x

Please Login




Register Here!

On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.

 Search:  
Login / Register   About Us   Advertise   Contact Us  
RSS Feed

The Patriot Room

Rich Gov, Poor Gov: Why Obama can't Fix the Economy

by: Scott Martin   posted: 2009-06-16 00:59:00
Viewed 6966 times. 11 Comments.

Last night, as I reread Robert Kiyosaki's 1997 Bestseller Rich Dad Poor Dad, I realized why Barack Obama will be unable to do what is necessary to fix America's economy. It's not just that he believes in government intervention in business, although that's a big part of it. But what makes it even worse is that President Obama is Poor Dad.

For those who haven't read the book, let me give you the gist so you can follow along. The author uses a fable, loosely-based on his life growing up. The purpose is to compare and contrast the differences between his highly-educated and professional father (who he refers to as Poor Dad) and his best friend's father, an informally educated, business savvy mentor (who he calls Rich Dad). I don't wish to debate the merits of the book, which I believe are plenteous if you can distinguish the good advice from the bad. It's irrelevant here, because I am only going to focus on the advice that is, in fact, generally good and true.

Let's get into it...

1. Poor Dad accumulates liabilities, while Rich Dad accumulates assets.

Rich Dad believes that most people spend their whole lives never getting out of the rat race because they accumulate liabilities instead of assets. They accumulate lines of credit, mortgages that they will never pay off, toys that depreciate the minute they are bought, etc...

This is not true of Obama in his personal finances. He has gotten some good advice recently. While President Obama didn't accumulate much of anything until his book revenue started coming in. Since then, he has shown that in his personal life, he understands building assets. He and his family are doing well.

But as we regularly see with Obama, what is good for his life is not what he advocates for America. What has Obama proposed and accomplished since taking office? The Federal Government has purchased one liability after another. Obama has purchased failing financial institutions, auto companies and picked up consumer credit debt. He has set America on a path of borrowing that seems as if it will never end. And if he gets his way, it never will.

That's because he also hopes to create a health care system that would eventually become the largest entitlement (government debt) program in the history of the world. He seeks to turn American productivity (an asset) into a cap and trade program (a liability) whereby productive companies will be taxed punitively for the very productivity they have created.

Obama has clearly signaled his intent to use the Federal Government to accumulate liabilities and punish America's greatest assets.

2. Poor Dad believes the rich owe the poor.

My two dads had opposing attitudes in thought. (Poor Dad) thought that the rich should pay more in taxes to take care of those less fortunate. (Rich Dad) said, "Taxes punish those who produce and reward those who don't produce."

So he promises to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of income earners, which only serves to unnecessarily punish the poor, who rely on the rich for jobs. Now relate this one to Obama's nanny state mentality, where we are the kids:

(Poor Dad) said, "The reason I'm not rich is because I have you kids." (Rich Dad) said, "The reason I must be rich is because I have you kids."

So Obama says that America is going further into debt because he has to take care of us kids, instead of deciding that America's finances must be made sound, so that us kids don't have to spend the rest of our lives taking care of government.

3. Poor Dad doesn't give charitably, Rich Dad gave liberally (by which I mean "not at all like a liberal.")

My Rich Dad gave lots of money away. He gave to his church, to his charities, to his foundation... (Poor Dad) always said, "When I have some extra money, I'll give it."

Both Obama and Joe Biden are Poor Dads, here. They are both downright stingy in their personal lives, with Obama apparently changing the above quote to: "When I'm trying to get elected President, then I'll give it."

Biden, in fact, makes an even better Poor Dad than Obama, having bragged that in all his time in Congress, he's still never really made anything of himself. (Joe Biden: Stingy, Hypocritical Bastard)

Poor Dad thinks government gives, not people.

4. Poor Dad thinks management (capital) exploits labor.

Rich Dad: "When it comes to money, most people want to play it safe and feel secure. So passion does not direct them. Fear does... (Obama loves to talk about the fear of average Americans today, which he sympathizes with and utilizes to make them more dependent on government.)

Some people say I exploit people because I don't pay as much as... the government. I say the people exploit themselves. It's their fear, not mine...

And besides, more money will not solve the problem. Just look at (Poor Dad). He makes a lot of money and he still can't pay his bills."

My point is not that the working class shouldn't make what they are worth. My point is that labor is not worth what capital is worth, because it is capital that takes the risk of losing all that it invests. If management loses all its investment, labor still gets paid for the time it worked. This is part of the trade-off between choosing your profession.

The safe route is generally not going to result in Obama trying to limit your pay. No, that is a penalty reserved for the capitalist, in Obama's world.

