Robert T. Kiyosaki a classic Marxist

[a_unique_person]

He is the author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".

He acts like he is teaching you something new, something that the schools don't want to teach you. The reason they won't teach you that you won't get rich working for yourself, but get rich getting someone else working for you earning your wealth, is that this is classic Marxism, and something that has been known for over a hundred years.

He also paints the capitalist dream to be the classic Ponzi scheme it really is. Everyone can get rich, but only if they have someone else sending the cash up the line to them. Everyone can't get rich, not according to this guy.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He is the author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".

He acts like he is teaching you something new, something that the schools don't want to teach you. The reason they won't teach you that you won't get rich working for yourself, but get rich getting someone else working for you earning your wealth, is that this is classic Marxism, and something that has been known for over a hundred years.

He also paints the capitalist dream to be the classic Ponzi scheme it really is. Everyone can get rich, but only if they have someone else sending the cash up the line to them. Everyone can't get rich, not according to this guy.

Obviously everyone cannot get rich. You can say that every person is capable of being one of the few rich, but everyone in the country cannot be rich at the same time. Only about 1% of the population in America will ever be "rich".

[shanek]

"Rich" compared to what? Obviously it's completely unworkable and economically undesriable to have everyone making the same amount of money. So you will always have "poor" people as compared to the "rich" people.

But as I have pointed out in other threads, our poor have it much better off than the middle class in much of the world, and even have it as well off as the rich in many cultures. We're the first culture in history to conquer starvation. And as I proved in another thread, the quality of life for everyone—including the poor—was rising steadily before all of these government programs came around to "help" them.

Answer me this, people: If you can't get rich working for yourself, how come my partners and I are doing exactly that, with no employees? And we're hardly the only business doing that. I know independent contractors who are pulling in over six digits—working for themselves!

Yes, this is Marxism...and, as such, it's complete crap.

[shemp]

Rich is a relative term. The only way for everybody to be rich is to have equal wealth. But then everybody would be poor too.

Differences in wealth help to drive a capitalist economy. If everyone had what they needed, nobody would work, and nobody would sell or buy anything.

There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being rich and others being poor. But there are three things that must be avoided:

1. Too great a percentage of poor people.

2. Too much disparity between rich and poor.

3. A lack of means for the poor to become rich.

In other words, a society with a large number of desperately poor people will fail because there will be a great incentive for revolution. This is why rampant capitalism is no better than rampant socialism. There needs to be a balance of individual incentive and social protection of the poor. The poor class cannot be allowed to get so poor and so massive that their existence becomes a threat to the existence of the society. There needs to be a minimum standard of living for all who work.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by shemp
There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being rich and others being poor. But there are three things that must be avoided:

1. Too great a percentage of poor people.

2. Too much disparity between rich and poor.

3. A lack of means for the poor to become rich.


Hmmm. A position staked out with reasoning and stated reasonably. . . . .

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH SHEMP ?!!!

[jj]

Originally posted by shemp
Rich is a relative term. The only way for everybody to be rich is to have equal wealth. But then everybody would be poor too.

Differences in wealth help to drive a capitalist economy. If everyone had what they needed, nobody would work, and nobody would sell or buy anything.

There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being rich and others being poor. But there are three things that must be avoided:

1. Too great a percentage of poor people.

2. Too much disparity between rich and poor.

3. A lack of means for the poor to become rich.

In other words, a society with a large number of desperately poor people will fail because there will be a great incentive for revolution. This is why rampant capitalism is no better than rampant socialism. There needs to be a balance of individual incentive and social protection of the poor. The poor class cannot be allowed to get so poor and so massive that their existence becomes a threat to the existence of the society. There needs to be a minimum standard of living for all who work.

Amen.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
"Rich" compared to what? Obviously it's completely unworkable and economically undesriable to have everyone making the same amount of money. So you will always have "poor" people as compared to the "rich" people.

But as I have pointed out in other threads, our poor have it much better off than the middle class in much of the world, and even have it as well off as the rich in many cultures. We're the first culture in history to conquer starvation. And as I proved in another thread, the quality of life for everyone—including the poor—was rising steadily before all of these government programs came around to "help" them.

Answer me this, people: If you can't get rich working for yourself, how come my partners and I are doing exactly that, with no employees? And we're hardly the only business doing that. I know independent contractors who are pulling in over six digits—working for themselves!

Yes, this is Marxism...and, as such, it's complete crap.

