If you need some inspiration, get your hot little hands on this book today...
 

So I've been in a little funk the past couple of days, but I found myself guffawing out loud this afternoon after picking off my bookshelf an item that I bought almost the very week it came out in 1997. What an inspiring, rollicking fun read!

The book in question was originally titled "How to Succeed in Business by Breaking All the Rules" by Dan Kennedy. In paperback I think it became "No Rules". Talk about motivation! This book defines motivation. Run out to your library or bookstore and get it now if you want an entrepreneurial boost and if you really feel like laughing out loud today.

The very fact this book never made it (to my knowledge) to The New York Times Bestseller List is testament to the fact that thinking like the masses is a losing proposition.

John

Another one like this
 

I understand how breaking the rules can be really
stimulating to say the least.

I've been reading over and again a little book
called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". This book explains
why being like the masses traps everybody.

That trap in this book is called social
conditioning.

If someone wants to read something radically
different about how we live, read this book.

It's been a New-York Times best seller for months
and someone can have it for a few bucks at E-Bay
or at: http://www7.richdad.com/home.m .

Good reading.




the biz out of an idea

Re: Another one like this
 

I know I'm gonna catch flack for recommending this, but I think that it IS important that you DON'T think like the masses and accept what RK is saying on face value.

Goto:
http://www.johntreed.com

And click on his guru ratings board, then read the article on RK.

You'll have to come to your own conclusions, after reading the article.

Re: Another one like this
 

Robert Kiyosaki's reply

http://www.mastermindforum.com/kiyosakiresponsetoreed.htm

Re: Another one like this
 

It's a reply, so you've gotta hand it to the guy for at least responding.

But it's a politician's reply. He doesn't really address any of the real issues that JTR brings up.

(That's John T. Reed, not Jack Russell Terrier for you dsylexics in the group.) ;)

Read the review of Dolf De LaRoos (RK's collaborator on the Real Estate book) on the JTR's site.
- Adam.

Re: Another one like this
 

--------------------------------------------------
> But it's a politician's reply. He doesn't
> really address any of the real issues that
> JTR brings up.

You have to remember that john treed was the first
to issue a critique.
Koyisacki had the right to answer the way he liked.

I went to http://www.johntreed.com and I don't
see anything looking like a guru rating board or
even any board at all.

Maybe he shut it down for some time?

I see only real estate and football coaching stuff
there, the kind of things that denote a strong
obedience to social standards and avoidance
to take any risks.


www.johntreed.com

Re: Another one like this
 

Here you go. :)

http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html

Why should I take his advice at face value?
 

> Here you go. :)

>
> http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html
-------------------------------------------------
I went down that link, and while that gururating
directory could look impressive, I repeat:

"Why should I take his advice at face value?"

This directory looks like a "look how I'm smart,
I can demolish anybody" scheme.

Not much more than an ego trip to me.

It's looks like a real-estate branch office
manager telling his sales employees what to think.

That is my perception.

Otherwise, is there anything truly scientific in any of this for you?

Is rating gurus a scientific procedure?

I prefer following my own opinions than relying
slavishly on someone else's.

Re: Why should I take his advice at face value?
 

> "Why should I take his advice at face
> value?"

My question is: Why aren't you applying the same skepticism towards RK's book?

You might also want to look into Eric Hoffer's book, "True Believer".

- Adam.




Browning Direct

Robert Kiyosaki....
 

Hi Mario,

I take John Reed's "reviews" with a grain of salt.... After all, John Reed sells his own property investment books, so he's in competition with those he "criticizes".

I read his review of Robert Kiyosaki a long time ago, and I think he completely misunderstood what RK was trying to do. I don't think "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is a real estate investment book. Instead, RK was trying to change the way people think.... Rich Dad Poor Dad was about changing your thinking process.

Of course, if you judge a non-property investment book on how well it teaches property investment, it will rate poorly. It's like judging Seinfeld on how good a drama it is - Seinfeld is not meant to be a drama, so it will rate poorly if that's how you choose to judge it. But I don't think a property investment book was what RK had in mind.

I feel I've benefited from Robert Kiyosaki's stuff.... Rich Dad Poor Dad was a very big catalyst in causing me to truly make the leap into entrepreneurship. I was already thinking and musing about it, but Rich Dad Poor Dad helped to "push me over the edge" and finally take the plunge.... :)

The way I judge business help books at first is mostly by the author.... What have they done? Have they "walked the walk"?

