Slashdot Mirror

It seems that Kiyosaki has been thoroughly discredited as a liar and scam artist. Your thoughts?

https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...

It seems that Kiyosaki has been thoroughly discredited as a liar and scam artist. Your thoughts?

https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...

It seems that Kiyosaki has been thoroughly discredited as a liar and scam artist. Your thoughts?

https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...

It seems that Kiyosaki has been thoroughly discredited as a liar and scam artist. Your thoughts?

https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...
https://johntreed.com/blogs/jo...

http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html
"Are U.S. Navy surface ships sitting ducks to enemies with modern weapons?"

And I might as well add my usual "it's all ironic", which is my comment on the main article:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
-----
Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism

Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?

Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?

Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?

These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. Here is some dark humor I wrote on the topic: A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene. See also a little ironic story I wrote on trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide because it feels "Burdened by Bags of Sand". Or this YouTube video I put together: The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income.

Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html

There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.

So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to fear these days is ironcially ... irony. :-)

So, how can we transcend militarism?

Simple persuasive rhetoric was tried, and failed, when Albert Einstein said, with the creation of atomic weapons everything had changed except our way of thinking.

The economic argument against war was tried, and failed; see "War is a Racket" by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler:
http://www.lexrex.com/enli

This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?

A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships. The Navy knows this and is also investing in VTOL aircraft, stealth surface ships, and other survivable technology. It loves the big ships, of course, but knows they wouldn't survive if we have to face a really capable enemy.

Asset does not mean "guaranteed to go up in value", it does not mean "produces positive cash flow", it does not mean "highly liquid."

There is only one reasonable definition of "asset" and "liability", the accounting one. You sound like you are babbling Kiyosaki's nonsense: http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html.

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset "Under US GAAP, the fundamental definition of an asset is as follows: "Assets are probable future economic benefits obtained or controlled by a particular entity as a result of past transactions or events." (Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 6, paragraph 25)"

The future benefit for a fixed asset like a house is

1) I will be allowed to live in it, and prevent other people from living in it
2) I can sell it when and if I choose to do so.

Liability, to quote Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability

A liability is a present obligation of the enterprise arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits. [F.49(b)]

I am under an obligation to pay my mortgage. That's because the *money I borrowed* is a liability. I am not under an obligation to live in my house, or give it to another party, nor even to spend money on maintenance. I have a tax liability, and must pay insurance to keep the bank from worrying about its collateral going up in smoke, but the house itself is not that liability. Those outflows are *not* pieces of the house that are being shipped off to other people. The asset being depleted is my *cash*.

While I don't agree with blind corporate loyalty (I'm self-employed), I thought I'd point out that the Rich Dad, Poor Dad book by Richard Kiyosaki has been subject to criticism. (That's just one of the many sites, but it's the most thorough, IMHO.)

which, btw, is a load of crap

I checked out your site. Very good financial stuff, I bookmarked it. I agree with this guy on a lot. While not a frugal site in that it has coupons, he definately puts us in the right financial frame of mind. [although I hate how he refers to himself as Clark, but I understand his reason]

He likes my favorite finance writer too, Jane Bryant Quinn! One guy I like is John Reed, similar to Clark in many ways.

Anyone interested in Rich Dad, Poor Dad should also check out this site. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Before you read Rich Dad Poor Dad, do some research about the author. I'm not telling you not to read the book, but at least read it with a grain of salt.

Check this: http://johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is one of the worst books you can read. John T. Reed has devoted an entire page to explaining why. Save your money and follow someone else's advice.