5. Most importantly... Poor Dad, while highly educated, doesn't understand economics.

Kiyosaki notes that knowledge of personal finances and economic principles are simply not taught in school, unless one actively seeks them out. I know this to be true, as I recently graduated from Arizona State University, and I never was required to take an economics class. In most courses, college professors belittle capitalism. It certainly is not understood by most professors, who have never had to succeed in anything but academia, where their ideas are never put to the test.

Poor Dad was brilliant, but knew nothing of how wealth is created. Clearly, neither does Obama. For he is the most Anti-business President this country has ever seen.

Democratic presidents are not famous for appointing businessmen, merchants, or entrepreneurs to their cabinet or senior White House staff. These are people who have started or run private businesses, created jobs, met payrolls, and made profits. Thus they might be sensitive to how government can help or hurt business enterprises, especially during an economic downturn.

The number of such people appointed by Obama: zero. Members of his cabinet and White House staff come predominantly from government, academia, think tanks, and the law. True, several were business consultants, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki served on corporate boards, and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel spent four years as an investment banker between government jobs.

But there's no one who ran a company, hired or fired workers, or was an entrepreneur. Obama doesn't qualify either. He worked as a lawyer, law school instructor, and community organizer. As a community organizer, he did many things, but starting a profit-making business and creating jobs weren't among them.

When Obama speaks of getting America back to work, of "creating or saving" jobs, he knows nothing of which he speaks. He has never created a job. He has never made a profit for a shareholder. He believes that government creates jobs, while business screws labor.

When Obama announced last week the acceleration of his economic "stimulus," he was referring only to programs run or funded by the federal government. He offered nothing, not even a tiny tax incentive, to encourage investment in business and private job creation. This reflects Obama's policy initiatives across the board. They rely entirely on more government spending, regulation, and control.

For these reasons alone, President Obama cannot and will not come up with policies that will improve the economy over the long haul. Sure, our economy should improve eventually, if only because America's greatest asset is its productive citizenry and the fact that things can hardly get worse. But Poor Dad's policies will never restore America to what it could, and should, be.

For that, we need someone who thinks like Rich Dad.

Tags:

Related Articles


Links to this post

Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/rich-gov-poor-gov-why-obama-can-t-fix-the-economy/trackback


Comments 11

John Skookum on 2009-06-16 09:48:15

I like this analysis, but I take issue with your assertion that "things can hardly get worse." They can get very much worse indeed, and I fear that is exactly where we are being taken by this economic ignoramus.


Unix-Jedi on 2009-06-16 10:11:14

The author uses a fable, loosely-based on his life growing up.

Erm.

Just for the record...

For some values of "loosely" more commonly equated with "fiction". That by itself is enough to taint any even decently good points that he might make.

"1992 book versus 1997

In 1992, Kiyosaki wrote a book called If You Want to Be Rich and Happy, Don’t Go To School? It is “dedicated to Ralph H. Kiyosaki, former Superintendent of Education, State of Hawaii, the best teacher I ever had.” This would be “Poor Dad.” But Rich Dad Poor Dad, which came out in 1997, says quite emphatically that Rich Dad was the best teacher he ever had.

So maybe “Rich Dad” was the second best teacher he ever had. No. Actually, the 1992 book also identifies the second best teacher Kiyosaki ever had: F. Marshall Thurber.

OK. So maybe “Rich Dad” was third. No. Kiyosaki’s 1992 book has an unusually long acknowledgment section. It lists 111 people, none of whom appears to be “Rich Dad.” That is, none are singled out except for his “Poor Dad” parents, in-laws, business partner, and editors."

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

Plus a fair bit of bashing on Kiyosaki's factual/legal issues...


Scott Martin on 2009-06-16 11:52:27

Acknowledged. Now if you'll tell me which of the quotes I used in my piece you think are poor economic advice, we can talk. Or do you just feel the need to go from place to place on the web that mentions this book and post John Reed's criticism, which I already dealt with by calling it a fable?

You are aware that Christ was probably not talking about an actual, specific "Prodigal Son" in His famous parable, right? You would seem to imply that because it was "fiction" that there can be nothing to learn from it.


Unix-Jedi on 2009-06-16 13:15:20

Or do you just feel the need to go from place to place on the web that mentions this book

Nope, just saw the link on Instapundit and was afraid it was laudatory towards the book. Which it was.

and post John Reed's criticism, which I already dealt with by calling it a fable?

Sorry, but you didn't really deal with his criticism, which was that it's wholly made up out of whole cloth. No factual basis.

The author uses a fable, loosely-based on his life growing up.

It's not a fable "based on a true story", and yes, I think this is very important when we're talking about economic policy, not to use someone as discredited as Kiyosaki to make a point, because it then becomes an issue of who you're listening to. Call me crazy if you must.

Using the points from a standpoint of RDPD means I've got a hard time paying attention to you and your message, as will anybody who's done a bare basic amount of research into Kiyosaki.

