?

Where is your energy best spent?

What should you continue doing yourself?

What should become a system?

What should technology handle?

What should you stop doing entirely?

Those decisions become more important, not less, as execution becomes easier.

Build What Keeps Working

One of the shortest ideas in the book may also be one of its most useful:

Build what keeps working.

Then:

Reduce what depends on you.

Jones does not mean removing yourself from everything.

Some work benefits precisely because a particular person is doing it.

Relationships require humans.

Taste requires judgment.

Leadership requires attention.

Creative decisions often require context that cannot simply be delegated away.

The objective is to distinguish that high-impact work from everything surrounding it.

If a founder spends an hour making a decision only they can make, that hour may be exceptionally valuable.

If the same founder spends an hour repeatedly completing an administrative process that could have been automated months ago, the economics are very different.

Leverage requires knowing the difference.

The Part That Has Nothing to Do With Business

For a book that can easily be categorized as business or personal development, Leverage ultimately makes a surprisingly personal argument.

The purpose of becoming more effective is not simply to become more effective.

It is to create more choice.

Jones captures that idea with one line:

“Your life is mostly Tuesdays.”

The biggest moments tend to receive the most attention.

The vacation.

The promotion.

The launch.

The wedding.

The exit.

The achievement.

But those moments represent a relatively small percentage of a life.

Most of it happens on ordinary days.

Tuesday morning.

Tuesday afternoon.

Tuesday night.

The quality of those ordinary days may ultimately say more about whether someone has built the life they want than any individual milestone.

That is why Jones’s definition of leverage eventually extends beyond money.

Can you create more control over your time?

Can you protect your energy?

Can you reduce unnecessary stress?

Can you spend more of your life doing work you are good at, or genuinely enjoy?

Can success make your life larger rather than simply making your responsibilities larger?

Those questions are harder to quantify.

They may also be the ones that matter most.

Work the Game of Life

Jones does not present Leverage as a declaration that he has solved those questions.

That is intentional.

“I’m still working on all of this too,” he says. “I think everybody is. Life changes. What you want changes. What you have changes. The point is to keep paying attention to the game you’re actually playing.”

That may explain the understated philosophy behind the book’s launch.

No claim of perfection.

No promise that seven steps will transform every reader’s life.

No suggestion that everyone should pursue the same definition of success.

Instead, Leverage offers a way to look at the pieces already on the board.

Your time.

Your energy.

Your money.

Your skills.

Your proof.

Your relationships.

And then ask a better question about what they could become.

Because getting more out of life does not always begin with getting more.

Sometimes it begins by seeing the value of what is already there.

You already have something to work with.

Then work the game of life.

The Burden of Proof Has Moved to the Seller

How businesses are responding to a market where customers increasingly question whether marketing content is authentic

By Dana Whitfield

A survey released on August 5 put a number on something marketers have been circling for two years. Cashew Research asked 2,149 consumers across the United States and Canada what they assume about the content brands put in front of them. Eighty-seven percent said they believe at least some of it is AI-generated. Only 13 percent said they were very confident they could tell the difference.

The second number is the one worth sitting with. Skepticism without the ability to verify doesn’t necessarily make buyers more careful. It can make them discount everything at once. Cashew’s respondents named the categories that worry them most: health, finance, customer testimonials, and behind-the-scenes content. Those are four areas where consumers may place particular importance on the credibility of the information presented to them.

The research is vendor-produced and should be read that way. But the finding it lands on is consistent with what several operators say they are already seeing in their own markets. When persuasion gets cheap, the things that are expensive to fake can start doing some of the work that copy used to do.

Running a Trial to Support a Product Claim

Dr. Evan Zhao is a chemical engineer and synthetic biologist whose previous work included founding Revela. His current venture, RE:YOU, sells a serum for women experiencing hair thinning, in a category he has publicly described as one where consumers often encounter strong product claims.

The company’s position is that relatively few products in the category have been directly compared with minoxidil, a widely used treatment for hair loss. RE:YOU says it is conducting a double-blinded, randomized study involving 190 women and high-resolution scalp imaging, with the company reporting interim findings from the study.

The design itself is part of the company’s argument. A randomized controlled trial takes time, requires a defined methodology, and can produce findings that do not necessarily support the sponsor’s expectations. That makes the decision to conduct such research potentially meaningful when evaluating how a company supports its product claims.

Before-and-after images and consumer testimonials can be difficult for buyers to independently assess. Formal research, when properly designed, documented, and interpreted, may provide another source of information. RE:YOU has positioned its study as an effort to provide additional evidence regarding its product, although the study remains subject to the limitations and interpretation of the underlying research.

Zhao has said that part of his motivation for founding RE:YOU was concern about the quality of science and marketing used within parts of the hair-care category. Whether more companies adopt similar forms of testing remains an open question.

The Number a Wealth Manager Will Put in Writing

Kevin Brunner says he has spent more than two decades building The Q Companies around a model in which several services used by clients are handled within affiliated operations rather than exclusively referred to outside providers. These services include areas such as trust administration, 1031 exchange accommodation, and asset management.

Brunner’s argument concerns what he calls “interested advice,” a phrase he uses to describe situations in which an advisor may have an economic stake in one recommendation over another. His response has been structural, with the firm expanding the range of services handled within its organization.

According to Brunner, some clients pay under 1.5 percent in combined costs, compared with figures closer to 3 percent under certain previous arrangements. Those figures are presented as Brunner’s description of client costs and can vary depending on the services, structures, and circumstances involved. They should not be interpreted as a prediction of savings or as financial, legal, tax, or investment advice.

Brunner also states that he holds the Trust and Estate Practitioner designation and has been involved with the Orange County chapter of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners. Such professional credentials and organizational roles, when independently administered, can provide prospective clients with information beyond a firm’s own marketing claims.

Financial services have a longer history with disclosure requirements than many sectors. Regulations developed in part to provide consumers and investors with greater visibility into fees, conflicts, and other information that may affect financial decisions. What Cashew’s respondents describe may reflect a broader expectation for similar transparency in categories that historically operated with less formal disclosure.

When a Company Can’t Verify Its Own Operations

Angelo Huang’s company, Swif.ai, works on that layer, providing device-management technology designed to help organizations oversee software and AI-related activity across company-managed devices.

The gap between technology adoption and internal policy can open quickly. An employee may adopt a new AI tool in a browser tab, use it while working with customer information or draft materials, and create activity that may not be immediately visible through traditional IT oversight systems. Nothing about that necessarily requires bad intent. It can simply mean an organization’s understanding of its own operations becomes outdated as new tools are adopted.

That matters for the trust question because claims about internal practices can be difficult for customers to verify independently. Cashew’s respondents flagged behind-the-scenes content as a category they distrust, which resembles a challenge enterprise buyers can encounter during vendor review.

Huang’s position is that organizations may increasingly need stronger device-level visibility and controls if they want to accurately describe how technology is being used within their operations. Swif.ai is one company developing tools around that premise.

Buying Equipment You Can’t Inspect

Porta Potties For Sale, run by Noah Manders, sells portable sanitation equipment online to contractors, event organizers, municipalities, schools, and faith-based organizations. Its catalog includes standard construction units, ADA-compliant restrooms, shower trailers, and fleet packages, along with delivery and financing options.

The trust problem here is unglamorous and is addressed largely through specificity. A contractor ordering forty units for a job site may be purchasing equipment they will not physically inspect until delivery. Information such as dimensions, product specifications, applicable compliance standards, delivery details, and financing terms can therefore become important parts of the purchasing decision.

The site operates alongside other properties under the Porta Potty World umbrella, with different sites focused on areas such as purchasing, rentals, and supplies. The company says this structure is intended to direct customers toward information that is more closely related to what they are looking for.

None of that depends entirely on persuasion. It is closer to documentation.

