Money Magazine April 2001

W

WebBoard

Guest
From: Anonymous


G'day folks.

Just wondering if anyone wants to comment on an article in the latest "Money Magazine" titled "The Property Evangelists".Justified or not? Curious for the feedback.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sim

Administrator
Reply: 1
From: Sim' Hampel


I tend to agree with the sentiment of Terry's article.

Note however that Terry Ryder has turned out to be a bit of a John T Reed with his negativity regarding property. He has a book out called "Confessions of a Real Estate Agent", which is all about how nasty the real-estate profession is.

Terry is not a real estate agent. He is a journalist. We all know how much journalists get off on sensationalist negativity. I'm not saying Terry is not correct, in fact I tend to dislike real-estate agents more than I dislike journalists. Sometimes. ;-)

Actually I am reading Confessions right now, so I can't really comment on the content of the book. So far it is good. I'll reserve full judgement until I'm finished.

As to the article, I think in general Terry is correct, and people really should be warned off of most of the seminars that are out there.

However, there are several problems I have with the article...

1. He blasts Kiyosaki and "Rich Dad Poor Dad" without giving a reason.

"This new breed of evangelism can be blamed by and large on one person: Hawaiian get-rich-fast educator and author Robert Kiyosaki. All the seminar evangelists I have experienced worship Kiyosaki and regard his book Rich Dad Poor Dad as the bible"

Now Terry makes one big mistake here (or is it Money Magazine who made the mistake ??)... he doesn't say WHY Kiyosaki is bad. I get the feeling he just read John T Reeds rants about Kiyosaki, and decided "hey, that's my kick too... I'll choose to hate Kiyosaki as well".

My personal opinion on Kiyosaki and Rich Dad Poor Dad ? I think he tells a very good story regardless of whether it is true or not. It certainly illustrates some fundamental truths that I think everyone should spend time thinking about. I think is is good for the basics, while recognising that it has very little detail regarding HOW one actually makes it all work.

Now I also think that Kiyosaki should really have stopped with book #1, the others are mostly rehashes of the same with only a couple of new ideas. His seminars and merchandise are also most likely making Kiyosaki much more money than his property ever did.

I do enjoy playing CashFlow 101, and it taught me some pretty enlightening things about myself and my attitudes to investing even after only one game. I would highly recommend this game, except that I think it is WAY too expensive.

Anyway, I do have a problem with people who say something is bad and expect you to accept that as gospel. Journalists do that a lot.

2. The other thing I thought was really bad about the article was that it was nothing but negative. It did not give any examples of courses that were cheap, no-pressure, no-hooks, real content, and actually useful. An article like that falls straight into the negative sensationalism category for me.

In my opinion, one should always provide an alternative view to illustrate to people how it should be done.

That all being said, I do still believe that the basic content of the article is sound, and EVERY newbie should read it and beware. Maybe that would stop a few of the typical newbie questions we get on the forum about seminars. I would still like to see someone write an article about the good seminars that are available.

 
Last edited:
Reply: 1.1
From: Paul Zagoridis


On 4/19/01 8:48:00 PM, Sim' Hampel wrote:
I haven't read the article.

However have you ever hear or read a journalist's article on a subject which you are knowledgeable? Ever notice how they misquote and misunderstand?

I notice that no journalist has ever understood the hobbies, interests or professional areas I understand. So when I read an article I wonder how they think they are doing their job.

>Terry is not a real estate
>agent. He is a journalist. We
>all know how much journalists
>get off on sensationalist
>negativity. I'm not saying
>Terry is not correct, in fact
>I tend to dislike real-estate
>agents more than I dislike
>journalists. Sometimes. ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top