Re: 有 富爸爸作者 羅勃特‧清崎 的八卦嗎? - 理財

※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板]

作者: clouddeep (看著天) 看板: Gossiping
標題: Re: 有 富爸爸作者 羅勃特‧清崎 的八卦嗎?
時間: Mon Aug 8 12:22:51 2005

※ 引述《cocoastar (可樂)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《aromagreen (LoriTa)》之銘言：
: : 我想.不應該全盤否定這位日裔的觀點(view)
: : 當初我買他出的第一本書時,著實受到了很大的震憾
: : 他用很簡單的故事/概念/對話讓原本很生硬的理財/經濟/知識
: : 活潑了起來
: : 所以,清崎先生"有錢"了是因為他靠了這本書的熱賣而源源不斷的版稅
: : 他是聰明的/至於直銷管它是什麼
: : 受用的智慧是無價的,只是有人實踐,有人並沒有
: : 不能因為你沒有實踐就說這本書是在唬人
: : ꘊ: 羅伯特沒有否定高等教育拉　拜託　　你有看完這本書嗎
: 他很清楚的說了：富爸爸鼓勵我讀完大學
: 他本人認為大學教育很重要. 而且自己也完成了學業

刪掉C兄後面的部份，是因為這一段可歸納為：

培養投資的能力，當作第二賺錢的管道，以便在不能工作時還有收入。

在F大還沒翻譯出來整篇文章前，小弟先現個醜^^||


首先，這篇分析的人沒有說這本書是錯的，這點請各位掌握到：

I would say that Rich Dad covers an overly broad array of financial subjects—
real estate investment, stock market investment, note investment, and going
into business for yourself. No one could adequately cover all those areas in
such a short book. On the other hand, Rich Dad has a lot of specifics—as you
will see below in this analysis. The problem is not that he is short on
specifics, it is that the book is a bunch of bull, including when he gets
specific. To say that the only fault of the book is that it lacks specifics
is ridiculous. The book commits far more sins than that.

他指出富爸爸囊闊了很廣大的經濟上的主題(一堆專有名詞)，沒有人可以適當的把這些
領域囊闊在一本小小的書裡面(富爸爸也有說明，如果你有去看這篇分析的話^^)。

問題不是這本書太小，而是他說的都是廢話(bunch of bull)，就連他的說明也是廢話。
他的書只是缺乏說明的說法是可笑的，這本書的問題不只如此而已(我講的比他委婉)。

How much money does Kiyosaki have?

此作者真的有錢嗎？有人說他靠寫書賺了很多錢，但是實際上呢？

分析者說了幾個例子，都是說自己很有錢，但是又不給別人知道他到底有多有錢，在簡
單的調查後，都發現根本沒這回事。

I suspect the real reason Kiyosaki refuses to disclose any evidence of his
purported wealth is either
我懷疑Kiyosaki拒絕揭露任何他所指出的財產的證據為下：

‧ It is much smaller than his followers imagine
他的財富不如他的追隨者所想的那麼多
‧ He did not get it the way he implies—for example, his wealth may come
almost entirely from telling people how to get wealthy and he may not have
been wealthy himself until he told people how to get wealthy
他不是由他所暗示的方式得到他的財富的—舉例來說，他是藉由告訴大家如何有錢才
得到他的財富的(也就是寫書賺錢)
‧ He achieved wealth in an unethical or illegal way
他是藉由不道德手段或是非得方式去賺錢的。
‧ All of the above
以上皆是。

後面分析者列了一個表對照，把作者的話和實際的樣子做比較。
或許有人認為調查別人的隱私很無聊，不過既然作者自己說自己很有錢，那我們想要看
看他到底有多有錢不為過吧？

結論是，他真的靠賣書賺了很多錢嗎？
If the advice of “Rich Dad” back in 1955 was so great, how come Kiyosaki
was homeless and bankrupt 30 years later? What kind of financial genius does
it take to be homeless and bankrupt when you are a college graduate who had
no student loans and were trained as a helicopter pilot by the military.
(Actually, I got his military records. They show no flight school and no pilot
’s wings. See below.) With all those advantages, and “Rich Dad’s”
brilliant financial advice, the guy still ends up homeless at age 38? And if
“Rich Dad’s” advice wasn’t good enough to keep Kiyosaki from becoming
homeless in 1985, how did it suddenly become something the rest of us should
be following in 1997?

如果書裡講的這麼好，為何作者會直到三十年後還是無家又破產？什麼樣的經濟天才會
讓自己沒房子又破產？當你是一個沒有學生貸款的負債的大學生又是軍方直升機的駕駛
員(駕駛員的事也是假的，軍方沒有紀錄，請看原文的括號)。有這些優勢，而且又有富
爸爸的建議，還不夠讓作者在1985年買棟房子嗎？

I suspect Kiyosaki has done well from his books with the help of Oprah and
Amway et al. A reader who refused to let me use his name said he attended an
Amway meeting where Kiyosaki spoke and that Kiyosaki said his book was
unknown until an Amway “Diamond Distributor” started buying it in quantity.
He further staid that Kiyosaki urged the audience to focus on their Amway
distribution business, not on buying duplexes and such. If anyone who will
let me quote them can confirm this, I would like to hear from them.

