£1.2tn given to old from young

Harry_Powell

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't know if any of your are familiar with the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" book? Basically it suggests that the Dad that pays the bills, saves, blah, blah.. and does all the sensible stuff that we're advised to do doesn't get rich.

The Dad that gets rich is the one that pays bills late or at the last minute, takes big risks and gambles and so on. (I'm sure others will sum up the book better than me).

Well, my dad was a typical civil servant and I do things his way. Poor dad's way. Right now the "poor dad's" are probably in a VERY strong position (I know I am). But I don't know how long that will continue.

I got a different message from that book than what you did. My perception was that the Dad who lived in a "high value" (i.e. expensive area) and tried to keep up with the lifestyle of his "high value" neighbours with fancy cars (BMW, Merc, etc), kids in private school, expensive holidays and all the other trappings would be a LOT poorer than a Dad on the same income but who lived in a 'nice working class' area and had a similar lifestyle as his neighbours.

The other thing he went on about was not spoiling your kids - basically you raise them well and pay for their education and then set them free in the world, which is pretty much what my parents did with me and my bro.

There was nothing in there (IMHO) about taking mad risks to get rich, quite the opposite, it was all about making the best of a modest income (very MSE).

Basically "Poor Dad" was the one who looked rich but had large liabilities and "Rich Dad" was the one who looked poor but was financially independant.

dopester

I'm enjoying your contribution on the thread scarter, not that I agree with you on all things. Would prefer you to get your use of lose/loose correct. Opposite of win = lose. Opposite of tight = loose.

So.. that is a main theme of RDPD is it? I hear so many boom-heads carping on about that book. No wonder, if they believe in 'no-more-boom-and-bust', perpetual inflation, and that they'll be floated to a paradise on a river of red ink.

Unfortunately I believe in another larger cycle of bust exists which wipes out expectations from smaller cycles. If you're placed at the right point of a cycle, then obviously Rich Dad, Poor Dad... borrow big on a house, like in the 1950s or 60s, keep a job, leverage up.... can see a person do spectacularly for decades. If you don't expect a paradigm changer and the system to adjust under the weight of it's own debt.

Come on.. anyone who really believes RDPD route of high leverage and gambles and debt - over long term sensible saving, cautious attitude to risk and debt, diverse investing. History proves you wrong.. it is fatal. It might have been a winner for many over a 60 year cycle (not all who stretched too far).. but there are limits to HPI beyond what an economy can support. You don't want to be caught out by reaching too far when the snapback comes.

ukcarper

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I got a different message from that book than what you did. My perception was that the Dad who lived in a "high value" (i.e. expensive area) and tried to keep up with the lifestyle of "his high" value neighbours with fancy cars (BMW, Merc, etc), kids in private school, expensive holidays and all the other trappings would be a LOT poorer than a Dad on the same income but who lived in a 'nice working class' area and had a similar lifestyle as his neighbours.

The other thing he went on about was not spoiling your kids - basically you raise them well and pay for their education and then set them free in the world, which is pretty much what my parents did with me and my bro.

There was nothing in there (IMHO) about taking mad risks to get rich, quite the opposite, it was all about making the best of a modest income (very MSE).

Basically "Poor Dad" was the one who looked rich but had large liabilities and "Rich Dad" was the one who looked poor but was financially independant.

I'm not sure thats what he mean I am poor dad I carried on working in a secure job and earnt less than I could have if I had left but now still have my final salary pension. I could have left back in the eighties and nearly doubled my wages. It would have been what I did with that extra money that made the difference.

Harry_Powell

dopester wrote: »

I'm enjoying your contribution on the thread scarter, not that I agree with you on all things. Would prefer you to get your use of lose/loose correct. Opposite of win = lose. Opposite of tight = loose.

So.. that is a main theme of RDPD is it? I hear so many boom-heads carping on about that book. No wonder, if they believe in 'no-more-boom-and-bust', perpetual inflation, and that they'll be floated to a paradise on a river of red ink.

Unfortunately I believe in another larger cycle of bust exists which wipes out expectations from smaller cycles. If you're placed at the right point of a cycle, then obviously Rich Dad, Poor Dad... borrow big on a house, like in the 1950s or 60s, keep a job, leverage up.... can see a person do spectacularly for decades. If you don't expect a paradigm changer and the system to adjust under the weight of it's own debt.

Come on.. anyone who really believes RDPD route of high leverage and gambles and debt - over long term sensible saving, cautious attitude to risk and debt, diverse investing. History proves you wrong.. it is fatal. It might have been a winner for many over a 60 year cycle (not all who stretched too far).. but there are limits to HPI beyond what an economy can support. You don't want to be caught out by reaching too far when the snapback comes.

But that's the point dopester, is that RDPD doesn't advocate buying a big house and getting debted up - quite the opposite!!

It's ALL about "long term sensible saving, cautious attitude to risk and debt, diverse investing" and paying off the mortgage, etc.

I mean, has anyone actually read the book in here or do we just quote each other's misquotes?

Harry_Powell

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure thats what he mean I am poor dad I carried on working in a secure job and earnt less than I could have if I had left but now still have my final salary pension. I could have left back in the eighties and nearly doubled my wages. It would have been what I did with that extra money that made the difference.

I think the whole point about the title is that the "Rich Dad" is actually the "poor dad". It's all perceptions, the guy who looks wealthy is usually the one maxed out on his credit cards.

I remember one part of the book where he was talking about the guy in the office eating his 'bagged lunch' (Amercanism for packed lunch/sandwich) while another guy has expensive restaurant lunches. The 'bagged lunch' guy looked poorer but was probably richer because he wasn't wasting his cash.

