I highly recommend people read this book, the author had 2 dads, one rich and one poor, both taught him different things and had different success in life. It is about how your parents teach you and what you think about studying hard in school and that will translate into a bright future is wrong(especially true in Asian families). Instead you have to develop your financial IQ, the book goes into alot of detail in many aspects but it will be too hard to me to type and present all of them here, so I just picked whatever I thought it is important and educational.
It seems people misunderstood from few quotes I posted, this is not trying to tell you stop studying and get rich now, it is trying to give you another perspective if you want to become rich but stuck in the studying hard pathway. Hence I added more quotes to demonstrate his ideas.
I'll just present some quotes from the book:
"Today, the most dangerous advice you can give a child is `Go to school, get good grades and look for a safe secure job,' " he likes to say. "That is old advice, and it's bad advice. If you could see what is happening in Asia, Europe, South America, you would be as concerned as I am."
""If you look at the life of the average-educated, hard-working person, there is a similar path. The child is born and goes to school. The proud parents are excited because the child excels, gets fair to good grades, and is acceptedinto a college. The child graduates, maybe goes on to graduate school and then does exactly as programmed: looks for a safe, secure job or career. The child finds that job, maybe as a doctor or a lawyer, or joins the Army or works for the government. Generally, the child begins to make money, credit cards start to arrive in mass, and the shopping begins, if it already hasn't."Having money to burn, the child goes to places where other young people just like them hang out, and they meet people, they date, and sometimes they get married. Life is wonderful now, because today, both men and women work. Two incomes are bliss. They feel successful, their future is bright, and they decide to buy a house, a car, a television, take vacations and have children. The happy bundle arrives. The demand for cash is enormous. The happy couple decides that their careers are vitally important and begin to work harder, seeking promotions and raises. The raises come, and so does another child and the need for a bigger house. They work harder, become better employees, even more dedicated. They go back to school to get more specialized skills so they can earn more money. Maybe they take a second job. Their incomes go up, but so does the tax bracket they're in and the real estate taxes on their new large home, and their Social Security taxes, and all the other taxes. They get their large paycheck and wonder where all the money went. They buy some mutual funds and buy groceries with their credit card. The children reach 5 or 6 years of age, and the need to save for college increases as well as the need to save for their retirement.That happy couple, born 35 years ago, is now trapped in the Rat Race for the rest of their working days. They work for the owners of their company, for the government paying taxes, and for the bank paying off a mortgage and credit cards.Then, they advise their own children to `study hard, get good grades, and find a safe job or career.' They learn nothing about money, except from those who profit from their naïveté, and work hard all their lives. The process repeats into another hard-working generation. This is the `Rat Race'.The only way to get out of the "Rat Race" is to prove your proficiency at both accounting and investing, arguably two of the most difficult subjects to master. As a trained CPA who once worked for a Big 8 accounting firm, I was surprised that Robert had made the learning of these two subjects both fun and exciting. The process was so well disguised that while we were diligently working to get out of the "Rat Race," we quickly forgot we were learning.
"As your cash flow grows, you can buy some luxuries. An important distinction is that rich people buy luxuries last, while the poor and middle class tend to buy luxuries first. The poor and the middle class often buy luxury items such as big house, diamonds, furs, jewelry or boats because they want to look rich. They look rich, but in reality they just get deeper in debt on credit. The old-money people, the long-term rich, built their asset column first. Then, the income generated from asset column bought their luxuries. The poor and middle class buy luxuries with their own sweat, blood and children's inheritance."
"A few days ago, my car was not running well. I pulled into a garage, and the young mechanic had it fixed in just a few minutes. He knew what was wrong by simply listening to the engine. I was amazed. The sad truth is, great talent is not enough."
"Job is an acronym for just over broke"
"There are so many "intelligent" people who argue or defend when a new idea clashes with the way they think. in this case, their so-called "intelligence" combined with "arrogance" equals "ignorance"
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
"My two dads had opposing attitudes in thought. One dad thought that the rich should pay more in taxes to take care of those less fortunate. The other said, "Taxes punish those who produce and reward those who don't produce." One dad recommended, "Study hard so you can find a good company to work for." The other recommended, "Study hard so you can find a good company to buy."
"He explained that the idea of taxes was made popular, and accepted by the majority, by telling the poor and the middle class that taxes were created only to punish the rich. This is how the masses voted for the law, and it became constitutionally legal. Although it was intended to punish the rich, in reality it wound up punishing the very people who voted for it, the poor and middle class."
New quotes below:
"Rich dad went on to explain that a human's life is a struggle between ignorance and illumination. He explained that once a person stops searching for information and knowledge of one's self, ignorance sets in. That struggle is a moment-to-moment decision-to learn to open or close one's mind. "Look, school is very, very important. You go to school to learn a skill or profession so as to be a contributing member of society. Every culture needs teachers, doctors, mechanics, artists, cooks, business people, police officers, firefighters, soldiers. Schools train them so our culture can thrive and flourish," said rich dad. "Unfortunately, for many people, school is the end, not the beginning."
"Never forget, because your two emotions, fear and desire, can lead you into life's biggest trap, if you're not aware of them controlling your thinking. To spend your life living in fear, never exploring your dreams, is cruel. To work hard for money, thinking that money will buy you things that will make you happy is also cruel. To wake up in the middle of the night terrified about paying bills is a horrible way to live. To live a life dictated by the size of a paycheck is not really a life. Thinking that a job will make you feel secure is lying to yourself. That's cruel, and that's the trap I want you to avoid, if possible. I've seen how money runs people's lives. Don't let that happen to you. Please don't let money run your life."
"Most people fail to realize that in life, it's not how much money you make, it's how much money you keep. We have all heard stories of lottery winners who are poor, then suddenly rich, then poor again. They win millions and are soon back to where they started. Or stories of professional athletes, who, at the age of 24, are earning millions of dollars a year, and are sleeping under a bridge by age 34. In the paper this morning, as I write this, there is a story of a young basketball player who a year ago had millions. Today, he claims his friends, attorney and accountant took his money, and now he works at a car wash for minimum wage."
So as I said earlier, my rich dad simply told two young boys that "assets put money in your pocket." Nice, simple and usable. "This is Cash Flow pattern of a liability." +------------------------+ |Income | |------------------------- | Expense | +-----|\-------------------+ | \------------------------------> ---------------------------|--------+ | Assets | Liabilities | | | | |_________|____________| Now that assets and liabilities have been defined through pictures, it may be easier to understand my definitions in words. An asset is something that puts money in my pocket. A liability is something that takes money out of my pocket. This is really all you need to know. If you want to be rich, simply spend your life buying assets. If you want to be poor or middle class, spend your life buying liabilities. It's not knowing the difference that causes most of the financial struggle in the real world."
"Because students leave school without financial skills, millions of educated people pursue their profession successfully, but later find themselves struggling financially. They work harder, but don't get ahead. What is missing from their education is not how to make money, but how to spend money-what to do after you make it. It's called financial aptitude-what you do with the money once you make it, how to keep people from taking it from you, how long you keep it, and how hard that money works for you."
"The No. 1 expense for most people is taxes. Many people think it's income tax, but for most Americans their highest tax is Social Security. As an employee, it appears as if the Social Security tax combined with the Medicare tax rate is roughly 7.5 percent, but it's really 15 percent since the employer must match the Social Security amount. In essence, it is money the employer cannot pay you. On top of that, you still have to pay income tax on the amount deducted from your wages for Social Security tax, income you never receive because it went directly to Social Security through withholding. Then, their liabilities go up. This is best demonstrated by going back to the young couple. As a result of their incomes going up, they decide to go out and buy the house of their dreams. Once in their house, they have a new tax, called property tax. Then, they buy a new car, new furniture and new appliances to match [heir new house. Ail of a sudden, they wake up and their liabilities column is full of mortgage debt and credit-card debt. They're now trapped in the rat race. A child comes along. They work harder. The process repeats itself. More money and higher taxes, also called bracket creep, A credit card comes in the mail. They use it. It maxes out. A loan company calls and says their greatest "asset," their home, has appreciated in value. The company offers a "bill consolidation" loan, because their credit is so good, and tells them the intelligent thing to do is clear off the high-interest consumer debt by paying off their credit card. And besides, interest on their home is a tax deduction. They go for it, and pay off those high-interest credit cards. They breathe a sigh of relief. Their credit cards are paid off.They've now folded their consumer debt into their home mortgage. Their payments go down because they extend their debt over 30 years. It is the smart thing to do."
I fail to se why the so called "rat race" is such a bad thing. As a society we have accomplished remarkable things, we live for 3-4 times longer than what our bodies originally evolved to handle, we do not need to fear predators or even (in the west) hunger, we have been on the highest mountains, in the deepest seas and even done what no living thing before us could do, been on the moon. No person could have done this by herself, it's all made possible by and only by millions and millions of people running said rat race. It's not a bad thing, and in the end it's the only way for our species to live on.
