Free “Rich Dad” education, with “free gift”: Is it legitimate, or is it a sales ploy?
"Robert Kiyosaki's is basically a get-rich quick author.  But to answer your question: It is a sales pitch in disguise. See Marketplace's report on a Kiyosaki seminar, which reveals that the free work shop is a sales pitch for a 3-day work shop which costs several hundred dollars.  And the 3-day workshop is a sales pitch for ""advanced"" training which can cost as much as $45,000 (presumably in Canadian dollars, as the report was done in Canada). He does touch on some basic sound principles, but it's mixed with a lot of really bad (and in some cases illegal) advice.  You'll do much better to invest your time and money in reading materials that aren't advertised via infomercials. Kiyosaki may well be rich, but it's from selling his Rich Dad-branded material, not from investing in real estate, or any other investment portfolio See also John T. Reed's guru rating, and his review of Kiyosaki's book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad." As with any business, there's a huge learning curve. Rich Dad gives you the fundamentals.. which are sound.. you then need to spend time getting the nitty gritty details of the business ... be it real estate, stock investing etc.  Kiyosaki is a wealthy man... I've listened to some of his podcasts and he know what he's talking about.. AND.. he's been in the business for 20+ years. Kiyosaki says his methods of actions are not suitable for the average investor. They are meant for those wanting to excel at investing, and are willing to work for it. Personally, I wouldn't want to own ten apartments, because it sounds like a terrible headache. I would much rather have a huge portfolio of index funds. I believe that Kiyosaki's method allegedly perform better than the passive 'invest-diversify-hold' strategy, but would require a new mindset and dedication, and are risky unless you are willing to invest a lot of time learning the fine details. I prefer to dedicate my time elsewhere. I have taken the free Kiyosaki evening course, and it does give some good information. It is an upsell to the $500 weekend course, which I also took. That course taught me enough about real-estate investing to get started. I have not yet had the need to pursue his other, more expensive courses. Read his books, take the $500 course, read other people's books on real estate investing, talk to other like-minded individuals, and gain some experience. I understand real estate better than I understand paper assets because I spent more time studying real estate.  If you want to invest in real estate, study it first. If you want to invest in paper assets, study those first.
"A good place to start is to read, such as :  Robert T. Kiyosaki : poor dad rich dad. It is quite simple but it gives the good mindset to start. But moreover it is stated in the book : ""the best investement you can make is educate yourself"". You current situation is quite difficcult, but don't give up on your study. From your post i didn't understand : do you have a master degree?  If you love math, learn coding and find a job in banking or else. People that know how to code AND have a good level in math worth a lot." I did this at taco bell basically. Can't believe It worked.   Free combo when you buy a $20 gift card. Then I just did it again and paid with mu previous gift card. They let me do it for about a week &gt; Example abound of rich kids who don't pan out and poor kids who make it.  This is not really very true.  Social mobility is not so common - if you're born in the poorest or riches 1% or 10% of the population, the chances are you'll spend your whole life in that demographic.  Figures are not so easy to come by on these particular margins, but it's easy to find studies that show 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults, whilst just 8 percent rise to the top fifth. [[cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States)] Yet it's really the poorest 1% and 10% we should be thinking about, and comparing them to the richest 1% and 10%, when we ask how fair our society is. They are surely less socially mobile.   Meanwhile, [UK statistics](http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/12/11/statistics-on-social-mobility-and-belief-systems/):  * Pri­vately edu­cated can­di­dates account for 7 per cent of the pop­u­la­tion, but occupy more than half of the top pro­fes­sional jobs. * 75 per cent of judges, 45 per cent of senior civil ser­vants, and a third of MPs are pri­vately educated. * More than 4 in 10 places and Oxford and Cam­bridge go to pri­vately edu­cated candidates. * 30 per cent of chil­dren on free school meals do not get good GCSEs. * Of stu­dents get­ting 3 As at A-Level, just 0.5 per cent were eli­gi­ble for free school meals. "chapter 8 page 154:  &gt;""My point is that it's doubts and cynicism that keep most people poor and playing it safe...only a person's doubts keep them poor...'Cynics criticize and winners analyze' was one of [Rich Dad's] favorite mottos""  -from chapter 8 page 154 of Robert Kiyosaki's first print edition of *Rich Dad Poor Dad*  The whole page is about abandoning cynicism and has nothing to do with that Glenn-Beck-style rant/editorial you've linked to." I know this is old, but Joe Taxpayer is wrong.  When you dissolve a corporation in selling it, all liabilities go with the old owners and the new owners, smartly starting with a new corporation and taxpayer ID, start with a clean slate.  The only way this is not true is if the new owners did not change a thing legally and kept everything the same, other than there names, which would be entirely insane if you asked any lawyer in the country.  Gift cards are a touchy situation, if not negotiated in the deal, by law the new owners DO NOT have to take them.  Yes, it's good PR, but when there's a considerable amount of money out there it could bury the new owners by giving away free stuff. **EDIT**: /u/cyancynic has provided evidence that /u/iceman1800 has posted some rather sketchy things on Reddit.   * [https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/6fyn2z/comment/dim7la1?st=J3O25TUZ&amp;sh=7ae150b0](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/6fyn2z/comment/dim7la1?st=J3O25TUZ&amp;sh=7ae150b0)  * [https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/6fyn2z/comment/dim7m4f?st=J3O29BX3&amp;sh=78e50591](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/6fyn2z/comment/dim7m4f?st=J3O29BX3&amp;sh=78e50591)   **ORIGINAL COMMENT**: Let's face it, there are plenty of ways a woman can talk to a man for free, or even get a drink or a meal out of it. If what you're selling and marketing is meaningful conversation, then why focus on your appearance? I accept than a woman is going to want the person they're conversing with the look nice, but what is it they're paying for?  Why do you think a woman would want to talk with you? Are those reasons good enough to justify paying your for it? Are you providing something that is unique, or that is better than what the woman can get for free elsewhere?  I think you need to figure these things out and have a way to convey them in words, then you'll have something to market. There is no 1 2 3 to being successful. Everyone's story is different but generally there is some composition of connections, networking, dedication and opportunity involved.   Anyone offering easy steps to being financially successful is a scammer and anyone willing to buy into it is a chump.   Go out and build a network, learn and offer product/service that has demand is the most general you can be. "This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying ""shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations"". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself"