7 ms·

I haven't read the book, but does it really say this? > He also tells of how he can back out of contracts by inserting a clause “subject to the approval of my

by bsuvc 2y ago

I haven't read the book, but does it really say this? > He also tells of how he can back out of contracts by inserting a clause “subject to the approval of my partner”, where said partner was actually his cat. That is called “fraud”. How can you take anyone seriously who does a thing like this?

bitexploder 2y ago
It is the sort of advice people who will never be in those positions hear and think it must be part of how rich business people operate. It is basic knowledge porn, like Malcolm Gladwell books, but with less sophistry.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  From what I've learned about how rich business people operate, they don't even tend to bother with contractual shenanigans like this; if they perceive that they have the upper hand in a situation, they'll just effectively say, "fuck you, I do whatever I want".
  - bombcar 2y ago
    This is basically a restating of how high-level rich people deals work; the contracts might exist, but it's really all down to trust and a handshake. If you do screwy things, you may find nobody willing to deal with you at all, contracts or no.
    - matwood 2y ago
      > trust and a handshake Bingo. If you really want to screw someone in a deal, you probably can regardless of contract. But, do that enough times and no one will work with you.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        Yep, and it helps explain why you can have some rich guy complain about another rich guy who "screwed him over in a deal" for an hour, and then he casually mentions he has to go to lunch with him for a new deal. It's just business.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they don't even tend to bother with contractual shenanigans like this; if they perceive that they have the upper hand in a situation, they'll just effectively say, "fuck you, I do whatever I want". This is how promises with anyone works. It's ultimately about trust and character.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  Malcolm Gladwell at least references actual studies -- there is a lot of hype and "science news reporting" BS in there, but there are at least kernels of ideas. Kiyosaki is basically just making stuff up.
immibis 2y ago
Every currently rich person has done a million fraud-like-but-maybe-not-actually-fraudulent things like this and that's how they're rich, so it's not completely insane. You definitely don't get rich by staying within the white painted lines. This particular one is more on the insane side of the spectrum... but do you remember that Elon Musk had a large golden parachute contract at PayPal, meaning they had to pay him a lot of money if they let him go, and then he made really stupid decisions so they had to let him go, and give him a lot of money?
- taneq 2y ago
  This seems unwarranted. Even if many rich people grifted their way into that position (for whatever definition of 'rich' you prefer) some proportion will have ended up that way through a combination of skills and luck without actually acting immorally.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    Is this true though? Leaving aside those with inherited wealth. If you imagine in purely competitive business situation, with poor enforcement of blue collar crime prosecution globally - seems likely the least ethical competitors would win out a supermajority of the time.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      I know a dude with a 7th grade education who amassed millions via hard work and thrift. Don't think you have to play millionaire games to make millions. Mostly you just need to not overtly waste your income.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Supposing I worked for my whole life I could retire with a few millions. Then I'd be 60, and then eventually dead, having spent my whole life working for the actually rich people (who have 5 orders of magnitude more and didn't work for it) instead of doing things I wanted to do, in order to get them to give me a tiny fraction of their wealth. Is that good?
UncleMeat 2y ago
Yes. He really does say this. He also encourages people to attend finance seminars and get involved in network marketing. The audience for most personal finance books are people with absolutely no experience with personal finance. People with no experience read a book, conclude that it is filled with expert advice, and then recommend it to others. You kick this off with things like an Oprah episode and the momentum carries itself.
- wickedsight 2y ago
  His podcast was recommended to me by a colleague. I listened to a single episode and realized it's just the ramblings of a guy who made money with zero concrete advise on how to do it yourself. And of course tons of complaints about taxes and regulation.
  - space_oddity 2y ago
    And I think the book is the same in a way
- citizen_friend 2y ago
  Seminars were important knowledge distribution networks in the 80s and 90s. Scams and low quality content are usually a strong indicator something used to be good, and attracted copy cats.
- hggh 2y ago
  > Yes. He really does say this. Yes, but keep reading...
hggh 2y ago
This is taken out of context, and the author of the blog post should keep reading: (taken from the same paragraph about the cat) "I make this absurd statement to illustrate how absurdly easy and simple the game is. So many people make things too difficult and take them too seriously."
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  The book had actual garbage advice, live repeatedly suggesting to invest in real state. In contrast to the sensible advice on savings and living below your means, this one was simply "become a real state speculator". When the real state bubble burst, probably a handful of its followers were in a position to make bank from it. In fact, any author who claims to tell how to become rich, but is still not filthy rich, is a scammer. Most of the content in these kind of books could be resumed in one or two pages, but that wouldn't sell.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
I also haven’t read the book, but I’ve seen some of his speaking. He tends to make a lot of incredibly oversimplified observations about basic debt instruments, and then acts as if they’re utterly profound insights. If an interviewer ever pushes him a little, he seems to just get defensive and kinda looks as though he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. He’s certainly given me the impression that he’s just a conman that doesn’t have any more than a one-inch-deep understanding of any of the topics he loves to yap about. But he is right about Dave Ramsey. Ramsey has a completely irrational perspective on debt, and often gives some very stupid advice on topics relating to it.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The key with Ramsey is if you follow his debt rules, you'll .... be ok? Maybe not mathematically as great as you could be, but ok? But if you follow Kiyosaki's rules, you could be in prison.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    To be clear, I think both of them are frauds (though one a lot more than the other). If you’re being crushed by debt, following Ramsey’s (frankly commonsense) advice would probably be beneficial. If you have any other situation, his advice is going to be harmful to you. Especially compared to the advice you would receive from a real financial advisor, which Ramsey isn’t (though I’m sure a lot of his followers would be surprised to learn that).
- matwood 2y ago
  I think Ramsey takes it too far, but then I think about his audience. I can gamble and drink alcohol without getting addicted. But for people who are addicted they usually need to completely stop. I see the same thing with those who are not able to manage their spending or debt. They need shock and extreme measures to get back to a good spot.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    Ramsey isn’t even a real financial advisor, let alone a qualified psychologist…
jarsin 2y ago
IMO contracts are no different than a handshake anymore. They have so much fine print nobody, not even the judges you will spend a fortune arguing in front of, knows what anything means anymore.
- kevindamm 2y ago
  It's somewhere in between those extremes. It's true that some things that go into a contract aren't actually valid because they infringe on rights or aren't within the authority of its parties. It's also true that some things are only valid if they're mentioned in the contract, because they might not be a typical part of doing business (e.g. things like fees or handling disagreements in arbitration hearings). It's also true that some things are implicitly in the agreement without being mentioned in the contract. It's worthwhile to be aware of what's called the Reasonable Person standard. If you own a business it is worthwhile to be somewhat familiar with the corporation law in the jurisdiction the company is incorporated in. And it's always useful to have a lawyer you can ask some questions, if for no other reason than to have some chance of avoiding those expensive (in $$ and time) arguments before a judge. But I'm not a lawyer so don't ask me.