Cool, pretty valid and interesting points. Klackon has of course pointed out the important counter argument. If everyone wants to own business, who will work? Everyone lives with a bit of pressure on them, don't they? If they don't, they are probably spoiled or very lucky. The points about buying luxuries first is very interesting though. I'll probably buy this boo----oh wait...maybe I should buy its printing press
LOL @ the underline...I guess I came in right on time.
This seems like a interesting read. I am in the middle of reading Howard Hughes autobiography and it sorta relates to this in financial terms.
On January 30 2009 01:55 ilovehnk wrote: "There are so many "intelligent" people who argue or defend when a new idea clashes with the way they think. in this case, their so-called "intelligence" combined with "arrogance" equals "ignorance"
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion.
Read that somewhere and too lazy to google it atm.
this guy seems to have a wierd set of priorities and a twisted view of the average man's life
it's not a new viewpoint either, people have understood that work sucks (even a career you really enjoy sucks every so often) since organized employment was concieved
he also comes off as a total asshole and doesn't seem to realize that lots of people are perfectly content in their chosen career and the 'big 8 firm' wouldn't exist if the companies he dealt with didn't have those employees
every quote you've posted gives off this gross, overblown machismo vibe. i can only assume that since all of these quotes fit this bill, the rest of the book does as well. that tells me this guy thinks he's better than people who have less money than he does. especially that part about 'rich people buy luxuries last, poor people buy luxuries first because they want people to think they're rich'
all i can do is shake my head when people praise bullshit like this
On January 30 2009 02:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: this guy seems to have a wierd set of priorities and a twisted view of the average man's life
it's not a new viewpoint either, people have understood that work sucks (even a career you really enjoy sucks every so often) since organized employment was concieved
he also comes off as a total asshole and doesn't seem to realize that lots of people are perfectly content in their chosen career and the 'big 8 firm' wouldn't exist if the companies he dealt with didn't have those employees
every quote you've posted gives off this gross, overblown machismo vibe. i can only assume that since all of these quotes fit this bill, the rest of the book does as well. that tells me this guy thinks he's better than people who have less money than he does. especially that part about 'rich people buy luxuries last, poor people buy luxuries first because they want people to think they're rich'
all i can do is shake my head when people praise bullshit like this
Seconding this. Guy sounds like a tool. I guess taxes don't go towards roadways, sewers, etc??
and really, who's gonna make a ton of money because they can tell what's wrong with a car with ease? that skill allows you to be a fucking great mechanic, but its ludicrous to use that as an example of why great talent isn't enough
Kiyosaki wrote a book together with Donald Trump called "Why we want you to be rich" which is an interesting read. It doesn't deal with how to make money, but rather why it is important for people to understand the fundamentals of how money is made.
I haven't read "Rich dad, poor dad", but it's been on my "to read" list for a while.
Eh, you shouldn't fall for random motivational books that pull stuff out of their ass. I read a praising review about this in my uni's weekly paper, and I couldn't feel anything but sadness that even supposedly educated people fall for this crap...
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
stopped reading. in all seriousness, this book sounds like pure drivel
Great books imo, i know thats enough to be branded as an ignorant uneducated moron by TL.nets 'elite' but you can suck my balls. As with anything else, you shouldnt place this on a pedestal and base your life on it, but it does have some good advice. Particularly the "dont work for money" motto and the "get a job to learn more than to earn money".
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
Haha...he stole that line from Everybody Loves Raymond. Or was it eyes in the front and ears on the side...I dun remember...-_-
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
stopped reading. in all seriousness, this book sounds like pure drivel
I think he is trying to teach those "who want to be rich and got stuck in this work hard and find good job later" people. Some people are quite fine with their life even though they are not rich, it is just his view on how you should be rich when you want to be rich, not necessarily trying to advocate "everyone stop going to school and studying your ass off so you can have 50k/year salary" that kind of mentality.
On January 30 2009 03:47 Cloud wrote: Oh and he barely mentions god all for all of you 'christian = dumbass' bandwagonners. I wouldnt even remember about it if it wasnt for that quote.
Hey, no need to get so worked up as it was a strategy forum discussion where you simply didn't understand what the other person said, okay?
You know Cloud, the problem with this book is not that what you quoted - that's good motivational stuff, that you could find anywhere else or just think logically and find out yourself.
The problem with this book is that it spouts lies and factual errors, deceiving it's readers while posing as the almighty know-it-all and hiding behind encouraging phrases.
On January 30 2009 02:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: this guy seems to have a wierd set of priorities and a twisted view of the average man's life
it's not a new viewpoint either, people have understood that work sucks (even a career you really enjoy sucks every so often) since organized employment was concieved
he also comes off as a total asshole and doesn't seem to realize that lots of people are perfectly content in their chosen career and the 'big 8 firm' wouldn't exist if the companies he dealt with didn't have those employees
every quote you've posted gives off this gross, overblown machismo vibe. i can only assume that since all of these quotes fit this bill, the rest of the book does as well. that tells me this guy thinks he's better than people who have less money than he does. especially that part about 'rich people buy luxuries last, poor people buy luxuries first because they want people to think they're rich'
all i can do is shake my head when people praise bullshit like this
got the same grip from the quotes - thanks for typing it out
I have not read this book, so I'll try to keep an open mind about it and not bash it directly. I have however seen people use it to promote horrible business and financial practices such as pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing.
Job is an acronym for just over broke.
I HATE this line/catch phrase, whatever you want to call it and I would be extremely wary of anyone who uses it. I'll be general here again because I don't know specifically what is in RDPD. People who use this phrase use it because they know there is a large potential audience of unhappy people working at jobs who will gravitate towards the idea that this is not how things are supposed to be. They want to believe that something like creating a "cash flow" is a universaly viable alternative to having to work for your money. The dirty secret most of these people have is that they did not become rich by applying the principles they're selling, they got rich by targetting this unhappy demographic and getting a bunch of them to buy the book/video series/tapes/course that they're selling. You have to use your own judgement obviously because otherwise you'd just assume any book with a price tag is a scam. However whenever I see someone willing to sell "secrets" to success, the real secret is probably nothing more than to come up with a "secret" that will sell.
This reminds me of a Foxtrot comic. I couldn't find it but I think the jist was something like:
Jason: Hey Dad, watcha reading? Dad: This book explains how to become a millionaire! The first step is to write a book that retails for $40, then sell it to 25,000 people. Jason: How much was that book again?
The whole top paragrah about the family with the two incomes and the ratrace is a total bait and switch. He talks about people living beyond their means, taking out loans, buying too much with credit cards and at the end, the problem is supposed to be that they had jobs? The problem isn't that they didn't have enough money, it's that they lived above their means! I'm the oldest of 8 kids in a single income family (since graduated college and moved out) and I've never lacked anything my whole life. If you have a home with two incomes from college educated people and it isn't working out for you, it's because you've made poor spending choices. Don't buy what you can't afford. It's pretty simple.
A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions.
When talking with people who are dead set on getting rid of their j.o.b. and are reading books like RDPD, I have tried to ask questions. They're more than happy to regurgitate what they've read in these $40 books or heard at the $250 seminars, but ask them how much money they've made in their new and radical business ventures and the answers get a lot more vague. You hear things like:
"Well, most businesses take 5 years to make money and I've already made some, so I'm ahead of the curve." (no mention at all of how much, any at all is seen as success)
"It doesn't matter how much I've made. It just matters that I'm on the right path now."
"It doesn't matter how much I've made, I'm setting up a flow that will just keep working once it's off the ground."
"Ask me again in a year and I'll be happy to tell you" (That was 3 years ago)
In the end, it always boils down to "I can see you're not willing to consider these new and different ideas so what's the point of talking to you? I'd just be exposing myself to negativity" They'd rather pay for the privilege to be exposed to some overly positive drivel.
I could go on, since this is a subject I can get pretty fired up about, but I'd better cut myself short and just post what I have so far.
In short, jobs are good. Find what you're good at and what you like doing and get paid for it. I like programming computers and I get money for doing it! How great is that?
On January 30 2009 03:47 Cloud wrote: Oh and he barely mentions god all for all of you 'christian = dumbass' bandwagonners. I wouldnt even remember about it if it wasnt for that quote.
Hey, no need to get so worked up as it was a strategy forum discussion where you simply didn't understand what the other person said, okay?