To my knowledge, Robert Kiyosaki has done so.... By his own account, he started a business with a partner that made those velcro "surf wallets". However, after doing well, the company eventually folded after his partner ran away with a lot of the money. Nevertheless, Robert Kiyosaki ended up later making a second fortune through property investment. He's now made a "third" fortune through his books - but to my understanding, he was already rich before he started writing.

Adam Katz's view may be different - he is already a successful entrepreneur, and probably his thinking processes do not need "changing" - he already thinks the way an entrepreneur does. But your average employee does not.... (This is no disrespect to Adam - I have a lot of respect for Adam's business accomplishments and for his opinions.)

RK's insights, about buying assets, NOT liabilities, is really simple yet also very powerful. He turns something which often seems complicated, into something very simple and easy to understand. The average person often does NOT understand the difference between an "asset" and a "liability"! If it's only for that insight, the book (in my opinion) is well worth reading....

Plus the story is quite entertaining too.... (There's the salesman in him coming out!) :)

- Dien

I do apply the same sketpicism!
 

> My question is: Why aren't you applying the
> same skepticism towards RK's book?
--------------------------------------------------
The fact is: I do apply the same skepticism to
RK's book.

And you know what? It passes the test!

Why? It breaks all the rules!

What a relief!

For once somebody saying not to try to follow all
the rules of social correctness and explaining
why!

This has been a best seller man, and for
far from trivial reasons!

John Reed Exposed
 

Adam:

After reading John Reed's views on these supposed real estate gurus, I have discovered...

• Selective editing,
• False Assumptions,
• Out of Context quotes,
• Miss-quotes and,
• Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn...

All throughout his writing.

And by the time you have finished reading this post you will agree with me.

He claims John Burley says he retired at a certain age, then asks, if he is retired why does he still sell stuff and do seminars and workshops. And he says Burley's claims of retirement are on his website.

I've gone to his (John Burley) website and I see no such claim. John Burley has said he realised he was in a position to retire. And realising you are in a position to retire and actually retiring are two different things.

Warren Buffet is certainly in a Position To Retire as well.

Reed shows how Dolf de Roos claims all wealthy people either become rich through real estate or hold their wealth in real estate. Reed than counters with something like - the super wealthy I know of all made their money without using real estate, so Dolf is telling untruths.

STOP. Dolf didn't make a blanket statement. His statement was either or - they EITHER made their money via real estate OR use real estate to hold the wealth. Yet Reed addresses only one element of that statement and attributes it as the only thing Dolf said and compares it only to people he knows of. This is selective editing and drawing deliberate wrong conclusions

This is somewhat like when the news media says, "The public have asked for..." "There is public concern over..." etc., etc., etc. WHO is this public, I ask. The news-reader's spouse? The tea lady?

Who are these wealthy people John Reed knows or is comparing Dolf to? (Not that it would matter because he would select wealthy people who fit his statement anyway.)

And what is meant by the term "investment real estate"? If I buy a company I also buy everything it owns - land and buildings. So I also acquire real estate whether I like it or not. And if I invest in the stock market, I invest in everything the company I have bought shares in, invests in. So my purchase of X number of shares of Microsoft means I also partly own everything Microsoft owns - including the land and buildings of other companies.

I wrote to John Reed and asked him... "From the Proof you offer about your real estate expertise, it appears that you only own ONE real estate property. Is this correct?" (He NEVER replied)

He is selling books on investing in real estate and only currently owns one property. He doesn't say whether it is an investment property or his own residence. But seeing as it is a normal type house, I conclude it is his residence.

John Reed says to be careful of John Burley because Burley has words like "Automatic wealth system" in his writing.

I asked Reed if Burley's system which is: invest part of your income in a high interest bank account or S&P Index Fund using a DRIP (Dividend Reinvestment Program) in combination with regular monthly deposits and over time the compound interest will automatically make you wealthy (and the math proves it is so), is something I should be careful of as he says. Again, I get no reply.

The fact John Reed sells real estate books taints EVERYTHING he writes about other real estate book authors - the good and the bad - because he has a vested interest in the subject.

Of course, if he didn't, people would view his remarks as they should - just someone else's opinion, and we all have our own opinions.

I'll also echo Dien's remarks here: Kiyosaki is NOT, nor has he ever claimed to be, a real estate guru. And yet, Reed reviews his work as though it is the work of a real estate guru.