The Cost of Verification

Verification is slow and it is rarely cheap. Zhao’s company chose to conduct a study that could produce results different from what it expected. Brunner describes spending years restructuring parts of his firm’s service model around transparency and internal capabilities. Huang’s customers use technology designed to provide greater visibility into practices companies may already be expected to understand and document.

Cashew’s respondents put product quality at 38 percent and real customer stories at 31 percent among the things they said can help a brand stand out. Both generally take time to accumulate. Neither can necessarily be produced on deadline.

For companies that have spent years optimizing the speed and volume of their messaging, that creates a different challenge. As consumers become more aware of AI-generated content and increasingly skeptical of what they encounter online, the burden may be shifting away from simply making a persuasive claim and toward showing why that claim should be believed.

2027 Unsecured Business Lines of Credit: What They Are and When They Make Sense

By: Steven Kay

A restaurant owner in Austin told me something that stuck with me. She said her business didn’t have one cash flow problem, it had twelve of them a year, each one smaller than the last emergency but somehow just as stressful. A slow month here, a broken walk-in cooler there, a supplier who suddenly wanted payment upfront instead of net thirty. None of these individually justified a big loan. Together they were quietly draining her energy every single month.

That’s the exact situation a business line of credit was designed to solve, and it’s why this product has quietly become one of the most useful tools in the small-business financing world, even though it gets far less attention than flashier options like merchant cash advances or SBA loans.

What a Line of Credit Actually Is

A business line of credit works nothing like a traditional term loan. Instead of receiving one lump sum and repaying it on a fixed schedule, you get access to a set credit limit that you can draw from whenever you need it. You only pay interest on what you actually use, and once you repay a draw, that amount becomes available again. Think of it as a financial safety net you can dip into repeatedly rather than a one-time transaction.

Unsecured versions of this product take it a step further by removing the collateral requirement entirely. Instead of pledging equipment, real estate, or inventory, qualification is based almost entirely on your business’s cash flow and revenue history. That single shift has opened this type of financing to a much wider range of business owners than would have qualified a decade ago, particularly service-based businesses that simply don’t own many physical assets to pledge in the first place.

Why Revolving Access Beats a Lump Sum for Certain Needs

The math on this is more interesting than people expect. If you take a $50,000 term loan but only end up needing $15,000 of it that month, you’re paying financing costs on capital sitting idle in your account. A line of credit flips that entirely. You draw exactly what the situation requires, whether that’s $3,000 to cover a payroll gap or $18,000 to jump on a bulk inventory discount, and the unused portion of your limit costs you nothing.

This matters most for businesses with seasonal or unpredictable cash flow patterns. A landscaping company that’s flush with cash in July and tight in February doesn’t need one enormous advance sitting in an account for eight months. It needs access it can tap into precisely when the calendar turns against it, then step away from once revenue picks back up.

The Qualification Picture Has Genuinely Changed

Not long ago, an unsecured line of credit above a modest limit was reserved almost exclusively for businesses with years of profitable operating history and a credit score comfortably above 700. That’s shifted considerably. According to Federal Reserve small business survey data, a meaningful share of small employer firms applying for credit are seeking amounts under $100,000, a range that alternative lenders using automated underwriting can now evaluate in a fraction of the time a traditional bank loan committee would need.

The evaluation typically centers on your business bank account rather than your personal balance sheet. Lenders look at monthly deposit volume, how consistent those deposits are month over month, and whether your account shows the kind of overdraft activity that signals real financial strain. A business with six to twelve months of steady banking history and reasonably consistent revenue can often qualify for a meaningful credit line even without a long operating track record or a pristine personal credit score.

Where People Get This Wrong

The single biggest mistake business owners make with a line of credit is treating the entire limit as available cash rather than as a tool reserved for specific, calculated needs. Just because you’re approved for $75,000 doesn’t mean drawing all of it makes financial sense. Every dollar you pull creates a cost, and pulling more than a specific situation requires simply adds expense without adding any corresponding benefit.