What I don't like about this book is that it tries to differentiate itself from the advice we normally get by establishing this concept of the 'Rat Race' which he does a good job of supporting - but his plan for getting rich is no different from any other motivational book (always be aware of your surroundings, take opportunities when they arise, don't be afraid to try new things)
On January 30 2009 02:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: this guy seems to have a wierd set of priorities and a twisted view of the average man's life
it's not a new viewpoint either, people have understood that work sucks (even a career you really enjoy sucks every so often) since organized employment was concieved
he also comes off as a total asshole and doesn't seem to realize that lots of people are perfectly content in their chosen career and the 'big 8 firm' wouldn't exist if the companies he dealt with didn't have those employees
every quote you've posted gives off this gross, overblown machismo vibe. i can only assume that since all of these quotes fit this bill, the rest of the book does as well. that tells me this guy thinks he's better than people who have less money than he does. especially that part about 'rich people buy luxuries last, poor people buy luxuries first because they want people to think they're rich'
all i can do is shake my head when people praise bullshit like this
The point that he is trying to make is that you have to THINK like this to be successful, as defined by the amount of money you make.
I mean, who doesn't want to make millions or billions of dollars? The problem is some people don't know how to get there. Some people think it happens through osmosis, in that if you just keep doing certain "right" things the "right" way, you can get there. I believe this is what he is describing when he talks about the "Rat race." By living in that way, you can never truly be "rich." Because all of your money is being eaten by a symbolic enslavement to the luxuries you "need to have."
I personally think like this as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with finding a job that "you can be happy with and not make a ton of money." But for some, that's just not enough. To each man his own right?
On January 30 2009 02:44 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: and really, who's gonna make a ton of money because they can tell what's wrong with a car with ease? that skill allows you to be a fucking great mechanic, but its ludicrous to use that as an example of why great talent isn't enough
is he advocating owning stuff? Because thats what it sounds like. Thats fucking common sense lol. You dont get to be a millionaire or multimillionaire without owning things. Unless you work as an executive or neurosurgeon or something. Im going into engineering and unless you are in management you wont be making over 100k if you dont own something or are high up in your firm.
Maybe ive missed what hes said I dunno. Sounds like hes saying dont slave away at your job even if it makes you decent money because you will end up being there forever or something. I guess the book would be ok for incredibly nieve people who might need a wakeup call. Although I dont feel long term optimism is a problem like this guy does
On January 30 2009 03:47 Cloud wrote: Oh and he barely mentions god all for all of you 'christian = dumbass' bandwagonners. I wouldnt even remember about it if it wasnt for that quote.
Hey, no need to get so worked up as it was a strategy forum discussion where you simply didn't understand what the other person said, okay?
Try reading that thread again, before you make any other idiot comments please
Or, you could perhaps try to understand what others are trying to say
P.s. I didn't even call you an idiot, even though you'd deserve it for how you're behaving - off with the horns, please. You set your mind on something and bash people for disagreement all the time, I would re-evaluate if I were you. At least I'm not calling names here.
On topic again, reiterating: this book just tells people what they want to hear, so they want to buy it. That's how you make money with a load of bull (which, I guess, could be seen as success, if you can shut your conscience up)
On January 30 2009 02:56 Naib wrote: Eh, you shouldn't fall for random motivational books that pull stuff out of their ass. I read a praising review about this in my uni's weekly paper, and I couldn't feel anything but sadness that even supposedly educated people fall for this crap...
Right, youre not being an idiot here, nor an asshole. How about re-reading your own posts.
The book is normally paired togeather with a motivational conference that is held in major cities. Essentially, they try to get you to pay into becoming real estate agents or to buy forclosed properties and turn them for a profit.
I feel that after speaking with people who are wealthy, there is no pattern between these folks. We are in love with the concept that we can create massive amounts of wealth (Millions/Billions, not upper middle class) through a formula (business strategies) or by following a path (college). Its always good to be in a competitve position (education, training) but theres more to it. Whether it is getting an executive job or opening your own business, luck has a strong factor in the equation.
I feel that rich people (or very successful businesses) are outliers or at the very top of a bell curve. Its a natural occurence. Yet, we look to them as examples (formula steps) of how to get rich, while in fact they are just lucky that events worked out in their favor. Most of their decisions are solid logical decisions, while other key decisions just happen to work out in their favor given their situations. Thats my opinion of the matter.
My motto is to do what you are good at, (that does not mean you will get rich, even if you are the best), but if you do get lucky, you will take home the big one. That said, book appeals to the psuedo-intellectual side of people. The concepts are over generalized and are too simple to be accurate.
On January 30 2009 02:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: this guy seems to have a wierd set of priorities and a twisted view of the average man's life
it's not a new viewpoint either, people have understood that work sucks (even a career you really enjoy sucks every so often) since organized employment was concieved
he also comes off as a total asshole and doesn't seem to realize that lots of people are perfectly content in their chosen career and the 'big 8 firm' wouldn't exist if the companies he dealt with didn't have those employees
every quote you've posted gives off this gross, overblown machismo vibe. i can only assume that since all of these quotes fit this bill, the rest of the book does as well. that tells me this guy thinks he's better than people who have less money than he does. especially that part about 'rich people buy luxuries last, poor people buy luxuries first because they want people to think they're rich'
all i can do is shake my head when people praise bullshit like this
got the same grip from the quotes - thanks for typing it out
I'd have to agree. He seems to make a lot of very wide prejudice statements about "lower-class" people in order to tell them all that what they're doing and what they're teaching their kids is wrong.
I know a lot of "lower-class" families, especially since I came from one, and I've never seen a single one buy something expensive just to make it look like they could afford it.
IMO "lower-class" people don't even feel the need to appear "rich" to others.
As someone said earlier it really looks like a total bait and switch.
The tidbit about God is horribly irritating, also. If you're trying to sell an idea that makes logical sense and want people to believe it, the mentioning of God shouldn't be anywhere. The only reason it is there, is to try to bait religious people as well. Plus, when you mention God, there is no counter-argument, you can't argue against something that doesn't exist, yet is so widely believed in.
On January 30 2009 02:44 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: and really, who's gonna make a ton of money because they can tell what's wrong with a car with ease? that skill allows you to be a fucking great mechanic, but its ludicrous to use that as an example of why great talent isn't enough
isn't that exactly what he's saying???
No, FakeSteve means that the example is a straw man. Obviously there's plenty of people for whom great talent does pay off. (It's a whole different discussion again, about talent being inherited or developed (the latter case could be subject to exercise in the context of such books))
And count me with the book-haters on this one.. seems like a manual 'how to become a douche' to me. (Admittedly, being a douche helps make you money)
LOL. My parents made me read this book like a year ago. Also they have this game called "cashflow quadrant" or something that is sort of like monopoly except.....different in a way :O It is a decent book in my opinion
On January 30 2009 04:46 Racenilatr wrote: LOL. My parents made me read this book like a year ago. Also they have this game called "cashflow quadrant" or something that is sort of like monopoly except.....different in a way :O It is a decent book in my opinion
In the end, it always boils down to "I can see you're not willing to consider these new and different ideas so what's the point of talking to you? I'd just be exposing myself to negativity" They'd rather pay for the privilege to be exposed to some overly positive drivel.
I could go on, since this is a subject I can get pretty fired up about, but I'd better cut myself short and just post what I have so far.
this sounds familiar to me. except regarding spiritual and alternative "new age" type beliefs. only "new age" explanations are hard to prove wrong because they often boil down to "i've experienced it (eg talking to the dead) therefore it is true". often i hear statements like "these very wise people have written about it. you need to go away and read the books. they are written by wise people."
On January 30 2009 04:46 Racenilatr wrote: LOL. My parents made me read this book like a year ago. Also they have this game called "cashflow quadrant" or something that is sort of like monopoly except.....different in a way :O It is a decent book in my opinion
http://www.cashflowboardgame.com/ Is that the game? Seems pretty expensive for what sounds like a really elaborate version of Candy Land.
Apparently the person who owns that site gives it a 5/5 though!
Edit: ok, it seems that the game is more complicated than that, the way the site describes it is just horrible though =/ and it still seems like a rip off.
SWPIGWANG is highly interested in a nation of millionaires that produces nothing.
While the economy is not zero sum, to make it "rich" and be a outlier one either has to add massive amount of value to the economy or con it out of someone. (or mere inflation) Lets just see everyone try it at once, it'd be pretty funny.
On January 30 2009 04:46 Racenilatr wrote: LOL. My parents made me read this book like a year ago. Also they have this game called "cashflow quadrant" or something that is sort of like monopoly except.....different in a way :O It is a decent book in my opinion
http://www.cashflowboardgame.com/ Is that the game? Seems pretty expensive for what sounds like a really elaborate version of Candy Land.
Apparently the person who owns that site gives it a 5/5 though!
Edit: ok, it seems that the game is more complicated than that, the way the site describes it is just horrible though =/ and it still seems like a rip off.
ya that game. It is expensive but really worth it in my opinion. It's like Life+Monopoly, don't really know how to describe it exactly lol but it's definitly not a ripoff
The point isnt "be rich or not be rich", but being very smart with the money you are earning, no matter what amount it is. Investing it in the right places, only spending when appropriate, cutting spending as much as possible, etc.
