j0n024 said:
So taking some classes in marketing would be a good idea? Or would one be better off taking classes in something else?
I dont really know anyone close by that really does this sort of thing, but if you have some information maybe an e-book or something along those lines I would be really interested.
I posted a book thread awhile back that lists several of the books that I have read that have helped me. Some might be a little out of date, but the important thing is to learn how to THINK differently, which they can help teach you.
If you want to take the "normal", slower and arguably safer path to wealth, read books like The Millionaire Next Door. It does a great job of illustrating how the
average millionaire goes about making their fortune, which usually takes them the better part of their life. My goals are a little more ambitious, so I generally gravitate toward the materials that are more about getting creative to build things faster.
And I'm sure any kind of marketing classes would be of benefit.
Duffdog said:
You are nothing but a hack who happened upon some money. Calling me a socialist doesn't help your cause.
Since this is on a totally different line, I'll bite.
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on socialism-
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
When you post about how renting houses to people for a profit is akin to robbing them, that's pretty much the epitome of a socialist attitude.
[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution.
And we see how well THAT prediction ended up!
Russia toppled, China is quickly adopting a more democratic model. Everything evens itself out eventually. Marx failed to account for a lot of basic tents of human nature when he made these predictions.
Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach
"Egalitarian" is not compatible with human nature. Feminism attempts an egalitarian model but fails to account for inherent strengths and weaknesses between the sexes. That's why socialism and feminism cannot sustain over a long period of time.
When you talk about me "forcing people to surrender resources" when it is entirely free will, you are talking like a socialist.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society.
Sounds a lot like the stuff you were talking about with monopolies, luck, lack of opportunity, unfair resource advantage, blah, blah.
If that isn't socialism I don't know what is.
Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
And I find it amusing that there is "considerable disagreement amongst socialists" over how wealth should be distributed. What is the reason for this? Because in the absence of a free market (which by its very nature decides who get paid what), you have a bunch of opinions that nobody can agree upon.
When you refused to answer my questions about how people should be compensated you threw yourself under the bus. At that point I knew that no matter what I said it was useless because you can't have a rational discussion with a person whose thought process cannot be rationalized.
You might not call yourself a socialist, but make no mistake....you are. And the worst kind too. The kind who enjoys the benefits allowed them by capitalism while at the same time slamming the system that affords them that lifestyle.
I know i said I'm done with going back and forth on the other stuff, but if you are going to make it so easy to see the hypocrisy of your way of thinking, I think it's prudent for the benefit of others to point it out. You might not be able to see the contradiction in your words but I'm sure others can. Here's an example-
I don't suppose you believe anyone who anticipates trends could make money off a downturn in the economy.
Out of one side of your mouth you say it's all "luck", and on the other side you talk about "anticipating trends" which is a skill.
Which is it dude?
And by the way, have you ever spoken with an economist in your life? Ive heard that they are pretty good at looking at large changes in the economy.
For the fiftieth time, fluctuations in the economy have little bearing on the ideas that were outlined in the original post.
With positive cash flow you have all the time in the world. When real estate was skyrocketing it would have made it economically unfeasible to use this method, so you wouldn't have overpaid. When the fundamentals are out of whack you don't buy.
The only way you can really lose is if the entire economy collapses, and if that happens you have bigger problems.
I don't need an economist to explain common sense.