by bsuvc 2y ago

bitexploder 2y ago

It is the sort of advice people who will never be in those positions hear and think it must be part of how rich business people operate. It is basic knowledge porn, like Malcolm Gladwell books, but with less sophistry.

silverquiet 2y ago
From what I've learned about how rich business people operate, they don't even tend to bother with contractual shenanigans like this; if they perceive that they have the upper hand in a situation, they'll just effectively say, "fuck you, I do whatever I want".
- bombcar 2y ago
  This is basically a restating of how high-level rich people deals work; the contracts might exist, but it's really all down to trust and a handshake. If you do screwy things, you may find nobody willing to deal with you at all, contracts or no.
  - matwood 2y ago
    > trust and a handshake Bingo. If you really want to screw someone in a deal, you probably can regardless of contract. But, do that enough times and no one will work with you.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Yep, and it helps explain why you can have some rich guy complain about another rich guy who "screwed him over in a deal" for an hour, and then he casually mentions he has to go to lunch with him for a new deal. It's just business.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > they don't even tend to bother with contractual shenanigans like this; if they perceive that they have the upper hand in a situation, they'll just effectively say, "fuck you, I do whatever I want". This is how promises with anyone works. It's ultimately about trust and character.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
Malcolm Gladwell at least references actual studies -- there is a lot of hype and "science news reporting" BS in there, but there are at least kernels of ideas. Kiyosaki is basically just making stuff up.

immibis 2y ago

Every currently rich person has done a million fraud-like-but-maybe-not-actually-fraudulent things like this and that's how they're rich, so it's not completely insane. You definitely don't get rich by staying within the white painted lines. This particular one is more on the insane side of the spectrum... but do you remember that Elon Musk had a large golden parachute contract at PayPal, meaning they had to pay him a lot of money if they let him go, and then he made really stupid decisions so they had to let him go, and give him a lot of money?

taneq 2y ago
This seems unwarranted. Even if many rich people grifted their way into that position (for whatever definition of 'rich' you prefer) some proportion will have ended up that way through a combination of skills and luck without actually acting immorally.
- dbspin 2y ago
  Is this true though? Leaving aside those with inherited wealth. If you imagine in purely competitive business situation, with poor enforcement of blue collar crime prosecution globally - seems likely the least ethical competitors would win out a supermajority of the time.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I know a dude with a 7th grade education who amassed millions via hard work and thrift. Don't think you have to play millionaire games to make millions. Mostly you just need to not overtly waste your income.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Supposing I worked for my whole life I could retire with a few millions. Then I'd be 60, and then eventually dead, having spent my whole life working for the actually rich people (who have 5 orders of magnitude more and didn't work for it) instead of doing things I wanted to do, in order to get them to give me a tiny fraction of their wealth. Is that good?

