No. I listed to the latest episode of Gold Seek Radio.
Damn. That was actually my first guess but I decided to go with Schiff. He was on that show a few weeks ago too. I should have known, since Gold Seek was more recent.
That doesn’t appear to agree with this:
The film further shows that, while making money and the profit-and-loss test are the crucial signs and seals of commercial success, in the long run, the drive for money was not the fundamental motivation for the creation of Facebook. Zuckerberg is shown as not caring about money. He cares about doing something creative, great, and pathbreaking. He cares about making a dent in the universe.
Zuckerberg just bought a mansion: http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979297843
Maybe Zuckerberg didn’t care about money in the short run (first 7 years).
Also in the episode, Kiyosaki said something along the lines of “I don’t buy mining shares, I start mines from scratch.”
I think that’s just another illustration of Kiyosaki’s oversimplification style of teaching. I think he’s not really as dense as he could be made out to be with some of his writings. Just take a look at the OP and this thread. If you take his definitions and his viewpoint too literally, it could cause a lot of problems, but if you come from the understanding that he’s just trying to drive home a point, I think it can be effective.
Whether or not it does more harm than good, I don’t know. But I definitely see a benefit to the way he presents a lot of things. His cashflow quandrant is obviously another example of something really simple…but it’s quite brilliant in part because of that simplicity and accessibility. He has certainly been effective in getting a lot of people to see the world through a different lens. In other words, he’s more of a key to a door, or a stepping stone…he’s not what’s on the other side.
That’s what they all say… until they find a way to get it.
Right. It takes some insight to get it. There’s a reason that most people retire into relative poverty and it isn’t because they were rich dad. In one of his videos he describes himself as dumb. He’s not selling a bridge. He’s mainly just inspirational.
He sells assets inside of an untaxed investment fund. Taxes are mainly designed to apply when you are receiving income that you could spend on consumption.
Btw, one thing I noticed is that most people measure wealth based on so-called “net worth”. It’s really an illusory concept. It consists of taking the price that something was last sold at and simply multiplying that by the number that you have, assuming that you could always sell all of it at any instant at that price, which is hardly realistic.
I think you’re really overthinking it. Just answer me this…would you rather work 80 hours/wk and make $10 million/yr, or 4hrs/wk and make $1 million. Or even $100k. In which situation would you feel “wealthier”? Not only that, but there are ways to live like a millionaire without necessarily having a million dollars. Tim Ferriss covers this quite well in his brilliant The 4-Hour Workweek.
I don’t see how that is relevant to net worth.
You’re the one who just said trying to measure wealth in “net worth” is illusory.
I said that net worth is illusory. Anyway, repeating what I said doesn’t explain how a question about income relates to net worth.
No, I like the motivational aspect.
In that case, wouldn’t capital gains also not be taxed?
Instant wisdom is bought by fools.
You literally said “most people measure wealth based on so-called ‘net worth’”. That is a direct quote. Verbatim. You said it right up there. Then you went on for the rest of that paragraph explaining how it was a mistake for people to measure wealth based on so-called net worth because you think net worth is “an illusory concept”.
And my comment to you is that you are overthinkning it. If you have a need to define net worth and say it’s a non-concept, I suppose you can go ahead and do that (and I suppose that could actually be what you were doing based on the sheer amount of the paragraph dedicated to explaining that). But how you feel about the concept of net worth is completely unnecessary to make the case that measuring wealth that way is flawed.
What I as talking about is how wealth is measured. You were saying people are mistaken to measure wealth through net worth, simply because net worth is “an illusory concept”. I’m saying it makes no difference whether net worth is illusory or not. It is still a mistake to measure wealth that way. Got it?
No. I explained how net worth is illusory simpliciter; i.e., arbitrary accounting. It’s a fraudulent calculation of purchasing power. I’m not talking about utility.