I’ve started reading Rich Dad Poor Dad and I’ve had the book for years (about 4 maybe 5) and I was all ready to come on here, after reading it, and give this book rave reviews about how good it is, how to make money and what not. Until I read this by John T Reed, with the help of reader reviews on Amazon UK which lead me to that site, and it got me thinking about some of what I had read. I’m only half way through Mr Kiyosaki’s book and there was this feeling that something was missing from the book. I mean it talks about being financially smart and how to make money but it doesn’t actually talk about how to make money. There’s these nice diagrams about expenses, income, assets and liability but there’s no real details in great depths of how these supposed money making ‘rich’ tips actually work. I thought this book would be of help, well it did in a way. It got me to think about my money even more, something that I do all the time!! Albeit not in a way that is of more use to myself.
I work, earn a wage, save a bit and then buy smartly and cheaply. I learnt that lesson the hard way a few years back from just blowing my money on crap! The book started off good as we learn about ‘Rich Dad’s’ philosophy on money. He’s just money focused but some the of points, whoever this ‘Rich Dad’ is, raises I quite agree with. Like ‘how can I afford it?’ (page 17) and it gets you thinking if what you’re thinking of buying is worth it. I do that already. He states to have assets and then make money work for you, not the other way around, as it should be bringing returns making it ‘easy’ to be rich. But it’s on the ‘Rich Dad’ philosophy of exploiting people and getting out of tax.
However, if I work for the money and do the right things with it then it shall work for me right? I mean if I learn from my own stupidity and put it where it needs to be then my money should be working for me right? The money works right? Right? Because if I save my money, bit by bit and buy what is essential for my living, then money and myself should have a good working relationship right? The point I’m getting at, is that, right now, the money is working for the moment isn’t it?! So even without assets my money is working for me. And really I’m not getting any richer, maybe having more sense after my own disasters.
Did I really need to read the book is the bigger question?!
He states in the book that everyone works and saves and they don’t get rich because that’s what everyone else does. But how is a person suppose to have assets if they don’t save?! It’s contradicting.
There’s this big theme about the have’s and have not’s, rich and poor, educated and uneducated. ‘Poor Dad’ is educated but is in big time debt because he doesn’t make his money work for him, as he works for the government instead of working for himself with his own business. But isn’t that like everyone? Well almost everyone. Okay, I don’t know the exact numbers other than a generalisation from my own perspective. Some people work for someone with or without the debt. Anyway, this in relation to ‘Rich Dad’ who left school at 13 and was ‘rolling in it’.
Education takes a bit hit in this book, it’s like being educated is a bad thing. And my Grandparents always told me to make sure you get your education, it was about getting an education so that you can go further than they were/are. They didn’t really get much of an education, in fact it was zero, and they worked hard and that’s inspirational for myself. They wasn’t rich but comfortable. Their education was life. This book somewhere does speak about going to get an education on being taught about money and being financially able. I agree that everyone, everywhere should be taught about finances however not at the expense of a real education. If you make it without it fine, you’re lucky (and I don’t mean that in a patronising way) but there has to be some form of real effort. Whether that’s street smarts, book smarts or just plain sense. Without it not much gets done sadly and really without some form of money not much will get done either.
The analysis by Reed is in depth and the writer has done his research and it has made me open my eyes when it comes to believing what has been written in this best-seller. I was going to buy the other books but if people have been saying on Amazon UK that the books are repetitious, doesn’t teach anything and could just be written on an A4 piece of paper then is it worth the investment? He talks about investments so much so should I be investing even more? I invested my time, that’s bad enough, but money? Maybe not, I didn’t even pay for my copy anyway so I’m not at a big loss. Though, it would be worth going to the bookshop and spending a couple hours going over his other books (I love doing that by way, it’s a great way to see if the book is even worth paying for anyway before I waste money on a book that I won’t like, enjoy or be of any use) and coming to my own conclusions. But with this information in hand I may just be biased towards it all.
The reviews on Amazon UK made me think, how could people be saying this? Did they miss the point? What isn’t there to get? When in fact they hadn’t missed the point. Rather they did what I hadn’t done, which was question it, instead of agreeing to it! There’s a lesson I’ve picked up. It feeds my desire to have money so obviously and naively I’m going to take whatever it says as being the real deal. I missed my critical analysis.
As I read this post back, I sound vague and that isn’t on purpose it’s because this is just my own scrape through of what I’ve understood so far and having an alternative perspective. It’s also because the beginning of the book made more sense to me than what I’ve read so far and to be honest, I don’t even feel to read the rest of it. It’s like a motivational tool with no real solutions so in short it’s false advertising. I have abundance cards for motivation, to feel the abundance and attract it. Not to spend most of my day reading a book that tells me what I’ve already gathered from my own losses.
Peace out xxx