John<<I do not think I have ever met a person who has not lied at some point in the past. Even family members.Yet many people I associate with are basically good people with useful things to say.>>You're missing my point. I'm not saying that everyone other than Kyosaki is honest. In fact, there is no such thing as an absolutely honest person. The point is that Kyosaki didn't just lie, he went over the top. He is presenting himself as something that he is not. He is NOT doing this in a simple way like one would do if not feeling well but when asked, "How are you?" would reply "Oh! Just fine." That sort of lying is what we all do all the time. That is not what Kyosaki has done. He has grossly misrepresented himself, his credentials, his history, and his current status. This is fraudulent, in my opinion, and not worthy of the type of person to whom I would give respect.Besides, just because it is common to lie, does that mean that it is perfectly OK to do so? <<The experts used to think the world was flat. Science is based on the principal that something is true unless we find out later that it was not.Math is the only field where something can be proven to be true independent of the time at which the proof was developed. All other fields are mostly based on experience and opinion as to what is going on. Over time the 'facts' do shift or are exposed as being different than was first though.>>Math and science have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Kyosaki nor the discussion of his misrepresentation. When scientists were saying the earth was the center of the universe, they were not lying. They were telling what they actually believed to be the truth. That it was later proven to be wrong did not change their stance into a lie. Kyosaki knew he was lying all along. There is no comparison whatsoever with his type of lying and scientific statement of truth as it is known at the time but may be disproven later.<<RK has made some good points about the philosophy to investing. He has done so in a language that many people who are likely not represented on the MF can understand.Very few financial books are more than a philosophy for how to succeed financially. Even if the author believes strongly in what they write the passage of time tends to confirm that the views are based on opinions or temporal facts. Wisdom is not the same as fact and you can gain wisdom from people even if all they are relating is a fable or other made up story. You can gain wisdom from experiences even if the experiences were failures by some measure.The beauty of financial books is there are lots of them that contradict each other. Being a contrarian is by definition believing something different. RK is not that different. In the world of real estate books he is right in the mix when it comes to story telling. I can provide some examples where well know investors, firms, authors suggest strategies that fly in the face of common wisdom (Lynch, Buffet, Graham, efficient market theory, the book Fooled by Randomness, LTCM, UBS).>>Again, this I have said many times that the fact that his book has gotten a lot of press and has gotten many folks to think about thier net worth is totally beside the point that he has done so by being a fraud. To compare his lying with a book that simply is contrary to some established idea is a comparison that I cannot grasp. Those are two totally different thoughts. He just lies about stuff. The other books are presenting ideas that are different with no lies or misrepresentation whatsoever.<<Play the cash flow game with new investors and watch what happens over a matter of months.>>Actually, I own the game both computer and card-table versions. I bought them simultaneously, in an effort to find out if he really had anything to offer to a novice. The games are interesting, but hardly educational. They are unrealistic in many ways. They don't represent reality in any meaningful way. I will admit that the card-table version is somewhat enjoyable to play, especially with a few folks who have some time to waste. The computer version (both 101 and 202) is rather the opposite, in my opinion, it's boring, simplistic, and silly. I think they are nothing more than a game. They lack an ability to teach anything of value about finances.GlennRim
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<