The owners who use this product well tend to draw against a clear purpose every time, whether that’s covering a documented seasonal gap, funding a specific inventory purchase with a known return, or bridging a short payroll timing issue while waiting on client payments. They treat the unused portion of their limit as insurance rather than spending money, and that discipline is what keeps the tool genuinely cheap over the long run, rather than turning into a slow accumulation of debt.

Comparing Lines of Credit to Other Fast Funding Options

It’s worth being honest about where a line of credit fits relative to other financing tools, because it isn’t the right answer for every situation. If you need a large, one-time capital injection for something like a major equipment purchase or a location buildout, a term loan with a fixed structure often makes more sense. If your revenue is highly seasonal and unpredictable in a way that’s hard to plan around, a revenue-based product that adjusts automatically with your daily deposits might fit better.

Where a line of credit genuinely shines is in that middle ground of recurring, moderate, somewhat unpredictable needs. Direct lenders, including fundivi have built streamlined application processes specifically for this kind of financing, evaluating bank account performance rather than requiring the extensive documentation a bank would typically demand, which means a business owner can go from application to an approved credit line in a fraction of the time traditional lending required just a few years ago.

A Realistic Look at the Numbers

It helps to walk through an actual scenario rather than talk about this in the abstract. Say a business owner qualifies for a $40,000 unsecured line of credit at an interest rate in the mid-teens, which is fairly typical for this category. If she draws $8,000 in March to cover a supplier payment ahead of her busy season and repays it within six weeks once revenue picks back up, her total interest cost might land somewhere around $150 to $200. Compare that to what a $40,000 term loan would have cost if she’d taken the full amount up front and let most of it sit unused in her account for months. The difference compounds every time she repeats the pattern throughout the year.

This is exactly why seasonal businesses tend to prefer this structure once they understand how it works. A landscaping company, a holiday retailer, an accounting firm that gets slammed every spring- none of these businesses have a single predictable cash need. They have a rhythm of needs that rises and falls throughout the year, and a revolving credit line is one of the only financing tools built to move with that rhythm rather than against it.

The Renewal Conversation Nobody Talks About

One detail that rarely gets discussed until it actually matters is what happens when your line comes up for renewal. Some lenders automatically extend your existing limit as long as your account has stayed in reasonably good standing. Others conduct a full reevaluation, which can work in your favor if your revenue has grown since you first applied, or work against you if your business has had a rough stretch.

It’s worth asking this question before you ever sign an agreement, because the answer affects how you should think about the line over a multi-year horizon. A business owner who understands the renewal process in advance can strategically time major draws and repayments around it, presenting the strongest possible financial picture right before that reevaluation.

What to Actually Ask Before You Apply

Before signing up for any unsecured line of credit, get clear answers on a few specific points. Ask whether the interest rate is fixed or variable, since a variable rate tied to a benchmark can shift your costs over time in ways a fixed rate won’t. Ask whether there’s a draw fee charged every time you access funds, since that can quietly erode the cost advantage of only paying for what you use. And ask what happens at renewal, since some lenders reevaluate your limit annually based on updated revenue performance while others simply extend the same terms indefinitely.

Understanding these details upfront prevents the kind of unpleasant surprise that turns a genuinely useful financial tool into a source of frustration. A line of credit, used with intention, can be one of the most cost-efficient ways to manage the ordinary unpredictability that comes with running a small business. Used carelessly, it’s just another way to accumulate debt without much to show for it.

The restaurant owner in Austin eventually set up a modest line of credit sized specifically to her worst realistic month. She’s drawn from it four times in the past year, repaid each draw within weeks, and told me it changed the emotional weight of running her business more than any single piece of equipment or marketing campaign ever did. That’s not a dramatic story. It’s just what happens when the right financial tool finally matches the problem’s actual shape.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended as financial advice, nor does it replace professional financial advice, investment advice, or any other type of advice. You should seek the advice of a qualified financial advisor or other professional before making any financial decisions.