I know I cut my Starbucks habit on the back of reading that book

[Deleted User]

dopester wrote: »

I'm enjoying your contribution on the thread scarter, not that I agree with you on all things. Would prefer you to get your use of lose/loose correct. Opposite of win = lose. Opposite of tight = loose.

I'm sure you'd enjoy the thread much more if you got less hung up on little details, but I'll try my best to keep you happy.

So.. that is a main theme of RDPD is it? I hear so many boom-heads carping on about that book. No wonder, if they believe in 'no-more-boom-and-bust', perpetual inflation, and that they'll be floated to a paradise on a river of red ink.

Unfortunately I believe in another larger cycle of bust exists which wipes out expectations from smaller cycles. If you're placed at the right point of a cycle, then obviously Rich Dad, Poor Dad... borrow big on a house, like in the 1950s or 60s, keep a job, leverage up.... can see a person do spectacularly for decades. If you don't expect a paradigm changer and the system to adjust under the weight of it's own debt.

Come on.. anyone who really believes RDPD route of high leverage and gambles and debt - over long term sensible saving, cautious attitude to risk and debt, diverse investing. History proves you wrong.. it is fatal. It might have been a winner for many over a 60 year cycle (not all who stretched too far).. but there are limits to HPI beyond what an economy can support. You don't want to be caught out by reaching too far when the snapback comes.

Well it seems others disagree with my interpretation of the book and I have to say I skimmed through it in a waiting room. But certainly what I picked up on from the book was that everything my dad taught me was wrong. The main thing I remember was don't pay your bills on time. I kept thinking throughout that "this is the complete opposite of what my dad says". He was very much a cautious, live within your means and work hard kind of person.

ukcarper

I agree with you the person with all the material things is not necessary the wealthiest but I though what scarter was saying is that it's the people who take the risks that get rich.

StevieJ

Deleted_User wrote: »

The main thing I remember was don't pay your bills on time. I kept thinking throughout that "this is the complete opposite of what my dad says". He was very much a cautious, live within your means and work hard kind of person.

Maybe a better lesson is don't pay them early

Harry_Powell

"Rich Dad, Poor Dad
As narrated by Robert Kiyosaki

My two dads had opposing attitudes in thought. One dad thought that the rich should pay more in taxes to take care of those less fortunate. The other said, "Taxes punish those who produce and reward those who don't produce."

One dad recommended, "Study hard so you can find a good company to work for." The other recommended, "Study hard so you can find a good company to buy."

One dad said, "The reason I'm not rich is because I have you kids." The other said, "The reason I must be rich is because I have you kids."

One encouraged talking about money and business at the dinner table. The other forbade the subject of money to be discussed over a meal.

One said, "When it comes to money, play it safe, don't take risks." The other said, "Learn to manage risk."

One believed, "Our home is our largest investment and our greatest asset." The other believed, "My house is a liability, and if your house is your largest investment, you're in trouble."

Both dads paid their bills on time, yet one paid his bills first while the other paid his bills last.

One dad believed in a company or the government taking care of you and your needs. He was always concerned about pay raises, retirement plans, medical benefits, sick leave, vacation days and other perks. He was impressed with two of his uncles who joined the military and earned a retirement and entitlement package for life after twenty years of active service. He loved the idea of medical benefits and PX privileges the military provided its retirees. He also loved the tenure system available through the university. The idea of job protection for life and job benefits seemed more important, at times, than the job. He would often say, "I've worked hard for the government, and I'm entitled to these benefits."

The other believed in total financial self-reliance. He spoke out against the "entitlement" mentality and how it was creating weak and financially needy people. He was emphatic about being financially competent"

I especially like the bits where the "rich dad" says a house is a liability and if that's your greatest asset then you're in trouble. And the bit about being financially self-reliant - too many people, especially in this country just give up financially and expect the state to take care of them.

p.s. I interpret the "paying Bills" bit to mean that they both pay bills on time, but 'rich dad' paid his once the work was done to his satisfaction (i.e. last) not before the work was done (first).

fc123

Deleted_User wrote: »

It comes down to your attitude to risk.
I would feel sympathy for someone that took a gamble and lost. But not too much - I'd figure that they knew the risks and made their decision. But nor would I envy or grudge them the rich rewards if their risk paid off.

I don't know if any of your are familiar with the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" book? Basically it suggests that the Dad that pays the bills, saves, blah, blah.. and does all the sensible stuff that we're advised to do doesn't get rich.

The Dad that gets rich is the one that pays bills late or at the last minute, takes big risks and gambles and so on. (I'm sure others will sum up the book better than me).

Well, my dad was a typical civil servant and I do things his way. Poor dad's way. Right now the "poor dad's" are probably in a VERY strong position (I know I am). But I don't know how long that will continue.

O M G I just read Rich Dad/Poor Dad 2nd book this Xmas and bought the first one Rich dad Poor dad for son and OH...neither have bothered to even begin to read it yet (if ever) so may be, it should be titled Rich Mum/Poor Mum (?).

Bought it for my brother too but he has already made steps to move from Self Employed Quadrant to Business owner (he is a DJ/Writer/Music producer) and is now investing in Canadian mining/renewable rescources/new ways to create energy bla bla.

I found chunks of it not so relevant to UK in 2010 and haven't PM'd dear DS with a recomenadtion it as it referenced property investments. Mind you, it was written in 2000.

Fab book and I have cherry picked bits out of it and am beginning to action them right now. First, I have to change my mindset a bit.