Robert Kiyosaki vs. Suze Orman

I think susan is only for regular people who just want to stay afloat . most people will agree with that BUT ROBERT IS FOR FOLKS WHO WANT TO BE REALLY RICH THE RIGHT WAY THERE NOT THAT MANY BECAUSE MOST FOLKS ARE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKKKK . So if you want to do ok dont take a chance or some risk go with susan!!!!.

I’ve read, and like both of them. But in this case, Kiyosaki is way out of line.

I watch Suzi every Saturday night and she definitely knows what she’s talking about! She doesn’t want anyone taking risky moves in this economy!

Robert does NOT teach people to buy and flip in the marketplace. Suzy does not want people to take risks? Wake up Americans,, RISK is involved in our daily lives whether we follow a “guru” or not!
Robert K has taught my family that WE are the ones in control not our pension planners. Yes, he is an over paid windbag BUT he also teaches many of us how to be over paid windbags.

Robrt asked for this by starting it… I think there are great things to take from both. Looks like she is out of the fight since no responce.

You could die tommorrow, and what would you have accomplished for society by living scared, and fearful and frugally and unwilling to take risks.

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?

Chris, you are right in a lot of ways, the world does need both, and it’s best to both save and spend. However, the poster above you is right in that the world would be better off with a society that uses the money to create value. You state that some rich people may not create value… I disagree with that. How is it possible to make money without creating value to someone. There are two sides to every trade and transaction. Even people that buy foreclosures and sell them as is simply by marketing it better provide a house at a price that the buyer is willing to pay, that that buyer specifically would not have been able to find, had that person not stepped in and gotten that house. However, most flippers actually fix up the house and make it better and worth more. Those that buy houses and rent them out provides more housing for more people.

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.”

The rules of the game are in deed changing. I think Suze Orman has some valid points of 401k however Mr.Kiyosaki beleives in creating your wealth through cash flow. My question to all you readers is the following, is cash king ? If you answered yes then cash flow makes perfect sense. Why do you ask ? Because cash flow means you receive cash on your investment currently and not waiting for it until you retire and then trying to asjust for inflation. With Cash Flow you reinvest your money in current economic conditions or cash out. Can you cash out on your 401k, I do not think so and would never recommend it because the beleif is that you reinvest in good years and bad years. Then you hope your retirement date comes when we are in a booming economy. So 401k is really a double edged sword. You hope to retire in a boom economy. However cash flow allows you to receive money every month, it’s then your decision to reinvest it or use it for pleasure. Question, can you use your 401k for pleasure ? Answer is no, it goes against what it is intended to do. Based on this analysis Cash Flow is king because you receive your money today and not tomorrow where inflation is a huge factor in whether your investment paid off. I am speaking with common wisdom because I hold an MBA in Finance and young man who works in Wall Street and knows the game. The name of the game is have control over your assets. Are you in control over your 401k, not really it is the fund manager who is. Cash Flow on the other hand is something you can control. I knew the crash was coming back in 2007 when I was getting my graduate degree. I do not beleive in bailing out the losers however it is the only way to keep the game going. The homeowners who took mortgages they couldnt not afford should not be bailed out because in this game you are the loser and the loser deserves to lose. The winner is the one who knows how this game is played. So the exchange of wealth must occur for this country to move forward. Those who waited on the sidelines for the right moment to buy will now become the future and the ones who will take a loss will be part of the past. This is a true wealth creator, more than a 401k. But do not get me wrong I like 401k, I have one where I contribute what my employer matches. However 50% of my earnings is saved in cash every year ready to buy an asset that produces cash flow. Because ultimately the name of the game is to become your own boss…. You control your destiny and not someone else…

ps. The higher the risks the higher the rewards

To those that feel the rich deserve what they have an earned every penny, I would make the following points.

The wealthiest people didn’t get there on their own. In the best of cases they had family money, old money to seed their even greater fortunes. The old saying, it takes money to make money is very true.

But even for those that made it on their own, they benefited in many cases by the upbringing they had, the neighborhoods and schools where they were raised. They benefited from society created by everyone and with structure provided by the government. Their businesses were not created in a vacuum but in a system which when well manipulated, benefits the few at the expense of the many.

There is the element of luck. The genetic pool vs, the genetic puddle where some get looks, brains, talents and others are born with disabilities both mental and physical. There are others in between that have varying talents perhaps in area’s not appreciated by society and therefore do not pay well. Of course there are those without talents, an often neglected fact by motivational speakers.

There is business luck. Who you know is dependent on where you live, went to school, the social circles you are in and again, the luck of birth-genetics, where born, who your parents are and being lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time. It is also called opportunity and this is something that can explain Ivy League grads success and t ghetto residents that wind up in jail in large numbers. One is an opportunity for success and the other for failure. i

Success can be measured in many ways not just financial. Yet our society does not see value in anything but money.

But for those self-righteous a-holes who believe that everyone can make a million dollars if only they risk it all, you are delusional and need a good dose of reality. The world is full of people that risked plenty and never “made” it. Therein lies the problem. There must be more to a person’s value than money or things. A man who works, supports his family, stays married and isn’t a drug addict or alcoholic is a far greater success than a rich rock star that meets an early death with a needle in his arm.

stop acting like children you two. Robert, what are you trying to prove by provoking this ridiculous conversation in the first place. Suze, I thought you were more rational and less emotional. Get over it.

Remember, people actual listen to the both of you..

I think Robert is right. He is still giving ideas for security. He tells you to invest more, from your profit, and not from one’s own money. If anything, he only buys luxuries, from his profits, and as a reminder. He is always investing, and does so in a safe manner. Either that, or you work hard and pay lots of taxes. I don’t have anything against taxes, but the North American government is inefficient, and takes more money, without giving back. Come the recession, and when a tax paying citizen gets fired, the government doesn’t treat them any different than someone who paid less. In Canada, they used tax money to build a fake lake for G8. Um, I am unemployed, and am struggling to find a job, and this is what the big guys do for me as a tax paying citizen. I say, “Do or Die”.