It's possible you didn't know that it's a total fictional story without any real-life backing. That's why I thought I'd mention it. The entire story is a theoretical construct from one guy's mind as to how things might work... Which is exactly what we're facing with Obama's plan. And just like RDPD, Obama's plan - as long as it stays on paper - looks great to lots of people. Sure there's some "Bad ideas", but you can pick through them and get to the good ones!

Hey, fables are great. You keep citing RDPD like it's actually relating what has happened in the world. It didn't.

What you've cited as points aren't unreasonable. Citing RDPD as proof is.

I know RDPD is made up, yet was claimed to be true. I know that it's something that Kiyosaki's tried to hide. I know many people believe it's a true story, and feel betrayed. Apparently even you know that some of the "advice" is the book is really bad.

Credibility is interwoven with how you make your argument, and using that one IMO is worth mentioning.

If you want a fable, you can't beat The Richest Man In Babylon. No pretense of historical accuracy, no questionably-legal promotions (and many people have been prosecuted for following RDPD and its series' advice). Plus you don't have to worry about "bad" advice...:

if you can distinguish the good advice from the bad.

That's a hellaciously big "if" there. Right. If you can. That's kind of central to my thesis here. Don't use something filled with bad advice, and then use it to make an argument, then insist that the bad advice is off-limits.

Because the real issue here is that Obama is in the same world Kiyosaki is in. Theory. Writing a book, and postulating how people will react. But they're not writing history, where reactions are noted, they're predicting. Obama's never had to do any of those things when you find out that people don't agree with you, no matter how much sense it makes to you right now.

Kiyosaki knew that people wouldn't buy his book if it wasn't "based on real life", because people know that real life isn't as neat and tidy as a book, or in a plot in your head. People do things you'd never expect. Afterwards you can find out why they did those things, and learn from it. So he lied, and in doing so (along with his bad and probably illegal advice) destroyed any credibility I'll have for him.

It's a lesson that Obama has learned- See: Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?. Fake your story to gain credibility or increase your moral authority.

He's learned how to talk to people and express that he "understands" - a far more effective "I Feel Your Pain" that Clinton did so well. But he's always gone ahead and done what he wanted to - using people's innate desire for compromise and comity to break down their opposition to his efforts.

Other than credibility: Point 3 "3. Poor Dad doesn't give charitably, Rich Dad gave liberally (by which I mean "not at all like a liberal.")" doesn't really apply well to the rest of the argument. Personal donations are good to show hypocrisy and the belief that the government will be the provider, but that's really not fleshed out by what you said.


Clyde on 2009-06-16 13:50:33

I fail to see what all the angst is over a financial-management book. The guy was illustrating the difference between developing passive streams of income that do not require an on-going contribution of labor. It's a concept well-grounded in managing one's finances. It helps people to understand that selling your labor as your only source of income can be more risky in the long run than the alternative of only selling labor. It is particularly sage advice as we see all the unemployment and other economic strife which makes it harder for one to sell their labor on a daily basis.

The author is discredited? The concept is sound and works. Half my income comes from yesterday's efforts. Good lord, it's a financial-management book that presents ideas. And Scott used the book as a basis to view President Obama's programs and plans. Nothing more.

If I read a book on Subject X am I going to be required to not draw from lessons I learn therefrom as I write about Subject Y?

Yes, I read RDPD in the 1990s. And his follow-up book on creating multiple streams of income. Both are just books with suggestions for personal financial management, no different from a dozen or more books on my shelf - some technical analysis, some allegory.


Scott Martin on 2009-06-16 14:06:52

At the same time, I get Unix-Jedi's point. His reaction was expected when I wrote this, which is why I mentioned that the story was a fable in the first place.

The point is, we can look at specific advice and what tends to work and what does not. The fact remains, that like the "Poor Dad" of the book, Obama doesn't understand how wealth is created, he mistakes liabilities for assets, believes that rich owe the poor and that government is to be the middleman in fixing this situation, doesn't understand the greatness of capitalism and neither understands economics nor surrounds himself with people who do.

The point is Obama and his beliefs, not Kiyosaki and what he did to become a best-seller.


timajin on 2009-06-16 13:59:24

This hits the nail on the head. People in community organizing get paid with tax payer money through grants from the government. The way they make money is because they know how to work the government grant system to get at it. It's not made by creating something of value that is sold at a price, which returns a profit thus allowing them to pay employees. They create jobs by getting more grant money, but nothing done by the community organizer necessarily generates revenue that can be reinvested. Government money is a never ending source to them and they keep working to get it. I haven't yet seen anything that tells me any of the organizing Obama is proud of has met great success in long-term improvement of the community. That's why they ask for more money every year.