Reed's page on "Where are they now" (or whatever it is called) shows Kiyosaki as being bankrupt in 1985, and that is all! That is selective presentation of the information. It is plainly obvious that Kiyosaki's 1985 bankruptcy has been overcome - it was not the end of the story for Kiyosaki. Yet, by providing only that bit of information, Reed once again Taints everything.

And I'd like to draw your attention back to something I said at the beginning, "by the time you have finished reading this post you will agree with me."

I have no proof to back that up. Is it true? Do you now agree with me? That's for you to decide. I am drawing your attention to it again now because it is an EXAMPLE of the kind of false statements Reed makes throughout is writing.

It is almost akin to the comedy scene where the big biker asks the scrawny guy if he was looking at his girlfriend. The scrawny guys says "NO" and the biker says "Why not, isn't she good enough?"

In other words, Reed's writing is full of these delibertate mis-interpretations.

Of course, when it all comes down to it, the best advice is simply "Take what you can use and discard the rest."

But alas, the public (HA!) is not like that. Those who doubt Kiyosaki will find solice in Reed's writing. Those who love Kiyosaki will be upset by Reed and attack him. And those who take what they can use, will view both objectively, find good and bad points, and move along their merry way.

My only real problem with Reed are the five things I mentioned at the start:

• Selective editing,
• False Assumptions,
• Out of Context quotes,
• Miss-quotes and,
• Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn...

If he could write without his tainted pen, I'm sure his arguments would be so much better and stronger as they wouldn't be able to be refuted.

As for Kiyosaki? His response to Reed makes the matter worse. He should have kept quiet. By half responding, and selective responding, he casts doubts and shadows upon himself. As you said, a Politician's answer (no answer).

And what is MY opinion of Kiyosaki?

His first three books in the Rich Dad Series were okay. Rich Kid Smart Kid was written to make more money. And Retire Young Retire Rich had so much padding and fluff and endless repetition of sentences, phrases and whole paragraphs it was a struggle to get through it (and what was with the fairy tales scattered through the thing?). After his last two books being such poor efforts he will not get any more of my money.

After seeing a workshop of his (via Pay TV) I was also unimpressed. In fact, he came across like a sleezy Get Rich Quick guy - I live in a big house, with expensive cars and high-priced watches and Love spending money on my Platinum credit card, etc. And didn't really present anything new that he hadn't already mentioned in his first three books. He poured water from a big jug into a small glass. Said how he loved his credit card some more. And encouraged everyone to buy his boardgame Cashflow 101. (Came across to me like an Amway sales meeting thing.)

But like I said, "Take what you can use and discard the rest."

Michael Ross.

Re: John Reed Exposed
 

Michael,

I agree with some of your arguments. I'll post my disagreements below:

> Adam:

> After reading John Reed's views on these
> supposed real estate gurus, I have
> discovered...

> Selective editing,
> False Assumptions,
> Out of Context quotes,
> Miss-quotes and,
> Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn... All
> throughout his writing.

>>> He does do some of this. And it damages his credibility. But this does not take away from the points he makes about RK.

> He claims John Burley says he retired at a
> certain age, then asks, if he is retired why
> does he still sell stuff and do seminars and
> workshops. And he says Burley's claims of
> retirement are on his website.

>>> Who is John Burley? This is irrelevent to us discussing RK and JTR's criticism of him. JTR may also bash Christianity, Drag Racing and Robert Duvall's acting, and do a poor job of it. Doesn't matter, here. We're just discussing his criticism of RK.

> So my purchase of X number
> of shares of Microsoft means I also partly
> own everything Microsoft owns - including
> the land and buildings of other companies.

Come on, Mike... this is like saying you're gay because you had sex with a woman who has sex with men.

Just because I invest in MS does not make that "investment real estate." We may be going off subject here. :)

> I wrote to John Reed and asked him...
> "From the Proof you offer about your
> real estate expertise, it appears that you
> only own ONE real estate property. Is this
> correct?" (He NEVER replied)

So what? I don't actively train dogs anymore. Just because I don't, does not mean that I can't, or that I'm not an expert on dog training, or that I'm not still the best dog trainer in the world, right?

JTR lists all of the properties (addresses, dates, etc...) he's owned. RK does not. If I remember correctly, JTR has owned 11. RK has owned 4. Hardly enough to be preaching about how be "Rich."

> The fact John Reed sells real estate books
> taints EVERYTHING he writes about other real
> estate book authors - the good and the bad -
> because he has a vested interest in the
> subject.