I found myself in agreement with most of what he said up until the end bullshit about how taxes became legislated. That's just stupid. Yes he's a bit of a tool, but financial dexterity and the ability to save is 100% a valuable asset. Buying luxuries last or only when its truly affordable, not only when you CAN (i.e. credit), is a big part of financial security.
On January 30 2009 05:21 thedeadhaji wrote: Ah yea I've been meaning to read this book.
The point isnt "be rich or not be rich", but being very smart with the money you are earning, no matter what amount it is. Investing it in the right places, only spending when appropriate, cutting spending as much as possible, etc.
Imo the problem is it only takes you guys half a page to develope a band wagon. First thing i noticed about the bad review posted on page one is that it's given by another book-selling financial adviser, not a critic. And fakesteve your reasoning is bad. Of course society in its current form needs people who will work lesser jobs. The problem is that supposedly those people are commonly in debt and unhappy and much less successful than they could be, and though society may need some people to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to Be those people. It's too bad in my opinion that the book seems to be so much about how to get super rich and not how to be happy with a more modest income, but i don't see any indication that the author is an asshole. Aside from the fact that he believes in god and he thinks poor people wish they had more money (:o)
My parents were big into Robert Kiyosaki about 10 years ago or so, they watched a couple of his video seminars and read his books and I saw a bit of it. Some of it is vague but he does a good job of outlining the value of money and how that value is different for everyone. It's not about greed as some people in this thread believe, it's about smart money management. I particularly like how he breaks down what is an asset versus a liability (ie your house is a liability because it is a constant money-sink) and how to balance out the two such that you limit liabilities to the degree that your assets overtake them in value, thereby increasing your personal wealth. There are a lot of platitudes, granted, but there is a reason Kiyosaki is more successful and more famous than all the other "buy real estate! sell on ebay!" peddlers you see on early-morning television.
On January 30 2009 04:39 itzme_petey wrote: The book is normally paired togeather with a motivational conference that is held in major cities. Essentially, they try to get you to pay into becoming real estate agents or to buy forclosed properties and turn them for a profit.
I feel that after speaking with people who are wealthy, there is no pattern between these folks. We are in love with the concept that we can create massive amounts of wealth (Millions/Billions, not upper middle class) through a formula (business strategies) or by following a path (college). Its always good to be in a competitve position (education, training) but theres more to it. Whether it is getting an executive job or opening your own business, luck has a strong factor in the equation.
I feel that rich people (or very successful businesses) are outliers or at the very top of a bell curve. Its a natural occurence. Yet, we look to them as examples (formula steps) of how to get rich, while in fact they are just lucky that events worked out in their favor. Most of their decisions are solid logical decisions, while other key decisions just happen to work out in their favor given their situations. Thats my opinion of the matter.
My motto is to do what you are good at, (that does not mean you will get rich, even if you are the best), but if you do get lucky, you will take home the big one. That said, book appeals to the psuedo-intellectual side of people. The concepts are over generalized and are too simple to be accurate.
On January 30 2009 05:22 NoobsOfWrath wrote: I found myself in agreement with most of what he said up until the end bullshit about how taxes became legislated. That's just stupid. Yes he's a bit of a tool, but financial dexterity and the ability to save is 100% a valuable asset. Buying luxuries last or only when its truly affordable, not only when you CAN (i.e. credit), is a big part of financial security.
Save is indeed an asset, I find a lot of people including my friends keep wasting money on shit they don't need, they buy it because they "want".
On January 30 2009 05:21 thedeadhaji wrote: Ah yea I've been meaning to read this book.
The point isnt "be rich or not be rich", but being very smart with the money you are earning, no matter what amount it is. Investing it in the right places, only spending when appropriate, cutting spending as much as possible, etc.
Haji, I can get behind those points 100%, but how does it reconcile with the views on jobs/work? Are jobs good, or is it just-over-broke? The speakers I've heard promoting "cashflows" over jobs and using this book to do so say that if you have a job then you don't understand money and you're a sheep. Is this what the book teaches, or are they just badly twisting it? The excerpts from the OP do make it sound like if you grow up with the plan of getting an education and then a good job, you're making a big mistake. I'm saying that the education and job aren't the problem in his ratrace scenario. It's when you decide to start spending more than you earn.
Americans, from the global perspective, needs no more money.
It is an absurdity that 300million people consumes 25% of world resources. Its quite sad really to see the world economy crash because Americans stops spending money since much of the world is tooled to please American asses and now has to readjust.
On January 30 2009 05:29 zobz wrote: The problem is that supposedly those people are commonly in debt and unhappy and much less successful than they could be, and though society may need some people to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to Be those people.
That's only if you define unsuccessful as not making tons of money. Society doesn't need anyone to be truly unsuccessful. Society needs that awesome car mechanic that he mentioned, but why are we deciding that the mechanic was unsuccessful? He successfully fixed the car, and if he truly had the gift for it as it appears he did, then there's no reason he shouldn't be fulfilled and happy doing what he does. I know completely happy people who are mechanics, work at department stores etc. These may be lower income, and society does need them, but let's not just up and define them as unsuccessful. The truly unsuccessful who beg/borrow/steal and don't contribute anything are never needed, except by con artists, pyramid scheme promoters, and the like.
On January 30 2009 05:29 zobz wrote: Imo the problem is it only takes you guys half a page to develope a band wagon. First thing i noticed about the bad review posted on page one is that it's given by another book-selling financial adviser, not a critic. And fakesteve your reasoning is bad. Of course society in its current form needs people who will work lesser jobs. The problem is that supposedly those people are commonly in debt and unhappy and much less successful than they could be, and though society may need some people to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to Be those people. It's too bad in my opinion that the book seems to be so much about how to get super rich and not how to be happy with a more modest income, but i don't see any indication that the author is an asshole. Aside from the fact that he believes in god and he thinks poor people wish they had more money (:o)
I think people living under the illusion that if they save enough, are smart enough and read the right books they will become very very rich probably get even more unhappy in the long term though.
On January 30 2009 05:21 thedeadhaji wrote: Ah yea I've been meaning to read this book.
The point isnt "be rich or not be rich", but being very smart with the money you are earning, no matter what amount it is. Investing it in the right places, only spending when appropriate, cutting spending as much as possible, etc.
While you can save a lot of money by cutting down on any sort of unnecessary spending, there is always a certain danger of becoming too cheap.
I'm not saying that everyone should start spending all their money now, but if you have some money left after paying all your bills and putting something in the bank for the future, don't start counting every penny.
I encountered this problem in the past myself. I'm working besides going to university and am usually trying not to spend too much money on unecessary or overly expensive things. Then my friends asked me if I wanted to take a summer trip to the U.S. in 2008; at first I was hesitant since I thought "mhhh this is probably going to cost me ~2500€ total", started measuring this sum against how long I would have to work for it and got really hesitant. Then I realized that once I have finished uni and found a job I simply won't be able to take 4 weeks off to go on holiday. That's why I decided to spend the money and had one of the best holidays ever.
Therefore I have adopted the philosophy that it is okay to get yourself something nice once in a while, if you go to work regularly. Money won't make you happy.
Well I think even in your example, the lesson still applies. Instead of just impulsively spending money on the trip, you weighed the cost of the trip against the experience you'd have and the fact that you probably wouldn't get this chance again in a long time and decided that it was worth it.
They're not trying to say that you should hoard all of your money and not enjoy it, but just think about everything you buy and decide if you truly want whatever it is or if it's something you'll regret later.
I read the Rich Dad series last summer. Great read for anyone, but only really useful for people with ambition. I think most people don't have the necessary determination to be rich, so oversimplifying the process and telling them "this is how" isn't anything more than a fun read. That said, for people who aren't content with their financial situation, this book is an interesting first step on the way to changing that.
From reading those quotes, I don't feel like I have very much to learn from this guy, or his two dads. Most of the reasons why have already been stated by others.
I had two dads who played SC. One was a noob, the other was a pro. I've had many discussions with both of them, and frankly, it's been hard to decide for myself what I wanted to do. I've now come to terms with their perspectives.
Noob dad always advocated the "safe" strategy. 12hatch11pool13hatch, 3-hatch spire, 2gate robo-obs, 1rax cc. He looked down upon "cheesers" and said he doesn't "play for wins" -- he plays for "fun". He has Ph.D. in Starcraft and he theorycrafts all day long.
Pro dad was more risk-taking. He sometimes recommended an 8-rax bunker rush, a 2 hatch-spire, even a 1-hatch hydra and 14nex against a zerg, but his playstyle was definitely very colorful. He had this mantra that you shouldn't work so hard just to get wins -- you should make wins work for you. He also had this thing about being "strategically literate". He owns a progaming team and trains the next generation of progamers.
