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 But based on what he reveals, I would assume his stuff is out of date.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.