This is a ridiculous point. He is an authority on the subject, and therefore his opinion is "tainted"? Everyone's opinion is "tainted." But I'd rather read what an authority has to say on the subject than read what a wanna-be dreamer thinks about it. (I'm not talking about you, Mike... I just mean your average shmoe.)

> Of course, if he didn't, people would view
> his remarks as they should - just someone
> else's opinion, and we all have our own
> opinions.

It's more than just another opinion. He is an authority in the field. This may be irrelevent, since we should be evaluating his arguments, rather than his pedigree.

> I'll also echo Dien's remarks here: Kiyosaki
> is NOT, nor has he ever claimed to be, a
> real estate guru. And yet, Reed reviews his
> work as though it is the work of a real
> estate guru.

He acts like a guru. He walks and talks like one. And furthermore, he's proffering advice on how to get rich.

I could understand if he were offering vague advice that was at least sound. But his advice is riddled with inconsistencies and b.s.

> Reed's page on "Where are they
> now" (or whatever it is called) shows
> Kiyosaki as being bankrupt in 1985, and that
> is all! That is selective presentation of
> the information. It is plainly obvious that
> Kiyosaki's 1985 bankruptcy has been overcome
> - it was not the end of the story for
> Kiyosaki. Yet, by providing only that bit of
> information, Reed once again Taints
> everything.

Yeah, but the point is: This guy grew up with Rich Dad's advice, and it's questionable if he ever got rich, before becoming a guru. So, somehow you and I are supposed to be able to GET Rich Dad's teachings? Not bloodly likely.

> But alas, the public (HA!) is not like that.
> Those who doubt Kiyosaki will find solice in
> Reed's writing. Those who love Kiyosaki will
> be upset by Reed and attack him. And those
> who take what they can use, will view both
> objectively, find good and bad points, and
> move along their merry way.

No, I think the danger with RK is that he's trying to sell a contrarian's dream of how we'd all like to imagine becoming wealthy SHOULD be. But this is far from reality. He is the pied piper, leading his lemmings down a road to heartbreak and disappointment. For when they learn that their emperor has no clothes, they will be left with wasted time and broken dreams... and quite possibly, financial ruin.

> And what is MY opinion of Kiyosaki?

> After seeing a workshop of his (via Pay TV)
> I was also unimpressed. In fact, he came
> across like a sleezy Get Rich Quick guy

Bingo! He comes across that way, because he IS that way.

> - I
> live in a big house, with expensive cars and
> high-priced watches and Love spending money
> on my Platinum credit card, etc.

Kind of inconsistent with his preachings, eh?

-Adam.


Browning Direct

Re: John Reed Exposed
 

Hi Michael,

Wow, that's a pretty thorough discussion of John Reed!

Of course, the real reason John Reed has that page (in my opinion) is because he knows thousands more people will type "Robert Kiyosaki" in the search engines than "John Reed".... By blasting his competitors, John Reed hopes to get people to buy his books.

Regarding Robert Kiyosaki's reply, in fairness to him he wrote that reply in 2000 some time. I had a look on the "Wayback Machine" where you can look at old versions of John Reed's pages. John Reed's August 2000 "review" of Robert Kiyosaki came to about 16 printed pages by my calculation, while his current review comes to about 26 printed pages. So Reed has added over 60% more stuff to his "review" after Robert Kiyosaki wrote his reply.

Anyhow.... I like your advice, Michael - just take what you can, and discard the rest!

- Dien Rice


What a Great Idea!

Re: Why should I take his advice at face value?
 

Hey Adam: I see the path your going down and its a noble one. The truth..... BUT if RK's book inspires people to get off of their fanny's and take part in the entrepreneurial game then more power to him. Maybe he changed his mind about who was the most important man in his life. Can't a person change his mind? Fact or fiction I do not care... If it gives me an idea or two then the $$$ I spent was well worth it.

Different things motivate different people as we all know. SO if his book does "reach out and touch someone" then who are we to say anything.

later....Ron

> My question is: Why aren't you applying the
> same skepticism towards RK's book?

> You might also want to look into Eric
> Hoffer's book, "True Believer".

> - Adam.

Re: John Reed Exposed
 

Adam:

For some reason the forum software cut off my previous bits and some of your bits too. I think due to the Greater Than symbols

Anyway...

I used John Burley - a real estate guy - as an example of Reed's misleading writing style. Same with Dolf de Roos.