I learned that a lot of people complain about cheese -- "I need a better opponent", "I woulda won ez", etc., when in fact it's really the burden of the middle class players to adapt.
You know you're in this ditch when you constantly think of "playing it safe" and "following the most popular builds". It may be fun to do because everyone is doing it, but you have to be strategically literate. It's a cultural thing. People work hard and practice hard memorizing their favorite progamer builds but always wonder, "How can I win more games? How can I get wins quick? I need some wins... I have a massive win-debt..."
Players that accumulate a great mass of wins all of a sudden often end up in win-debt because they got there by luck.
I mean, if you play cookie-cutter TvZ every single game and you start losing to cheese here and there, is it really their fault for playing the best game possible?
"Win" is an acronym for "whining insecure noob". People who work for the win complain about their win ratios, their APM, their build orders, and their opponents.
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that gosus know the difference between an asset and a liability. Muta control is a liability in the hands of a noob. Far too often, noobs think that their control is an asset and don't think twice about using their APM purely for muta harassing the Terran main. Only afterwards might he realize that he has 1k min 1k gas in his bank and no lurkers to defend against the Terran ball. Gosus understand this difference.
If you let emotions take over, you will most certainly fail. What? You see more tanks than you had thought? *adds 5 more sunks* Now that was a waste of money wasn't it? You have to let your emotions guide you, not define you. Emotion = energy in motion.
On January 30 2009 06:12 StRyKeR wrote: I had two dads who played SC. One was a noob, the other was a pro. I've had many discussions with both of them, and frankly, it's been hard to decide for myself what I wanted to do. I've now come to terms with their perspectives.
Noob dad always advocated the "safe" strategy. 12hatch11pool13hatch, 3-hatch spire, 2gate robo-obs, 1rax cc. He looked down upon "cheesers" and said he doesn't "play for wins" -- he plays for "fun". He has Ph.D. in Starcraft and he theorycrafts all day long.
Pro dad was more risk-taking. He sometimes recommended an 8-rax bunker rush, a 2 hatch-spire, even a 1-hatch hydra and 14nex against a zerg, but his playstyle was definitely very colorful. He had this mantra that you shouldn't work so hard just to get wins -- you should make wins work for you. He also had this thing about being "strategically literate". He owns a progaming team and trains the next generation of progamers.
I learned that a lot of people complain about cheese -- "I need a better opponent", "I woulda won ez", etc., when in fact it's really the burden of the middle class players to adapt.
You know you're in this ditch when you constantly think of "playing it safe" and "following the most popular builds". It may be fun to do because everyone is doing it, but you have to be strategically literate. It's a cultural thing. People work hard and practice hard memorizing their favorite progamer builds but always wonder, "How can I win more games? How can I get wins quick? I need some wins... I have a massive win-debt..."
Players that accumulate a great mass of wins all of a sudden often end up in win-debt because they got there by luck.
I mean, if you play cookie-cutter TvZ every single game and you start losing to cheese here and there, is it really their fault for playing the best game possible?
"Win" is an acronym for "whining insecure noob". People who work for the win complain about their win ratios, their APM, their build orders, and their opponents.
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that gosus know the difference between an asset and a liability. Muta control is a liability in the hands of a noob. Far too often, noobs think that their control is an asset and don't think twice about using their APM purely for muta harassing the Terran main. Only afterwards might he realize that he has 1k min 1k gas in his bank and no lurkers to defend against the Terran ball. Gosus understand this difference.
If you let emotions take over, you will most certainly fail. What? You see more tanks than you had thought? *adds 5 more sunks* Now that was a waste of money wasn't it? You have to let your emotions guide you, not define you. Emotion = energy in motion.
I learned a lot of things from my pro dad.
Gold.
I've read rich dad poor dad before. It helps people to look at things differently, and it does give one good advice: "Use your money on an asset that generates income and use that income to pay for what you usually would have spent the original money on"
However, every example he gives is unrealistic. You need to either start off rich to obtain that asset or be super lucky. He also gives bad advice for investments such as "put all your eggs into one basket".
i would recommend against reading this book. the author has almost no background in business, and most of the stories he tells about himself are false. for example, he doesn't own a restaurant, nor does he own a construction company, nor did his war hero story ever happen in reality.
Maybe his advice sounds good, but there are many things out there that sound good but don't work, and there are things that sound dumb but work. The way to distinguish them isn't how they sound, but on whether they have worked for the author. This book doesn't have anything going for it really. no PhD credibility, no experience, no success, just lots of hype. If he is rich, it's because of the book, not because of the experience he talks about in the book.
Eh, I think of the "getgoodgradesgotocollegegetastablejob" as a sort of build order. You want to have at LEAST that taken care of just in case. if you find something you love later on and can transition into that, then great, but at least you have a degree that enables you to get a stable job if that fails. Or in my case, I'm getting a degree in computer engineering when my real love is playing music. I like computers enough that I can justify the stability and income of having that career while being able to play music in my spare time. But, if I some how become a famous musician, I'd definitely change my career course to that.
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
stopped reading. in all seriousness, this book sounds like pure drivel
On January 30 2009 04:39 itzme_petey wrote: The book is normally paired togeather with a motivational conference that is held in major cities. Essentially, they try to get you to pay into becoming real estate agents or to buy forclosed properties and turn them for a profit.
I feel that after speaking with people who are wealthy, there is no pattern between these folks. We are in love with the concept that we can create massive amounts of wealth (Millions/Billions, not upper middle class) through a formula (business strategies) or by following a path (college). Its always good to be in a competitve position (education, training) but theres more to it. Whether it is getting an executive job or opening your own business, luck has a strong factor in the equation.
I feel that rich people (or very successful businesses) are outliers or at the very top of a bell curve. Its a natural occurence. Yet, we look to them as examples (formula steps) of how to get rich, while in fact they are just lucky that events worked out in their favor. Most of their decisions are solid logical decisions, while other key decisions just happen to work out in their favor given their situations. Thats my opinion of the matter.
My motto is to do what you are good at, (that does not mean you will get rich, even if you are the best), but if you do get lucky, you will take home the big one. That said, book appeals to the psuedo-intellectual side of people. The concepts are over generalized and are too simple to be accurate.
Agreed. Luck is the biggest factor in life. We do not choose which family we are born in to. We do not choose when we are suppose to born. If we are born into a poor family in a third world country during war time.. tough luck.
If I Were a Rich Dad Why millions buy Rich Dad, Poor Dad's nonsense. By Rob Walker Posted Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 12:08 PM ET
Where do Americans get financial advice? Merrill Lynch? CNBC? Or Robert T. Kiyosaki? If you don't know who Robert T. Kiyosaki is, well, you can find him at the top of many a best-seller list. His , is currently No. 1 on the New York Times paperback "advice" chart—a list that it's been on for an astonishing 98 weeks. Spinoffs, including Rich Dad's Guide to Investing and Rich Kid, Smart Kid, also seem to be selling. Obviously there are many, many advice books on the market, financially focused and otherwise, but only a handful turn into franchises. So, why this one?
Interestingly, Rich Dad, Poor Dad was originally self-published in 1997. As Kiyosaki worked the seminar circuit, he sold enough books to get the attention of Warner Business Books, a major publisher with better distribution. The newer edition has sold more than 2 million copies since May 2000 in the United States alone; it's also been translated into other languages and has probably sold five times that amount worldwide. The apparently charming Kiyosaki seems to be his own best sales weapon, and has—of course—appeared on Oprah.
A good chunk of what's actually in the book is self-help boilerplate. First, there's the mandatory declaration that it isn't a get-rich-quick book. Second, there's the repeated claim that "the rich" have "secrets" that led to their success and will herein be revealed. Third, the material is presented as a series of "lessons." And fourth, those lessons are positioned as being counterintuitive revelations that effectively undercut various popular "myths." The book's back cover promises, among other things, that it will "explode the myth that you need to earn a high income to become rich."
But to generate the word-of-mouth that turns an advice book into a phenomenon you need a gimmick, and Kiyosaki's can be found in the title. Growing up in Hawaii in the 1950s, he writes, he had "two fathers," each with a very different attitude about money. (The book was written "with" Sharon L. Lechter, but is told entirely from Kiyosaki's first-person point of view.) Eventually he makes it clear that "Poor Dad" is his actual father, an educator who worked like a dog all his life and basically ended up broke. Then there was his buddy Mike's father: a shrewd entrepreneurial sort who eventually built an "empire" and became "one of the richest men in Hawaii" (no further details are offered) via his keen understanding of money. This is "Rich Dad," the man Kiyosaki says he decided, at age 9, to emulate. And it worked! Today Kiyosaki says he's a rich man himself, all because of the wisdom of Rich Dad, here boiled down to six easy lessons. Kiyosaki periodically interrupts his disjointed narrative to complain that American schools do a bad job of teaching elementary personal finance, and positions himself as "a socially responsible teacher who is deeply concerned with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots."