Clyde on 2009-06-16 14:25:45

I think your point is a good one, Scott. I think you use a concept - RDPD - and do so well as you apply it to public administration of funds. I think talked in a podcast once about the Brits funneling money into their version of the SBA as a way to boost the economy. Not spending money - investing it.

There is little investment happening in the stimulus. It is pure expenditures which stop adding to the economy once the spending and respending stops. Nothing is created.

Knowing both the concept and application of RDPD and the macroeconomics behind government intervention in the marketplace, I think you done good.


Bob A on 2009-06-22 10:33:31

This article hits a bulls eye. Yet nothing like this is taught in our Universities. So much for "credentialitise". Fools with sheep skins.


John on 2009-06-22 10:43:05

Great stuff Scott! Great analogy. Unix-Jedi does the usual thing. Attack the author or source. He mentions that Obama's policies have merit, but fails to point them out. For the record:

Obama's administration is pushing for more regulation over the banking industry. Good for the adminiatration. I think any administration would need to be blind to not react to the banking reck we just had. Heavy industry used to pollute like crazy 80 years ago and regulations were in order. The banking industry was polluting the system over the last 15 years and it is time for government to act.

Beyond that, I see Obama's tax and spend policies will have the same effect as Roosevelts policies in the 30's. It will just extend the recession and will make us less efficient in the long run.

I can't wait to see what happen's in California. That should open a few liberals eyes.


Unix-Jedi on 2009-06-22 13:19:00

Unix-Jedi does the usual thing. Attack the author or source. He mentions that Obama's policies have merit,

Really? I did? You might want to go back and reread what I said, this time for comprehension.

I was saying that Scott's points had merit.


Have an opinion?

 Name (required)
 Email (required)
 Website

If you were a member you wouldn't have to input that stuff!


What is 2 + 3 ? (seriously... for moderates the answer is 4 and for liberals the answer is cat)

Note: Your comment may be held for moderation.

blog advertising is good for you

blog advertising is good for you

Publius' Newsstand

  • Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...

    Didn't realize the implication's of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...
    Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.

      Views: 115 Comments: 0

  • Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...

    A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.
    Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.

      Views: 77 Comments: 3

  • Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...

    Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.
    Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

      Views: 78 Comments: 2

  • Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 mon...

    The Dow sinks below a major psychological threshold.
    The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.
    I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.

      Views: 57 Comments: 2

  • Poll: Special interests more influential under ...

    Voters are now categorically rejecting every claim or promise made by this guy.... including democrats:
    Contrary to President Obama's promises, voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago, according to a new poll. The poll, paid for by groups looking to curb the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say special interests have increased their influence since the president took office, and they say Mr. Obama has not done enough to fight back.

      Views: 58 Comments: 1

  • GOP leaders: Don't use current health bills for...

    Boehner and Cantor say the Pubs aren't going to be a part of any Presidential photo-op/dog-and-pony show:
    If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” the pair explained in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They also said President Barack Obama should remove reconciliation from the table. Using budget reconciliation rules to move healthcare reform in the Senate would mean Democrats would only need 51 votes on procedural measures instead of 60... On Sunday afternoon however, Obama refused to say he would start from scratch.

      Views: 64 Comments: 2

  • Jack Murtha (D-PA) Dead at Age 77

    Sad news. Prayers and well wishes to his family and loved ones.
    An announcement from his office said Murtha died at 1:18 p.m. at the Virginia Hospital Center, where he had been admitted last week after having his gallbladder removed at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

      Views: 164 Comments: 5

  • I thought of killing myself, says climate scand...

    He doesn't need to go that far. But a lengthy jail sentence for the fraud-of-the-century would go a long way.
    The scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. Jones, 57, said he was unprepared for the scandal: “I am just a scientist. I have no training in PR or dealing with crises.”
    Actually, he's using the term "scientist" loosely there, given that real scientists don't do what he did. And while he may not have any training dealing with crises, he sure was good at generating one: it was called the global warming crisis.

      Views: 146 Comments: 3

  • Yet again: China Renews Opposition to Iran Sanc...

    And for Obama's next act, he will, um, wait for it ... >> Reflecting a growing catalog of disputes between Washington and Beijing, a senior Chinese official said Thursday that pressure for tighter sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program could block chances of a diplomatic settlement on the issue. The official, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, was speaking in Paris less than a week after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rebuked China over its opposition to stronger measures against Tehran, saying Beijing’s position was shortsighted. <<

      Views: 112 Comments: 3

  • Franken feeling his oats: Rips into Axelrod ove...

    Smile. Gnawing on each others' legs: >> Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact. The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room. “There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified. “People were hot,” another Democratic senator said. <<

      Views: 123 Comments: 3

Get Your PR Button!

Copyright © 2008-2009 Patriot Room Media, LLC
Privacy Policy  Terms Of Service