> Come on, Mike... this is like saying you're
> gay because you had sex with a woman who has
> sex with men.

(This was in response to the buying of shares and getting a piece of whatever real estate the company owns)

> Just because I invest in MS does not make
> that "investment real estate." We
> may be going off subject here. :)

No. Just semantics. Again, merely using some of Reed's tactics.

> So what? I don't actively train dogs
> anymore. Just because I don't, does not mean
> that I can't, or that I'm not an expert on
> dog training, or that I'm not still the best
> dog trainer in the world, right?

That's right... when it comes to dogs. But have the dog training rules changed that much since you were training? Can you still train a dog today the same way you could when you were training?

I'm pretty sure you can. But can the same be said about real estate? I don't really think so.

What can and can't be deducted, and by whom, seems to change all the time as the government changes the laws around real estate.

And this doesn't take interest rates into account, or other variable factors.

Sure, there are certain things about real estate that stay the same. But there are also things about real estate that change.

Now I haven't been to Reed's site in a while, but from memory the last investment property he had was in 1993 - nearly ten years ago.

Just based on that, I could be getting ten year old advice that doesn't apply any more, couldn't I?

I might also be getting up to date info. But based on what he reveals, I would assume his stuff is out of date.

> JTR lists all of the properties (addresses,
> dates, etc...) he's owned. RK does not. If I
> remember correctly, JTR has owned 11. RK has
> owned 4. Hardly enough to be preaching about
> how be "Rich."

Whether you own property or not doesn't give you, or take away, or even dictate, whether you are rich.

Reed has owned 11 peroprties has he? Did he OWN them outright? Or was he positive or negative gearing them in some way?

He could own eleven two bed room apartments on different blocks of land, and RK could own one 30 unit complex. One owns eleven properties and one owns one.

What does this have to do with anything? Merely that the number of properties you own does not determine whether you are rich or not.

And whether you reveal the address of the properties or not also means nothing. How about flying low and collecting the dough (if that was your plan you wouldn't brag about how rich you are, right? :o))

> This is a ridiculous point. He is an
> authority on the subject, and therefore his
> opinion is "tainted"? Everyone's
> opinion is "tainted." But I'd
> rather read what an authority has to say on
> the subject than read what a wanna-be
> dreamer thinks about it. (I'm not talking
> about you, Mike... I just mean your average
> shmoe.)

Reed may be an authority on real estate. But does that mean anything when it comes to his opinion of a book which is not about real estate?

I personally don't care. If the arguement is solid and backed up with good reasoning, whether the person is a so-called authority doesn't matter.

This is what is so wonderful about debating. We can take a stance - a side - and put forth arguments and reasons without being authorities.

Side thought: at what point does someone become and authority anyway? Are they only the authority to those they know more than?

> It's more than just another opinion. He is
> an authority in the field. This may be
> irrelevent, since we should be evaluating
> his arguments, rather than his pedigree.

Irrelevent about his authority status? It underlies his Reason Why he wrote his piece(s). And if it does not matter, than what he wrote is just as valid an opinion as anyone else's, as I said.

I'm not having a go at what Reed wrote. I'm having a go at the WAY he wrote it. His writing is misleading and full of purposeful errors, ommissions, out of context elements, etc. All designed to make the subject of review look worse and him better.

As I said in my first post... if he could lose all that misleading stuff his argumewnts would be far more powerful and not open to debate.

> He acts like a guru. He walks and talks like
> one. And furthermore, he's proffering advice
> on how to get rich.

Yes. Getting Rich, not real estate.

This is the crux of the matter. Reed is attacking from a real estate point of view when RK's work is not a real estate work.

> I could understand if he were offering vague
> advice that was at least sound. But his
> advice is riddled with inconsistencies and
> b.s.

Yep. That's why you "take what you can use and discard the rest."

> Yeah, but the point is: This guy grew up
> with Rich Dad's advice, and it's
> questionable if he ever got rich, before
> becoming a guru. So, somehow you and I are
> supposed to be able to GET Rich Dad's
> teachings? Not bloodly likely.

In his latest book - Retire Young Retire Rich - I am able to deduce he became wealthy after his bankruptcy by teaching business owners how to increase their business, or some such thing.

In other words... what he couldn't do and what sent him bust, he was teaching others how to do. Then after it was established, he sold it.