UncleMeat 2y ago

Yes. He really does say this. He also encourages people to attend finance seminars and get involved in network marketing. The audience for most personal finance books are people with absolutely no experience with personal finance. People with no experience read a book, conclude that it is filled with expert advice, and then recommend it to others. You kick this off with things like an Oprah episode and the momentum carries itself.

wickedsight 2y ago
His podcast was recommended to me by a colleague. I listened to a single episode and realized it's just the ramblings of a guy who made money with zero concrete advise on how to do it yourself. And of course tons of complaints about taxes and regulation.
- space_oddity 2y ago
  And I think the book is the same in a way
citizen_friend 2y ago
Seminars were important knowledge distribution networks in the 80s and 90s. Scams and low quality content are usually a strong indicator something used to be good, and attracted copy cats.
hggh 2y ago
> Yes. He really does say this. Yes, but keep reading...

hggh 2y ago

This is taken out of context, and the author of the blog post should keep reading: (taken from the same paragraph about the cat) "I make this absurd statement to illustrate how absurdly easy and simple the game is. So many people make things too difficult and take them too seriously."

ASalazarMX 2y ago
The book had actual garbage advice, live repeatedly suggesting to invest in real state. In contrast to the sensible advice on savings and living below your means, this one was simply "become a real state speculator". When the real state bubble burst, probably a handful of its followers were in a position to make bank from it. In fact, any author who claims to tell how to become rich, but is still not filthy rich, is a scammer. Most of the content in these kind of books could be resumed in one or two pages, but that wouldn't sell.

AmericanChopper 2y ago

I also haven’t read the book, but I’ve seen some of his speaking. He tends to make a lot of incredibly oversimplified observations about basic debt instruments, and then acts as if they’re utterly profound insights. If an interviewer ever pushes him a little, he seems to just get defensive and kinda looks as though he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. He’s certainly given me the impression that he’s just a conman that doesn’t have any more than a one-inch-deep understanding of any of the topics he loves to yap about. But he is right about Dave Ramsey. Ramsey has a completely irrational perspective on debt, and often gives some very stupid advice on topics relating to it.

bombcar 2y ago
The key with Ramsey is if you follow his debt rules, you'll .... be ok? Maybe not mathematically as great as you could be, but ok? But if you follow Kiyosaki's rules, you could be in prison.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  To be clear, I think both of them are frauds (though one a lot more than the other). If you’re being crushed by debt, following Ramsey’s (frankly commonsense) advice would probably be beneficial. If you have any other situation, his advice is going to be harmful to you. Especially compared to the advice you would receive from a real financial advisor, which Ramsey isn’t (though I’m sure a lot of his followers would be surprised to learn that).
matwood 2y ago
I think Ramsey takes it too far, but then I think about his audience. I can gamble and drink alcohol without getting addicted. But for people who are addicted they usually need to completely stop. I see the same thing with those who are not able to manage their spending or debt. They need shock and extreme measures to get back to a good spot.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Ramsey isn’t even a real financial advisor, let alone a qualified psychologist…

jarsin 2y ago

IMO contracts are no different than a handshake anymore. They have so much fine print nobody, not even the judges you will spend a fortune arguing in front of, knows what anything means anymore.

kevindamm 2y ago
It's somewhere in between those extremes. It's true that some things that go into a contract aren't actually valid because they infringe on rights or aren't within the authority of its parties. It's also true that some things are only valid if they're mentioned in the contract, because they might not be a typical part of doing business (e.g. things like fees or handling disagreements in arbitration hearings). It's also true that some things are implicitly in the agreement without being mentioned in the contract. It's worthwhile to be aware of what's called the Reasonable Person standard. If you own a business it is worthwhile to be somewhat familiar with the corporation law in the jurisdiction the company is incorporated in. And it's always useful to have a lawyer you can ask some questions, if for no other reason than to have some chance of avoiding those expensive (in $$ and time) arguments before a judge. But I'm not a lawyer so don't ask me.