This is pretty much the ideal package: the fablelike presentation of a personal success story wrapped in the mantle of "education." The parable format is particularly popular these days and has helped other books like Who Moved My Cheese? and Fish. The twist in this case is the blurring of parable and what appears to be autobiography. It's Kiyosaki's accessible, unpretentious storytelling, spiked with mind-over-money tips about avoiding credit-card debt and the like, that makes people buzz about the book—the no-nonsense pose is apparently convincing enough to blot out the nonsense.
Rich Dad's running theme is that you'll never get rich by chasing a higher salary—apparently the Protestant work ethic is for suckers. What you need to do is "concentrate your efforts on only buying income-generating assets." Such as? It turns out that whenever Kiyosaki offers an example from his life, it almost invariably involves real-estate speculation. (It's hard to judge the veracity of his not-very-specific claims on this front, and as far as I can tell, press scrutiny of Kiyosaki to date has been limited to bland interviews or face-value restatements of his book's themes. I did come across a long and withering critique by a real-estate writer named John T. Reed. He questions, among other things, whether Rich Dad even exists.) Not surprisingly, the sunny cover blurbs make no mention of flipping distressed properties for big bucks, since even the least sophisticated book buyer would tend to be skeptical about yet another run at this familiar get-rich-quick scheme.
To pad out the real-estate anecdotes, Kiyosaki repeatedly plugs further learning through more books, audio tapes, courses, and seminars. "I am wealthy and free from needing a job simply because of the courses I took," he announces. You'll be pleased to hear, then, that Kiyosaki himself is doing his part to help the have-nots with events like a $5,000-a-person, three-day program in Phoenix this weekend. The book also touts a board game that he sells through infomercials (the full text of one ad is included in Rich Dad), which in turn plug the book.
However much money Kiyosaki did or didn't make in the past, he's making a fortune by selling the idea that he holds the key to your financial future. In one of the many logically creative passages late in the book, he raises the astonishing idea that Americans don't spend enough time trying to emulate the successful—there's just not enough hero worship out there. "It's one of the most powerful ways we learn that we often lose as adults," he writes. "We lose our heroes. We lose our naivete." If there's better proof of how wrong this is than the success of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, I can't think of it.
HA! I KNEW tapes, courses, and seminars would come into this somewhere.
On January 30 2009 04:00 numberThirtyOne wrote: The dirty secret most of these people have is that they did not become rich by applying the principles they're selling, they got rich by targetting this unhappy demographic and getting a bunch of them to buy the book/video series/tapes/course that they're selling.
I figured that much would be obvious, 31. The suggestions he gives throughout each medium are regurgitated constantly, and it's clear that he makes a lot of money from his public appearances and videos/books. The key, though, is that you don't get any brand new information in a seminar that you wouldn't get from his book or anything else. His message is consistent. If someone gets his book, then his videos, then goes to his seminars, then enrolls in his courses, that's a true waste of money because most (if not all) of the information gained from each program beyond the first is redundant. Desperate people who continuously buy his products are confused, but those who take the message and lessons from one or two and apply it to their lives intelligently, proving that they can be flexible, will learn a lot and probably become more successful as a result. Slate paints Kiyosaki's methods as a bread crumb path, but it's really not, because there is no real additional incentive in hearing additional lessons since they're all so straightforward.
You've made a real difference when it comes to ideas and philosophy. Dammit after reading this book, I though that my number one motto in life is "Let money work for me" but as for checking the link http://johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html and some of the opinions that you have, I've realize that my philosophy sucks...
Now, I always tell myself this time that "Nothing beats hardwork and being streetwise when it comes to playing the game of money.." not "Let money work for me" shit..
@ stryker:
Can you add: Befriend the Pro's not the newbs.. Newbs give bad advice; Pro's are legit so listen to them.
"He explained that the idea of taxes was made popular, and accepted by the majority, by telling the poor and the middle class that taxes were created only to punish the rich. This is how the masses voted for the law, and it became constitutionally legal. Although it was intended to punish the rich, in reality it wound up punishing the very people who voted for it, the poor and middle class."
wtf? I don't believe this shit. Why would anyone want to punish the rich just for being rich? That isn't how political logic goes. If anything it would be since they have the most they should be taxed the most, this is not a fucking 'punishment'.
Taxes have and always will be a part of a government. Where does the fucking funding come from?
I think the pro-dad - noob dad comparison should have something about how pro dad will teach noobs the game of SC by playing against them and letting them observe his pro-ness firsthand. From this steady diet of noob opponents, pro-dad's record becomes increasingly more impressive and attracts even more noobs to seek out his teachings.
The problem with getting rich is that it relies on two MAIN factors
1. Having the right IDEA 2. Having the right TIMING
Lots and lots and lots and lots of people have the right idea. We can all agree that there is a lot of intelligent people out there with great ideas.
However, to pull them off they need timing... with timing there is an inherent luck factor and ... that's what this book doesn't talk about.
To put it into something relatable... POKER... you can know the theories of poker inside and out, but if your timing is off when you're trying to push a play you're f*cked.
How do you offset this issue of timing? Be constantly in the game. That is, constantly pitch your ideas and wait for the right time. Just like poker, if you always play the best hands, over time, you will win more then you lose (termed as grinding). So, in order to get rich and succesful you have to grind.
Then, my friends, what is a job but a daily grind?
Kiyosaki got lucky... he won the WSOP of commerce, but not every player will be just as lucky and some will have taken more bad beats then they like.
LUCK. No one talks about it, because everyone likes to think it's "they" who are the accomplished, but lady luck is a bitch and she soon teaches you otherwise...
On January 30 2009 08:37 MaZza[KIS] wrote: The problem with getting rich is that it relies on two MAIN factors
1. Having the right IDEA 2. Having the right TIMING
Lots and lots and lots and lots of people have the right idea. We can all agree that there is a lot of intelligent people out there with great ideas.
However, to pull them off they need timing... with timing there is an inherent luck factor and ... that's what this book doesn't talk about.
To put it into something relatable... POKER... you can know the theories of poker inside and out, but if your timing is off when you're trying to push a play you're f*cked.
How do you offset this issue of timing? Be constantly in the game. That is, constantly pitch your ideas and wait for the right time. Just like poker, if you always play the best hands, over time, you will win more then you lose (termed as grinding). So, in order to get rich and succesful you have to grind.
Then, my friends, what is a job but a daily grind?
Kiyosaki got lucky... he won the WSOP of commerce, but not every player will be just as lucky and some will have taken more bad beats then they like.
LUCK. No one talks about it, because everyone likes to think it's "they" who are the accomplished, but lady luck is a bitch and she soon teaches you otherwise...
Right now bro, kinda hard to get lucky with an Idea... Seems to me, everything has already been pioneered. I guess if you wanna be rich, you've really got to go through this one:
1. Really unique Idea that will really help out (of course, the timing should be great and no one has thought or done it before) 2. Product that the consumer's will make a trend out off it (maybe jewelry or some clothing line) 3. Bringing your currency to third world countries to live there (seriously, one of you guys should try living here the Philippines, you'd love the cheapness of our food and products). 4. Got to be a financial genius when it comes to stock markets. (go for risk = rewards moves I suppose) 5. Born with a silver spoon.
But, hell I do hope I can marry Lady Luck for this matter if I going to be rich..
I still suggest people read it, the quotes I posted doesn't represent the whole book. It's not like he tryings to convince you stop studying and get rich, he wanted to explain to people if you want to be rich, you simply cannot follow your traditional "study hard in school and expect to be successful by working your ass off in a company". Instead focus on increasing financial IQ, get involved in stocks, government bonds, real estate, etc...
Like Excalibur_Z said:
Some of it is vague but he does a good job of outlining the value of money and how that value is different for everyone. It's not about greed as some people in this thread believe, it's about smart money management. I particularly like how he breaks down what is an asset versus a liability (ie your house is a liability because it is a constant money-sink) and how to balance out the two such that you limit liabilities to the degree that your assets overtake them in value, thereby increasing your personal wealth
On January 30 2009 09:30 ilovehnk wrote: I still suggest people read it, the quotes I posted doesn't represent the whole book. It's not like he tryings to convince you stop studying and get rich, he wanted to explain to people if you want to be rich, you simply cannot follow your traditional "study hard in school and expect to be successful by working your ass off in a company". Instead focus on increasing financial IQ, get involved in stocks, government bonds, real estate, etc...
Some of it is vague but he does a good job of outlining the value of money and how that value is different for everyone. It's not about greed as some people in this thread believe, it's about smart money management. I particularly like how he breaks down what is an asset versus a liability (ie your house is a liability because it is a constant money-sink) and how to balance out the two such that you limit liabilities to the degree that your assets overtake them in value, thereby increasing your personal wealth
How can you get involved in businesses when you don't know the "root" of business. The only way you can become a "competent" businessman is to learn from experience. That is, start your own business/corporation. Once you understand how businesses work then you can judge other good businesses and enter the stock market. Until then, you're just following others advice and market trends. You'll make money off market trends but you won't get rich. You need to either have insider knowledge or very good power of perception to go good on the stock market.