這段說明作者曾經在直銷會上說過直到直銷公司(Diamond Distributor)大量的買了他的
書後才有名氣。不過這一段類似於密告，仍缺乏證據。

重點大概是第一句，作者的得益大概是來自於歐普拉秀和直銷公司。

Clever life plan?

Kiyosaki would have us believe that he followed a coherent life plan laid out
with the help of “rich dad.”
作者說他的協調一致的生活是來自於富爸爸的幫助。

作者說他要去U.S. Merchant Marine Academy去學國際貿易(international business)，
但是這間學校是教船隻操作(是這樣翻嗎？)(operate oceangoing ships)。要學做生意應
該是去學校吧，這是分析者的懷疑(節省空間直接寫大意)。

Upon reading that Kiyosaki went to the Merchant Marine Academy, I figured his
real reason was probably the same as many other Merchant Marine Academy
graduates—he applied to a major service academy and got rejected. After all,
the major service academies are more prestigious and students pay no tuition
and actually receive a salary to attend. You have to pay for a small
percentage of your expenses at the Merchant Marine Academy. A 1986 Merchant
Marine Academy graduate tells me that about half of the students there were
rejected by Annapolis or another major service academy. He said the other
half wanted careers on oceangoing ships.

作者去商船海運專科學校(Merchant Marine Academy)，分析者認為他的理由大概是和其
他從這間學校畢業的學生一樣，想要申請major service academy，但是被拒絕。畢竟，
major service academy是很有名望的，而且學生不用付學費還可拿一份薪水。你必須付
一小份的開支給這間學校。一個1986年的商船海運專科學校的學生告訴我，有一半的學生
被安那波理斯(Annapolis)或是其他的major service academy拒絕。他說另一半要
oceangoing ships的工作。

為了回答前面大言不慚的問別人有沒有讀完書的人，我再翻一點。

Missing the point

分析者認為，這本書根本沒有重點，不同的人去同一本書，每個人回答的像是看不一樣的
書似的，作者用了很多似是而非的話，來讓讀者以為是很深奧且有涵義的話，像是：讓錢
為你工作，而非你為錢而工作。乍看之下好有內涵，但是其實他什麼也沒說。
“Don’t work for money. Make money work for you,” are amorphous in their
actual meaning, but have the effect of “spinning” the reader into thinking
he has just gotten good advice.

當然，想必有不少的人認為這句話有有意義(當初我聽到時也很驚嘆)，實際上卻非如此。
當然固執的人不管怎麼說也不會通，文中講的很詳細了。

最後是前面有人說的，作者認為學歷高不重要，當然有人反對作者不是這樣說，不管他怎
麼說，請先看清楚分析者真正的意思：

Wisely-chosen education—defined broadly as reading books, talking to
successful people in the field you are interested in, attending courses, and
subscribing to trade publications is generally the highest return you can
earn on your money and time.
有智慧的選擇教育，廣泛的定義就是閱讀、和你有興趣的領域裡成功的人交談、參與課程
、定閱出版刊物，可以得到最高的在金錢和時間上的回報。

Kiyosaki is just telling lazy and/or stupid students a line of bull that lets
them avoid responsibility for their poor academic performance and gives them a
convenient scapegoat to blame for their lousy financial situations.
作者只是告訴懶且/或笨的學生廢話，讓他們免除因為他們糟糕的學業表現的責任和給他
們一個方便的代罪羔羊去責備他們那糟糕的經濟情況(翻的不是很好，請見諒)。

There is also more value to education than just its financial rewards. If you
like philosophy and are willing to take a vow of poverty, you ought to study
philosophy. Not everyone suffers from Kiyosaki’s need to impress people with
how much money he has made (or claims to have made).
但是教育帶來的價值是比他的經濟上的價值還高的。如果你喜歡哲學(前文有敘述，很多
人認為讀哲學沒錢賺是很不好的選擇，還有說到公共服務類的系也是)，而且願意承受貧
窮，你就該去讀哲學。不該是只為了賺錢而教育的。

這段話也非全都是分析者說的，請別弄錯了^^


--
歡迎來到永遠的教父---愛爾帕西諾的討論板---Al Pacino

視聽劇場 偶像, 音樂, 廣電 [lpyd/EmilCha
Idols_6West 人物 Σ西洋巨星俱樂部 [sagit]
West_Boys 西洋 Σ西洋男星吧檯
AlPacino 美國 ◎艾爾帕西諾 clouddeep

--