Also, if it took RK 20 years to do it following Rich Dad's advice (and now there is some discussion that Rich Dad did not exist and was actually more than one person)... than the average Joe ain't got a hope.

> No, I think the danger with RK is that he's
> trying to sell a contrarian's dream of how
> we'd all like to imagine becoming wealthy
> SHOULD be. But this is far from reality. He
> is the pied piper, leading his lemmings down
> a road to heartbreak and disappointment. For
> when they learn that their emperor has no
> clothes, they will be left with wasted time
> and broken dreams... and quite possibly,
> financial ruin.

Adam, I absolutely LOVE the terminology you use here...

He is the pied piper, leading his lemmings down a road to heartbreak and disappointment. For when they learn that their emperor has no clothes, they will be left with wasted time and broken dreams... and quite possibly, financial ruin.

> Bingo! He comes across that way, because he
> IS that way.

> Kind of inconsistent with his preachings,
> eh?

Yes, of course it is. But he has to get them to buy his Cashflow game. People just don't walk around with $300 cash all the time. And so he first has to get them out of the 'do not spend money using my credit card' mentality he encourage them to be in in the first place.

Let me restate this so there is not confusion: The facts of Reed's arguments are not what I have a problem with... it's the WAY he presents those facts.

I can't help but wonder whether he (Reed) ever worked in one of those Current Affair shows who use lots of dirty little editing tricks. HA!

Again, I'll finish with...

Take what you can use, and discard the rest.

Michael Ross.

Re: John Reed Exposed
 

What a great thread! Almost sounds like a rational discourse between Socrates and Aristotle in the agora:-)

Anyway, I discovered John Reed in 1998 or so and read his "guru bashing" then. I emailed him to refute some of his points about one real estate "guru" I knew personally (and whose system helped me make a lot of money as a rank beginner).

He actually replied to me (no doubt because he attended West Point and I attended Annapolis, so I got a grudging respect:-)). His answer was rational, cautionary and not at all mean spirited. So, I do believe he has knowledge (never bought his books, so can't say for sure) and enjoys selective sniping - like O'Reilly on the "O'Reilly Factor" - bombast and hyperbole.

Re Robert Kiyosaki - I agree with the general opinion of take what you can use and move on. Like Dien, his first couple of books caused me to relook at my ideas of wealth. The rest have not (to me) been worth buying after scanning them at the bookstore.

I played his Cashflow 101 game and found it to be fairly basic (not that I'm a financial genius). ALL of the players got out of the "rat race" fairly quickly, and the host was pretty disappointed that he'd shelled out $100+ for the game.

Anyway, great thread and a model for airing differing opinions in a civilized, thoughtful way!

Bob

Re: Robert Kiyosaki....
 

Dien,

Thank you for the kind words.

Yes, I agree with you... the stuff he teaches about moving away from being an employee and towards being self-employed and investing is good advice.

And if that was all his material did, I'd be singing his praises too.

But where RK is dangerous is that he advocates THE WAY to do it is by using techniques that are waaaay too risky for average investors... or even for experienced investors.

It's not about thinking outside of the box. It's about clearly recognizing what is an acceptable risk-to-reward ratio, and not getting suckered in by someone's play toward your greed gland-- to coin a phrase from Don Alm.

An example: RK's promotion of options trading.

Furthermore, he still hasn't offered any proof about actually "Getting rich" from real estate. Even the examples he offers are nothing more than most of the people I grew up with, who made a couple of real estate sales in the 70's and '80's ... but hardly enough to qualify them as either "Rich" or a teacher of how to "Get Rich."

And what appeals to me about Joe Sugarman, or Ron Popeil, or Cossman, or to some extent, Halbert, is that you can very easily ascertain whether they actually walked the walk, by doing a little research. Not true with RK.

I don't know. He just suffers from a huge credibility gap, with me. He talks about saving your money and investing wisely, and then on the next page he refers to taking his new Porsche for a drive. And then goes on to extoll the virtues of the Millionaire Next Door. (Hint: None of those guys drove Porsches.)

As for Joh T. Reed... I can appreciate Mike Ross's point, about not disagreeing with the message, but with the way the message is delivered. But the "Take what's good and leave the rest" approach is fine for guys who are as sharp as Mike and have the ability to evaluate subjects critically (I'm not teasing here... I think Mike is amazing at this!). But the average guy isn't.

Anyway... I think it's good that we discuss these things. :)

Best regards,
Adam.


Browning Direct, Inc.