The truth behind Class Warfare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ca$hflow, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Ca$hflow macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #1
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2
    Nine minutes? I will wait for the transcript.
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #3
    GBTV? (Glenn Beck?)

    I'll definitely wait for the transcript. And I already know it'll be ridiculous.
     
  4. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #4
    I watched the whole thing.

    I got my hopes up when he walked over to the blackboard- would I see economics equations? Sources I could verify myself? Real insight? No. I got a cross and four letters.

    Disappointing, unverifiable and lacking any depth.
     
  5. Ca$hflow, Nov 16, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011

    Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #5
    Source.... Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki.

    That is why your iStudentUK. You have much to learn grasshopper. The cross and four letters is called the Cashflow Quadrant. Continue your financial education as school does not teach financial education. A great place to start is to read the book that I sourced.
     
  6. iStudentUK, Nov 16, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011

    iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #6
    I'm familiar with the concept. The "draw a cross and add some letters" approach is quite common, another version I've come across just recently is the "SWOT analysis".

    The point is it isn't a very sophisticated tool, especially for trying to explain something as complex as capitalism or class warfare. It just makes a pretty little picture that people can relate to. Personally, I'd rather see comprehensive data, analysis, statistics and mathematical derivations, couple that with a few comparative case studies and surveys and I'd be happy with that mixture of data and observation. Unfortunately that doesn't tend to attract viewers!


    EDIT- although popular science books, or in the case economics books, are interesting (I enjoy them) they really aren't a good source to cite for anything complex. People dedicate their lives to studying capitalism, classes etc. It can't be accurately summarised in a popular book, which is primarily intended to sell copies not be accurate. Maybe 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' is an interesting book, and maybe it has some useful basic advice (note the word basic) but I'm willing to bet it's not something to turn to for an understanding class warfare.
     
  7. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #8
    Don't put your faith in gurus. I admit that Kiyosaki made some good points in his *first* book Rich Dad Poor Dad -- but since then has tried to keep the money ball rolling by using the credibility he earned with that title and then expanded into areas in which he has absolutely no expertise or insight.

    Even that first book has some advice that was kinda bad.
     
  8. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #9
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #10
    So for the last word in culture wars you turn to... perhaps the most prominent culture wars engineer? The guy who's pockets are directly lined by FUD? What's next, environmental advice from Exxon-Mobil? A treatise on fair interrogation by Dick Cheney?

    (The fact that Kiyosaki is a joke notwithstanding)
     
  10. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #11
    This post isn't really about Robert Kiyosaki but rather the mindset of the people in the cash-flow quadrant. Everyone knows having consumer debt is dumb however many americans have it. They understand the math however it is the emotional mindset that had created it.

    In addition I see Robert Kiyosaki similar to Steve Jobs in the sense that he takes complexities and simplifies them. I don't see how that is exactly how that is unsupportive. I find that banking institutions and politicians throw around words causing inaccuracy and spin in order to intentionally complicate. The complicated issue then has doubts and unknowns. The unknown is then perceived as fear.

    The TARP program which stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program is really an inaccurate name. A financially literate person would immediately see that it's an inaccurate name causing spin. The word Asset means positive cash-flow. Liabilities mean negative cash-flow. The proper name would have been Liability Relief Program. However having the word "Liability" would have been not a favourable political move.
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    Quadrant? How quaint and 19th century. I use computers and make a killing with my rhombicuboctahedron device. If you're not using archimedes solids to attract wealth in 2011 you've already missed the boat.
     
  12. iStudentUK, Nov 16, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011

    iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #13
    The 'cash-flow quadrant' is just a silly diagram to make people think they understand something complex. Summarising capitalism and classes using something like that is a laughable simplification. Grouping people into 4 poorly defined classes isn't a way to start an intelligent discussion.

    I'd never heard of this guy until today, seems he's reasonably well known in the US. Think my initial reaction was right- no real insight, no real depth, no real sources cited... not worth listening to.
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #14
    You realize that Steve Jobs' most visible talent is as a salesman, right? He was a master of hype, with the most powerful RDF the world has seen, for at least 2000 years. Are you sure you want to make that comparison?
     
  14. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #15
    Of course I want to make that caparison. It would be inaccurate to say that his products are not minimalist zen like with incredible industrial design that follows Dieter Rams ten principles of "good design". Would you say that apple products are complicated? I guess they are behind the simple user interface. His passion was often viewed as hype.
     
  15. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #16
    He actually hasn't been that relevant for years. He had one good book (Rich Dad Poor Dad) and was able to milk a brand out of it.

    I stopped paying attention to him when he started recommending MLM's like Quixtar.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    The books are bestsellers and tend to line the shelves of the chain bookstores. The thing about Kiyosaki is he mixes a little bit of truth with a lot of hokum. Some of his points are right, money should work for you through investments. Debt is generally bad, unless you can leverage it to make more money or accomplish a particular goal (student loans, mortgages, car loans, etc.). Working for someone has its downfalls —*though he fails to mention the advantages and the reality that some jobs are inherently driven by employee/employer relationships.
    Invest and avoid taxes when you can. And, American tax law treats individuals and corporations very differently.
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    Why?

    If corporations are people, why can they immigrate and emmigrate far easier than humans who lived here long before artificial borders? If corporations are people, why are they given preferential tax treatment? If corporations are people, why don't they go to jail?
     
  18. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #19
    I can't think of a jurisdiction that does treat individuals a corporations the same in regards to tax.

    Corporations have legal personality to allow them to enter into contracts in their own name, to bring legal proceedings, isolate liability etc. But to draw comparisons between legal persons to natural persons with regards to crime and immigration is foolish.
     
  19. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    Really? Do individuals have the ability to deduct certain business expenses that corporations are allowed (hint, they aren't). If they have a legal personality, why can they immigrate? Why can they make political donations that individuals cannot? Why do they have lower income tax rates?

    You are obviously not very well informed about the preferential treatment corporations have vs. people.

    Speaking of which, Ford has lived longer than Mr. Ford. Why hasn't it died and its assets transferred to its heirs (with appropriate taxation?) Oh I know, it's given preferential treatment!

    Geez, it's almost like people just accept the idea that corporations are an actual thing as opposed to a made up fiction.
     
  20. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #21
    Actually I was required to study both individual and corporate taxes. It's the UK system, but they basic premise that they are treated very differently still applies. Corporation taxes are much more complex, but have many "preferential" perks.

    I add the quotation marks because I don't see it as inherently preferential. I agree that some loopholes and tax treatment could do with reform, but reject the notion that they should be the same as individuals. An individual's and a company's dealings are very different, what they are and are not allowed to do etc. I see no reason to tax them according to the same rules.

    Of course they are a fiction, they are a legal fiction. Doesn't mean different rules can't apply.
     
  21. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #22
    Steve Jobs is the 1% !!! He is the man, trying to keep us all down, corporate greed and all of that.
     
  22. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Agreed, except in the US, they are given rights intended for persons. As such, why are they given, here, different rules for other things?
     
  23. Sydde, Nov 17, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2011

    Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    "is"? Did you hear?
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    Ghosts can indeed be a problem.

    I think the Supreme Court was wrong expand the otherwise strictly limited personhood of corporations.
     

Share This Page