Our rights to talk here openly is derived from death and sacrifice a subject way above what I see here. Do yourself a favor and drop that part of the conversation.

A argument about this investor and that investor is mundane. Follow whomever you want and believe whomever you want that is your right that many have bought for you with their weapons.

Even the “greedy” wealthy people provide value to society. If they were to hoard money in a bank, the banks would have money to lend to more generous wealthy people who actually plan to create projects that make the world better.

Banks take 1,000 and use it to borrow 10,000 from the fed and loan it out at a higher interest rate than is saved. They provide the means in which people with ideas can use to make society better.

Now there may be people that make weapons, certainly these people do not make society better really. However, it is only because the buyers enable that behavior to continue. Even so, the weapon makers do provide objects that there is a demand for, so they do provide value in a weird sort of way.

The thing is, in a true free market, if a service isn’t useful, people wouldn’t buy it, and they would boycott any monopoly, and there would be no room for monopolies or ogopolies. If people have a problem with oil prices, they can start their own company and make pricing affordible, or they can ride a bike, and get others to do the same until oil becomes worthless. If they have a problem with government buying up weapons, they can run for president or vote people into office that are more responsible. Only either through illegal activities, or through governments can society be made worse overall through global control and manipulation and destroying of lives and resources. Therefore it is up to every citizen of every nation to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Of course that requires people to actually be proactive and conscious and build in systems inside their own mind that says “maybe I should think before acting”, and they will need to ask the question “what action will be better for society”, which unfortunately not enough people are willing to do. Because of this, there are industries like the casino industry. People may say it’s “the wealthy exploiters”, but what’s so wrong with providing a service that people take a part in. If people have a demand for something who is anyone to question whether that demand is right but the individual?

But even casinos provide entertainment, and eventually redistribute wealth to those who are more responsible in using that wealth towards good rather than phony transactions where wealth exchanges hands back and forth but nothing actually truely happens.

If you think that there are rich people that don’t deserve it, then why do 90% of lottery winners end up right back where they started or worse within 2-5 years? It is estimated that if you would distribute money evenly among everyone, within 2 years everything would be back where it was, because those that know how to provide what people want will end up with the money, and those with the money would end up spending it on services provided by the rich. Even if you redestributed true wealth, the rich know how to get their, they know what the demand is, and they actively take part in investing their money towards good (as determined by society).

If those with money would be more responsible with it, prices would be more accurate in reflecting true demand, rather than, oh okay this costs $40 to fill up my gas tank no problem.

If you can’t sleep at night because you take on risk, then at least you’ll learn something, which is not to take on that much risk. Kiyosaki does not advize taking on blind risk as much as people think.

In depth research will show you Kiyosaki’s plan is
1) Start with a dream of how you can make the world better, you have to have a charitable dream so that you want to succeed for more reason than for your own success
2) Find a service that you can provide for other people and start a business until you succeed. (he advizes to start small and use an MLM system for cheap training on selling which gives you the knowledge you need to be profitable in the future)
3) Use the money you have and the cashflow you get to then go and do the other things that people isolate and take as “advice for everyone” (which it’s not) and THEN take on good debt responsibly as good debt managed well with managed risk will make you rich.

Kiyosaki has said you should have 3 piggy banks. 1 in which you put towards savings and paying off debt
another which you use towards investing or saving towards investments
the final you use towards charity. In the example he actually advizes trying to put $1 per day in EACHpiggy bank, and then gradualy doing what you can to increase that amount. If you give towards a charity you believe in you will be more motivated to earn and invest and create more as well!

The fact is that when america was founded, there was a society full of about 70% of all people as business owners. Because there was no inflation, the dollar backed by gold would be strengthened as more resources became available. You could retire in your 30s just by working hard on a farm. It was a different life then, but in my opinion, it is because there isn’t enough people that are financially educated (I believe due in large part to a government mandated school system that doesn’t teach people about the subject of money), that america is full of people who cannot retire and have th life they want.

To paraphrase the declaration of independence in modern terms
“For those with the means to take action, they have the responsibility to do so.”

For others they want the risk, and potential payout, of what Kiyosaki offers. But there should be no doubt that his advice isn’t foolproof – risk is risk.

