Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

micaelwidell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#91

Post by branchless »

tome wrote: post #85
branchless wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that I have no problem with. Go forth and create wealth. Do not take land monopoly in a flawed system and force others to give you their labour.

And if that land was purchased with wealth that was created, what's the problem?

Most is purchased with debt - this is what sets the price. Also they are not making new land. Why should people have the right to charge people to live on a part of the earth in perpetuity? The state builds infra around it then the land owner charges a fortune for people to have the right to exist.

Land is a special case and should be treated as such. Land value tax would address this by capturing most of the added value from land for the common wealth rather than land monopolists.

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#92

Post by Kinnard »

tome wrote: post #66
Kinnard wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, they don't loan the money, they create it, banks haven't functioned the way they're popularly imagined to function for centuries. And it's so sad that this false image is the moral basis for banks going after borrowers assets. The bank doesn't lend you someone else's money, it creates the money(no effort) and you have to work and put up real collateral to pay it back. By G-d we should all be working…

> it creates the money(no effort) Err, there most certainly is an effort assessing credit risk and dealing with the fallout when someone defaults.

What exactly is the risk to the Bank in lending out money they just created?

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#93

Post by mywittyname »

branchless wrote: post #45
anon4 wrote: post #42

Isn't he basically preaching a rentier economy? That sort of thing is not sustainable at scale - at best you can have something like 10% of people getting rent (leeching off of) the people doing the actual work. Speaking ethically, this is one of the sleaziest ways you can make money - you're making your own basic income, except it's 5 times bigger than the income of the people who actually do the work. You're depriv…

Yep, he is. The guy is a leech. Another is mr money moustache with his 3 homes telling us to save by eating oats or whatever. These guys make me sick. I half agree that we need a revolution, these people can never be persuaded of their ills they are just horrible people.

What exactly is your argument here? Why is he a horrible person? Because he rents houses?

There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting homes. Owning a home in the US is within the reach of most American families. So lots of people rent because they chose to. Some people prefer the flexibility to move, don't want to do maintenance, or prefer to live in higher density areas where personal homes are less common.

People who rent real estate are just providing a service, and a critical one at that. If nobody rented places to live, then we'd have a lot of homeless people in the world.

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#94

Post by barrkel »

tim333 wrote: post #13
branchless wrote: post #9

How I hate people like this. "Building assets and letting them work for you". For this you can read: "be the footsoldier for the banks who have a monopoly on money creation. Ask the bank to create money for you then use this to join the land monopolists. Then let those stupid little people who are actually creating wealth rent it back from you. This way you get a stream of their labour." For assets read "property". P…

>Nobody adds a billion of wealth creation How about JK Rowling. Must be close.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly; monopolies tend to drive up prices.

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#95

Post by branchless »

mywittyname wrote: post #93
branchless wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, he is. The guy is a leech. Another is mr money moustache with his 3 homes telling us to save by eating oats or whatever. These guys make me sick. I half agree that we need a revolution, these people can never be persuaded of their ills they are just horrible people.

What exactly is your argument here? Why is he a horrible person? Because he rents houses? There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting homes. Owning a home in the US is within the reach of most American families. So lots of people rent because they chose to. Some people prefer the flexibility to move, don't want to do maintenance, or prefer to live in higher density areas where personal homes are less common…

Yes they are horrible and yes they are exploiting people. It's not a service, they are exploiting the capped supply of a basic need.

The argument about "if nobody rents out" is just wrong. Are they going to knock the place down if they don't rent? Yes there is a need for rentals but this should be within a world where we have land value tax so the bulk of the gain is passed onto the state to reduce labour taxes, reduce land costs and improve living standards.

These guys are adding nothing, they are taking labour.

The cost of a home is not the cost of the bricks it's the cost of the land in the main areas with employment prospects.

The USA was originally a land of opportunity. Why? Because you could get hold of land cheap. You were no longer constrained to near-serfdom by total land enclosure in Europe. Now here we are back to square one with the rentiers creaming off labour and books on how to join them.

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#96

Post by tome »

Kinnard wrote: post #92
tome wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it creates the money(no effort) Err, there most certainly is an effort assessing credit risk and dealing with the fallout when someone defaults.

What exactly is the risk to the Bank in lending out money they just created?

They didn't magic it out of thin air. It's a liability to them. If the loan is paid into another bank they then have to transfer central bank deposits to that other bank. If the loan is never paid back then they've lost money.

Is it genuinely not obvious to you than bank deposits aren't something that banks can create and destroy on a whim?

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#97

Post by tome »

barrkel wrote: post #94
tim333 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody adds a billion of wealth creation How about JK Rowling. Must be close.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly; monopolies tend to drive up prices.

Yes, but not beyond the value to the eventual purchasers ...

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#98

Post by mywittyname »

branchless wrote: post #76
mywittyname wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if everyone did it? We'd all starve If everyone did anything other than grow/hunt food, then we'd all starve. The entire structure of our economy is built are specialization where only a small fraction of workers produce enough food for the entire population.

I knew someone would try to skew this so that's why I specifically categorized it into "creating wealth" vs "rentier activity". I don't see your point as valid, of course if we all made kitchenware and nobody made food we'd starve, that wasn't the point of my post.

If you knew somebody was going to make that argument, you should have preemptively addressed it in your origin post.

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#99

Post by tome »

branchless wrote: post #95
mywittyname wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is your argument here? Why is he a horrible person? Because he rents houses? There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting homes. Owning a home in the US is within the reach of most American families. So lots of people rent because they chose to. Some people prefer the flexibility to move, don't want to do maintenance, or prefer to live in higher density areas where personal homes are less common…

Yes they are horrible and yes they are exploiting people. It's not a service, they are exploiting the capped supply of a basic need. The argument about "if nobody rents out" is just wrong. Are they going to knock the place down if they don't rent? Yes there is a need for rentals but this should be within a world where we have land value tax so the bulk of the gain is passed onto the state to reduce labour taxes, redu…

And suppose that someone follows the teachings of Rich Dad, Poor Dad but doesn't buy land or property, instead investing in something else that generates revenue, otherwise following the book's advice to the letter. Do you still object? On what grounds?

I can see you think that land tax would be fairer (I'm inclined to agree) but that's really not related to the message of the book. Are you opposed to private ownership of capital in general?

Re: Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money

#100

Post by spdionis »

TooSmugToFail wrote: post #71
reboog711 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a long time since I read it; but I don't consider "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" a 'how to get rich' book. The real benefit I got from that book was how it draws a line between a liability and an asset. For example, a car is not an asset; especially if you had to take a loan to pay it off. That is something that takes money away from your cash flow every month; not add to it. A rental house that brings in money eve…

That was the only take-away for me, back when I read it maybe 15 or more years ago. But in addition to that, I can't say I got more out of it...

Sounds important enough. It changed my view of things too.
Post reply on HN