Read the book, read it again, then again (like I did) and you will understand the underlying principle -> good systems make money NOT money. That is, the way you view the business and set up the business will determine how much you prosper. Not your bottom line, because your bottom line can fail at any time due to "bad luck". That's why Kiyosaki always uses "barring any unforeseen circumstances" in his arguments.
It's nothing about school or being rich or any of that. It's about "thinking right".. again, to relate it to poker. No book tells you "exactly how to play". Each book feeds you a certain set of perspectives so you learn to "view the situation through a pros eyes". This is what I think Kiyosaki's message is... "learn to view money making through a rich person's eyes".... not the bottom line.
The main point I agree with is that there is a woeful amount of training out there for the everyday person to manage their money. I believe money management should start in junior high school and continue through university. It is such an important part of people's lives that it baffles me that it isn't a core course everywhere.
You might call me a chump, but I have a hard time with this money-first approach that dominates contemporary society. I think Theos was the one who said "who doesn't want to make millions of dollars" earlier in the thread, but I'll raise my hand for that one. I think people with lots of money end up becoming defined by their wealth, not by what they do.
I am able to live a comfortable existence in a single-income family. I would much rather spend my time on things other than money, such as my family and my hobbies. I would rather be known for the things I do then the amount I get paid to do them.
Now I know people will say "if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on", but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later.
When I get older, I will undoubtedly have to work harder to provide for the growing needs of my family. I am ok with that. I would rather do it then than now.
Kind of random thoughts, but just what I am thinking about these days.
PS- 500 bones for a board game? No wonder that dude is rich.
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
stopped reading. in all seriousness, this book sounds like pure drivel
And all this time I thought we had 2 ears so that the brain could locate the direction sound is coming from based on the difference in time that sound takes to travel to one ear before the other >.>
"A truly intelligent person welcomes new ideas, for new ideas can add to the synergy of other accumulated ideas. Listening is more important than talking. If that was not true, God would not have given us two ears and only one mouth. Too many people think with their mouth instead of listening to absorb new ideas and possibilities. They argue instead of asking questions."
stopped reading. in all seriousness, this book sounds like pure drivel
And all this time I thought we had 2 ears so that the brain could locate the direction sound is coming from based on the difference in time that sound takes to travel to one ear before the other >.>
the whole two ears one mouth is just him being sarcastic....... smart people always listen to what others say, while others just keep talking, giving out information. In the end, the smart learned what others had to say while keeping his information to himself and others still don't know what's in the smart guy brain.
I think this book is just a "feel good" encouragement that sells because it convinces people they can be rich, the amount of times i have heard that another stock market crash is impossible (before the stock market crash) is just silly, and i know plenty of people who bought realestate believing that the overblown, bloated price that they paid would go even higher. there is no easy way to get rich, you either have to get lucky, or just have great timing with a good idea, and that itself is considered to be lucky by many people. A lot of people don't realize that most people in high-standards of living countries have slaves, they can't see the slaves but it doesnt mean they are not there. how many people die or work their asses of for nothing for me? i couldnt give a number, i dont have those statistics, but the fact is we steal half of our shit from african countries and other countries who cant do shit about it, and in turn people die, or are forced to work and live in horrible conditions, you cannot create wealth, you can only move it.
It seems people misunderstood from few quotes I posted, this is not trying to tell you stop studying and get rich now, it is trying to give you another perspective if you want to become rich but stuck in the studying hard pathway. Hence I added more quotes to demonstrate his ideas.
studying/developing has very little to do with becoming rich
To quote the_pwnerer "You gotta get involed...then you take the stuff you learn and add it to your stuffs, and liek, thats how you get ahead of everybody else"
On January 30 2009 03:24 Cloud wrote: Great book imo, As with anything else, you shouldnt place this on a pedestal and base your life on it, but it does have some good advice. Particularly the "dont work for money" motto and the "get a job to learn more than to earn money".
On January 30 2009 09:59 MaZza[KIS] wrote: How can you get involved in businesses when you don't know the "root" of business. The only way you can become a "competent" businessman is to learn from experience. That is, start your own business/corporation. Once you understand how businesses work then you can judge other good businesses and enter the stock market. Until then, you're just following others advice and market trends. You'll make money off market trends but you won't get rich. You need to either have insider knowledge or very good power of perception to go good on the stock market.
Read the book, read it again, then again (like I did) and you will understand the underlying principle -> good systems make money NOT money. That is, the way you view the business and set up the business will determine how much you prosper. Not your bottom line, because your bottom line can fail at any time due to "bad luck". That's why Kiyosaki always uses "barring any unforeseen circumstances" in his arguments.
It's nothing about school or being rich or any of that. It's about "thinking right".. again, to relate it to poker. No book tells you "exactly how to play". Each book feeds you a certain set of perspectives so you learn to "view the situation through a pros eyes". This is what I think Kiyosaki's message is... "learn to view money making through a rich person's eyes".... not the bottom line.
sighhh. well first of all
The only way you can become a "competent" businessman is to learn from experience. That is, start your own business/corporation. 1. You do not start a business if you do not know what you are doing. You have a better chance of making money off the stock market by selecting 5 stocks and hoping they take off. Businesses fail very often and sometimes people never get back on their feet. I see small businesses go under because of poor management. Management skills are learned working in sucessful companies. You always go work for a firm, and if you are good, break away and go into business for yourself. General accounting skills are learned in school or a textbook, once agian, many small businesses neglect these fundamentals.
That is, start your own business/corporation. 2. I remember him speaking about corporations vs private businesses. Do not let his incorporated vs private business model fool you. You do not get double taxed in a private business. You can claim expenses to decrease your tax liability in a private business. You increase capital expenditures (infrastructure type improvements) in your private business and claim the depreciation expense to decrease your tax liability. Corporations must pay taxes on their profits, and if they want to transfer that profit to shareholders, there is another tax (dividend tax). That is considered double taxation.
This is what I think Kiyosaki's message is... "learn to view money making through a rich person's eyes".... not the bottom line. 3. His statements make no sense, they just stand out because they are complete opposites from common logical knowledge. The "bottom line" is how businesses determine how succesful their business is. They can identify if there is any inefficiencies in the system. By forgoing the "bottom line" you will have such a hard time "thinking right".
Now if Robert was referring to the slash and burn type of business that only focus on the short term profits and not longterm structure/goals of the company. Ofcourse those companies are not healthy. Then yes, he is correct. What a way to butcher up that idea and make it more confusing than it is.
"Now I know people will say 'if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on', but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later."
I found this quite contradicting, it might be my intrepretation of it, but if you don't want to be 50 playing basketball and you don't want to miss your child growing up, how are you supposed to play basketball when you aren't 50? Because if you don't miss your child grow up, you are doing that when you aren't 50, and then once you reach 50 and finish watching your child grow up, you aren't in your prime anymore so you can't go get into the NBA - Not really relevant though - (I get the point... Maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut next time)
=[
on topic: I think that the author is being a little TOO stereotypical. My dad tells me to work hard study hard, and probably doesn't expect me to buy a company, but my dad studied hard, worked hard, and now he owns his own business...
"Now I know people will say 'if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on', but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later."
I found this quite contradicting, it might be my intrepretation of it, but if you don't want to be 50 playing basketball and you don't want to miss your child growing up, how are you supposed to play basketball when you aren't 50? Because if you don't miss your child grow up, you are doing that when you aren't 50, and then once you reach 50 and finish watching your child grow up, you aren't in your prime anymore so you can't go get into the NBA - Not really relevant though - (I get the point... Maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut next time)
I guess I wasn't being that clear. I didn't mean I was going to the NBA. I just meant that is seems many of my friends who have been going the "money route" spend most of their 20's and 30's work extremely hard. They are consumed by the desire to make millions. Some will succeed and some will fail, but they all spend their younger years working to make enough capital to get their money working for them.
I dunno, I would rather take the path I am on. I don't make so much money, but I have a ton of free time to do things I really want to do. I work on my hobbies (like sports and BW), I spend time with my wife and child, I travel.
I feel like I would rather work really hard when I am older and play catch up, than work hard when I am younger and have more freedom later. Obviously I will not have as much money, but I think I will be wealthier.
edit: I guess part of it comes from living in a society where you are expected to kill yourself at a desk for 20 years before you can relax. I look at the train zombies around here and just cringe.
On January 30 2009 06:12 StRyKeR wrote: I had two dads who played SC. One was a noob, the other was a pro. I've had many discussions with both of them, and frankly, it's been hard to decide for myself what I wanted to do. I've now come to terms with their perspectives.