Rich in terms of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", for example, he says the rich don't have to work, all their work is done for them by other people, they just have to live off the earnings of others. That is rich, not this "I'm a millionaire" crap. Pulling in six figures is still being a wage slave, in these terms. I am talking about, "I think I shall holiday in the Riviera this year for six months" rich, and all the time you are on holiday, you just keep getting richer.


Apart from all that, you have ignored the basic premise of this guy, that, in total agreement with Marx, the only way to get really rich is to live off the earnings of others.

You will get the odd film start and boxer who can make a stack, but these are very definitely in the minority, they do not disprove the reality for most of us.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
he says the rich don't have to work, all their work is done for them by other people, they just have to live off the earnings of others.

Like who?

Pulling in six figures is still being a wage slave, in these terms.

:rolleyes:

Six figures is slave wages...geez!!!

And who's he a slave to? He can pick and choose his jobs and has refused many. He's a brilliant guy who's very much high in demand. Doesn't sound like much of a slave to me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Like who?



:rolleyes:

Six figures is slave wages...geez!!!

And who's he a slave to? He can pick and choose his jobs and has refused many. He's a brilliant guy who's very much high in demand. Doesn't sound like much of a slave to me.


According to the definition of this book. Six figures is not a lot these days.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by shemp
Rich is a relative term. The only way for everybody to be rich is to have equal wealth. But then everybody would be poor too.

Differences in wealth help to drive a capitalist economy. If everyone had what they needed, nobody would work, and nobody would sell or buy anything.

There is nothing inherently wrong with some people being rich and others being poor. But there are three things that must be avoided:

1. Too great a percentage of poor people.

2. Too much disparity between rich and poor.

3. A lack of means for the poor to become rich.

In other words, a society with a large number of desperately poor people will fail because there will be a great incentive for revolution. This is why rampant capitalism is no better than rampant socialism. There needs to be a balance of individual incentive and social protection of the poor. The poor class cannot be allowed to get so poor and so massive that their existence becomes a threat to the existence of the society. There needs to be a minimum standard of living for all who work.

Shemp - excellent!:rub:

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
According to the definition of this book. Six figures is not a lot these days.

:rolleyes:

We are talking American dollars right?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

We are talking American dollars right?

Yep, sure am. I am talking about rich, in the real sense of the word, not the aspirational sense.

[Ed]

I think you mean 7 figures ie. $100,000 vs. $1,000,000

[shemp]

I make seven figures a year, if you count the two after the decimal point.

[Skeptic]

He acts like he is teaching you something new, something that the schools don't want to teach you. The reason they won't teach you that you won't get rich working for yourself, but get rich getting someone else working for you earning your wealth, is that this is classic Marxism, and something that has been known for over a hundred years.

Actually, this isn't "Marxism"--it's simply a con man's attempt to get the rubes to buy his books.

Kiyosaki's intended audience is, essentially, unemployed dropouts who have no financial understanding at all, so he tells them what they want to hear: that work is futile, that education is bad (one of his books is called "If you want to be rich and happy, don't go to school"), and, in short, that they are so much smarter than all those other people who have an education and a job.

Then he sells them the bulls--t line that now, once they made these wonderful choices, they will SURELY be smart enough to become millionaires in real estate using his nonsensical "book". But when you read it, you find that there is really no worthwhile financial advice in it. It is merely a collection of anecdotes used as motivational material, complete with self-glorification that attempts to make the reader believe Kiyosaki can do no wrong.

He is, simply put, a leader of a cult. By the way, it was recently discovered that "Rich dad" is a fiction, and so are most of Kiyosaki's "biographical" claims, including his claims to make millions in real estate (he made millions SELLING HIS BOOKS, not in real estate), his claims of being a war hero, etc. These lcaims seem to change from audience to audience.

In summary, if Kiyoaski supports Marxism, that alone would be ample proof that Marxism is bulls--t, because essentially EVERYTHING Kiyosaki says is bulls--t salesman lingo whose purpose is to sell his books.

See more about him here:

http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

(You are, correct, however, that this is "classic marxism" in the sense that in all so-called "marxist" countries it is the sort of people that like Kiyosaki rise to the top, instead of remaining on the fringe, like in capitalistic societies, with predictable horrific results.)

[a_unique_person]

I wouldn't say he supports Marxism. He does, however, agree with one of it's basic premises. The possibility of him being one more get rich quick fraud also does not surprise me.