Now the last poster trys to say that people who make profit and take risk tend to spend it more for the greater good than just those who attempt to just protect what they have earned. I think you live in a DREAM WORLD sir. Sure there are examples of very rich people (Gates was your example but how about Buffett and others?) doing something with their wealth. But there are a lot more people who are rich, make 7 figures a year (and more), and do very little for anyone but attempt to make more money for themselves. What about all of the people who make very little money comparatively but still contribute what they can – and even volunteer so many hours its as if they work two full-time jobs? Those are the people I salute and respect much more.

In any case, not every style of investing will be a fit for everyone. I personally think a combination of the two is the best approach. Protect what you have managed to put away, keep your debt as low as possible, and provide for your (and your family’s) future BUT still take on some risk to grow your assets. Anyone who advocates taking on risk to the point where someone cannot sleep at night is not helping anybody – and that should be the measuring stick. If you take on risk and are comfortable enough with the investment that you can sleep at night (comfortably) and know that if you lose money on that investment you’ll be OK then go for it. If not then that investment is not for you. But know that all styles of investing are needed for the markets to function properly – without both the system would be very lopsided and without balance.

Think about that before advocating that one style of advice is better than another. Always remember that advice is still opinion and not everyone agrees with everyone else’s opinions.

On the other hand, look at the Bill Gates Foundation. It has contributed more than Bill Gate’s net worth towards charity and will continue to do so after he dies. Bill gates took on HUGE risks dropping out of college, putting everything he had into the business until he succeeded. Buffet used 10,000 while asking Charles Munger to fund him the other 150,000, so that they could buy a 20% controlling interest of private equity company Berkshire Hathaway, use the business’s equity as colateral to borrow another few hundred thousand, take it public to raise millions, and invest those millions to eventually make billions. Now Buffet will die and have billions go to charity as well while providing insurancce to many and financial advice to hundreds of thousands of investors. Additionally Apple and Google will make society function at a much higher speed and the internet will make society better. Sure maybe for every 10 businesses 9 fail, but what’s better for society? 10 mediocre employees with slightly above average lives, or 9 failures, and 1 success that can help do things such as feed millions of people around the world?

Personally I’ll take 9 failures and 1 success over 10 mediocre savers, even if only 1 out of 10 businesses that are “successes” actually contribute meaninful things to society like major companies do.

And if you look at what technology is doing, it is making most jobs obsolete. In 25 years it will be because there are so many businesses that are able to provide so much to society that people will be able to live wealthy lives through being smart and living frugally.
Picture life in 10,000 BC with no business, no technology, and nothing. The idea of child labor laws was outrageous, families would die if children didn’t gather fruits, nuts, and food because that was often 20% of a families food. The idea of retirement didn’t exist because if you retire, you die. Now consider society with fastfood restauraunts around the world, with meat packaging businesses, with all these businesses.

How did society get this way?
By the 10% of soceity that provides for the other 90%.
What happens if this 10% just said “screw everyone else, I’m rich enough”? Everyone dependent upon this easy way of life would go back to the stone age.
FACT: we need risk takers and Titans like Rockefeller to make modern society even remotely possible
FACT: Kiyosaki’s advice is a MILLION times better for society regardless of how “irresponsible” some narow minded people who don’t see the big picture think it is.

People are starving in third world nations because millions of people around the world are content to simply spend money on meaningless activities like watching TVs and movies, and they provide worthless industries. If society would collectively wake up and everyone would take on some major risks, they might find a more effecient use of the world’s resources.

The world is STARVING, yet there’s enough resources in the world for every person on the planet to live like millionaires. It’s only because of ignorance and a lack of willingness for everyone to take the risks needed to find a more effecient way of doing this so that everyone can more effectively use the resources we have so that everyone can be rich.

I’ll take a world that people like Kiyosaki help contribute to ANY day. Even if only 1% of people succeed taking his advice, it will actually be on a large enough scale where they actually will be able to create something that helps provide for the other 99% that fail.

If you think otherwise, you may be missing the big picture of life.
A world in which everyone follows Suzi’s advice means that there is no job to work at, there are no products being sold because there’s little to buy, and more people starve.
A world in which everyone follows Suzi’s advice and everyone probably will fail multiple times, but those willing to fail more so than others, and those that get lucky, will create a society that everyone can live abundantly, even those that fail, because those that succeeded can provide for those that did not.
So who’s reality do you really prefer to live in?

AOL ask who is more right. I doubt anyone on here has a clue.

Do you think McDonald’s, KFC, Honda, Disneyland didn’t take any chances. Of course, they did!

Too much ado about misunderstanding.

Wes