Noob dad always advocated the "safe" strategy. 12hatch11pool13hatch, 3-hatch spire, 2gate robo-obs, 1rax cc. He looked down upon "cheesers" and said he doesn't "play for wins" -- he plays for "fun". He has Ph.D. in Starcraft and he theorycrafts all day long.
Pro dad was more risk-taking. He sometimes recommended an 8-rax bunker rush, a 2 hatch-spire, even a 1-hatch hydra and 14nex against a zerg, but his playstyle was definitely very colorful. He had this mantra that you shouldn't work so hard just to get wins -- you should make wins work for you. He also had this thing about being "strategically literate". He owns a progaming team and trains the next generation of progamers.
I learned that a lot of people complain about cheese -- "I need a better opponent", "I woulda won ez", etc., when in fact it's really the burden of the middle class players to adapt.
You know you're in this ditch when you constantly think of "playing it safe" and "following the most popular builds". It may be fun to do because everyone is doing it, but you have to be strategically literate. It's a cultural thing. People work hard and practice hard memorizing their favorite progamer builds but always wonder, "How can I win more games? How can I get wins quick? I need some wins... I have a massive win-debt..."
Players that accumulate a great mass of wins all of a sudden often end up in win-debt because they got there by luck.
I mean, if you play cookie-cutter TvZ every single game and you start losing to cheese here and there, is it really their fault for playing the best game possible?
"Win" is an acronym for "whining insecure noob". People who work for the win complain about their win ratios, their APM, their build orders, and their opponents.
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that gosus know the difference between an asset and a liability. Muta control is a liability in the hands of a noob. Far too often, noobs think that their control is an asset and don't think twice about using their APM purely for muta harassing the Terran main. Only afterwards might he realize that he has 1k min 1k gas in his bank and no lurkers to defend against the Terran ball. Gosus understand this difference.
If you let emotions take over, you will most certainly fail. What? You see more tanks than you had thought? *adds 5 more sunks* Now that was a waste of money wasn't it? You have to let your emotions guide you, not define you. Emotion = energy in motion.
"Now I know people will say 'if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on', but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later."
I found this quite contradicting, it might be my intrepretation of it, but if you don't want to be 50 playing basketball and you don't want to miss your child growing up, how are you supposed to play basketball when you aren't 50? Because if you don't miss your child grow up, you are doing that when you aren't 50, and then once you reach 50 and finish watching your child grow up, you aren't in your prime anymore so you can't go get into the NBA - Not really relevant though - (I get the point... Maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut next time)
I guess I wasn't being that clear. I didn't mean I was going to the NBA. I just meant that is seems many of my friends who have been going the "money route" spend most of their 20's and 30's work extremely hard. They are consumed by the desire to make millions. Some will succeed and some will fail, but they all spend their younger years working to make enough capital to get their money working for them.
I dunno, I would rather take the path I am on. I don't make so much money, but I have a ton of free time to do things I really want to do. I work on my hobbies (like sports and BW), I spend time with my wife and child, I travel.
I feel like I would rather work really hard when I am older and play catch up, than work hard when I am younger and have more freedom later. Obviously I will not have as much money, but I think I will be wealthier.
edit: I guess part of it comes from living in a society where you are expected to kill yourself at a desk for 20 years before you can relax. I look at the train zombies around here and just cringe.
well thats your case but some people bulid wealth withouth that sick work in their 20s and 30s and many people work their asses off all their life for little profit in regular boring jobs.
I'd be very very careful about this book. Kiyosaki is more of a motivational writer than an informative one. Many people finish this book ready to start a new financial life, but still have no idea how the hell to begin. Plus most of Kiyosaki's fortune comes from books and seminars he holds, rather than the profitable business ventures he claims to have.
lol i should write a book, except my dad was both rich ( exceedingly) and poor, now he's in the lower middle class building a company.
as a consequence i was both rich and poor, though i was poorer than him, because i was left with poor aunt in a Portuguese ghetto for 2.5 years T.T
things I've learned: money isn't the most important thing in the world. and leading a sheltered life leads to an unfulfilled life, but money does buy a lot of facilitators in life.
on topic, the book has a few tips that are valid, I.E buy assets, you should buy a house rather than rent one, if you can of course.
BTW he lost his money because he was naive, and didn't diversify his assets as well as he should have, instead he was busy making more money.. *sigh*
I have learned from him/ his mistakes, that after a certain point one has to decide, whether it's worth it to keep going, and be consumed by this greed, or if they should liquidate and live a more fulfilled life. the problem with this is that to people who make this kind of money, making money is the biggest life fulfillment.
"Now I know people will say 'if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on', but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later."
I found this quite contradicting, it might be my intrepretation of it, but if you don't want to be 50 playing basketball and you don't want to miss your child growing up, how are you supposed to play basketball when you aren't 50? Because if you don't miss your child grow up, you are doing that when you aren't 50, and then once you reach 50 and finish watching your child grow up, you aren't in your prime anymore so you can't go get into the NBA - Not really relevant though - (I get the point... Maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut next time)
I guess I wasn't being that clear. I didn't mean I was going to the NBA. I just meant that is seems many of my friends who have been going the "money route" spend most of their 20's and 30's work extremely hard. They are consumed by the desire to make millions. Some will succeed and some will fail, but they all spend their younger years working to make enough capital to get their money working for them.
I dunno, I would rather take the path I am on. I don't make so much money, but I have a ton of free time to do things I really want to do. I work on my hobbies (like sports and BW), I spend time with my wife and child, I travel.
I feel like I would rather work really hard when I am older and play catch up, than work hard when I am younger and have more freedom later. Obviously I will not have as much money, but I think I will be wealthier.
edit: I guess part of it comes from living in a society where you are expected to kill yourself at a desk for 20 years before you can relax. I look at the train zombies around here and just cringe.
that's exactly how I'm spending my time, too. It's best to travel, do hobbies, and stuff while we're still young, and then when we're older and not as mobile, we can sit behind a desk or something and work.
I have read this book. I think it is a load of rubbish. His investment strategies do not make sense. His advice on life misses very important points such as the value of hard work and the value of a formal education. It is also incredibly snobbish while pretending not to be. Basically, he's saying only his way is the right way.
One example: the only way you can make a lot of money is by starting your own business. The evidence is that most of the richest people in the world run their own business. What he doesn't say is that people with degrees tend to be much richer in general than people without. That implies that if you want a good chance of getting rich, you should go get a degree. So why doesnt he say that? Because it's not what people want to hear. Students want to hear that they're wasting their time studying and their parents are wrong. People without jobs like to hear that they're just destined for greater things and not leeching off society.
This book is seductive because it tells people what they want to hear and what they would like to do with their lives, and makes making money by investing sound deceptively easy. It also provides a good excuse for failing - at least you learned something. It's just fluff that is no more valid than the vague horoscopes you get in the Sunday papers.
A quick internet search will turn up some good criticism of his book. I advise anyone who reads this to think critically about what he's saying.
If you really want good advice about life and getting rich, I advise reading "The Millionaire Next Door". It is a little repetitive, but is backed up by solid data. Rich Dad Poor Dad is not.
I am able to live a comfortable existence in a single-income family. I would much rather spend my time on things other than money, such as my family and my hobbies. I would rather be known for the things I do then the amount I get paid to do them.
Now I know people will say "if you get rich you will be able to do that stuff later on", but I want to spend the prime of my life doing these things. I don't want to be 50 trying to play basketball or missing my kid's formative years so I can take care of them later.
The thing is that you are comfortable and you would rather spend your time with your family than getting richer. But when you are poor and have a family, the priority is to get enough money for everyone to get comfortable before spending time with them (or they'll starve to death etc.). I don't think you need to be rich to do stuff, you just need to be decently well off. Which you seem to be, so I envy your family =)
And I agree, knowledge on money mangement is sorely needed.
The book has some reading value. Other than that its a no-go in my eyes. To sum up my thoughts : 1) the financial part of the book has been totally smashed by the current crisis. 2) it has some reading value in the sense of making people think. We all agree that the book is written emphasising hard on the psychological part of "you can make it, just try hard and don`t take your degree for granted to instant success".
Younger people might find this book pretty useful in the sense of no need to have debts, mortgages, too early repsonsibilities and stuff like that. If you fail, then you fail on your own. But if you have family to feed, mortgage and debts to pay then you just cant take the risk of going "all-in". Yet its just another and pretty clear psychological part in the book.. Do we, young people, really need all that stuff?? And what are the consiquenses ??
Its pretty clear that everybody want to become rich. Yet nobody knows how. I suggest looking this series. Its free, its available to everyone and yet only 30 000 views?
Li Ka-shing:
Warren Buffett:
This is available to everyone to gain some interesting thoughts. Yet people rather watch Britney Spears and etc. videos
EPT
