Hearing much about Dave Ramsey. Which of his works is best in describing his “philosophy” about money?
Start with his website, specifically his seven steps. Most everything else is around motivating people to actually do the plan. As he often says personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance, by which he means that things that make sense financially (paying off high interest debt first) don't necessarily motivate action (so instead pay off the smallest debt first to get motivation). Really the rest is details around those seven concepts. On his site there is a link to a free one-hour podcast for the iPod, and you can pay for the full three hours of his radio show on podcast. He started on radio, and it is probably his best format. The reason Dave Ramsey has limited appeal beyond the US is that he is explicitly evangelical. He views his system as an extension of his Christian beliefs. That sells very well in parts of the US, but doesn't port very well. There is actually nothing religious in his program, other than the occasional reference to biblical verses in an attempt to tie his program into his religion, but people who are really interested and want to teach his program, not just practice it, are going to find they need to be an Evangelical (or at least a Christian) to fit in. Addendum: I should mention that Dave Ramsey is changing the FPU program (and I expect it will trickle into other things) to be more explicitly (although apparently not overtly) religious and have a stronger emphasis on budgeting. See here. If I had to start with one thing about Dave's Philosophy it would be: Zero Debt.   Dave Ramsey doesn't believe in going into debt for anything, except a house for residence (and he's conservative about how much debt there as well).  This is his biggest differentiating feature from Clark Howard or some of the others.   His main points are (Some duplication of Yishai) His radio show is available on many US radio stations with internet streams.  I use WSJS, where he is available from Noon to 3PM Eastern. His books: The Total Money Makeover - This is a very step by step approach to what he teaches about how to handle money. Financial Peace - This is a more philosophical approach to the same topics.  More idea and less application based. You can catch his radio show online for free - or an hour podcast each day in the itunes store - this is free. You can watch his TV show on Hulu. "Actually, Trent Hamm of The Simple Dollar, wrote a ""book club"" series that basically reads like cliff notes for Dave's The Total Money Makeover starting with this blog post. So that might be a really good place to start. Also of note is Trent's Article ""Five Ways I Disagree With Dave Ramsey""." My beef with day (and to ape Yishai's answer a little) is that his good advice is no different than anybody's good advice.  The seven steps are on the home page, Clark Howard, Suze Orman and probably quite a few others all chat about spend less, save more, shop wisely and live within your means. Anything specific is just motivation, and it sort of irks me that Dave Ramsey charges $100+ buck to go to a seminar about how to save money.  A $30 book to read anecdotes and examples of how to follow the seven steps.  (Probably, I won't buy his books) I have no problem with somebody making money, but I doubt that Dave is just barely breaking even.  I was stand corrected if he is, but I just don't suspect he is. Clark Howard recommends that people go to the library and check out his book; he is a lot closer to practicing what he is preaching.
Sorry to hear about your difficult circumstances. Secured Credit Card You may want to suggest a secured credit card. These are credit cards that are backed by a deposit that she would place with the credit issuer. The card issuer provides a line of credit backed by the deposit, with a credit limit not greater than the deposit. In this way, the card issuer is not putting any of their own money at risk. These cards are often used by students or high-risk borrowers to establish credit, and function like a normal credit card. This may be a good option for her to establish a history of handling credit responsibly. Given all of the activity you described, it's very likely the process of rehabilitating her credit will take a number of years. I would strongly recommend that you not assist her in placing the deposit for a secured credit card. If she can't put aside enough money for a deposit (often $500 or less), it's unlikely she'll be able to set aside the money to pay her card statements each month. Best of luck - I hope things work out well. "Resign may be a bit far, but as for backing up Damore, I disagree.  You can criticise what Damore wrote, how he cherry-picked research and maybe his suggestions weren't the best. But this quote (quoted in the article) is the best way to summarise the backlash:  &gt; “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”  The backlash has truly been post-factual. And it's fair to criticise the leadership of a company whose culture has clearly become post-factual. And not just post-factual in describing what Damore wrote (very often where he went out of his way to repeatedly write the *opposite*), but also in flat out rejecting *any* research into ""Nature"" in ""Nature vs Nurture"" that doesn't say ""Nature matters 0%"".  Many angry voices admit to not having read what they are ranting about. ""He said X!!! -- Uh, no he didn't -- I didn't read it, but it's horrible and he should be fired!""  We rightly criticise and fear the Faux News/Trump post-factual BS politics, but the left *adopting* it is only going to make things worse. And avoiding that in corporate culture falls squarely into the lap of corporate leadership. So why exactly is Pichai playing along (albeit much much less) with this post-factual interpretation?" "I listened to about 15 minutes of the video, but then I read your other link, which gives a much better summary. This guy is an idiot. Just consider this statement: ""If everyone was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget."" This is true to some extent. It wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget in one year. Experts often cite things like debt to GDP to show that a country's debt is ballooning, but they don't mention this obvious fact: We don't have to pay off our debts in a single year. Nobody does. Debt to GDP is a ratio and not the end all be all. Reinhart & Rogoff wrote a paper about how countries with high debt to GDP tend to have slower economic growth, but they don't mention that this occurs at every stage of debt growth. See Debt & Delusion by Dr. Robert Shiller for a great article on this subject. The daily kos article goes over most of the points I would make, but let me generalize a little: Always be wary of doomsday-predictors and free advice. This guy talks about correctly calling Fannie and Freddie. Even if he's right, why is he mentioning it? If he's such a good accountant and financial expert, surely he could've seen the tech bubble before the housing bubble right? It took a lot of analysis to figure out that CDO's were junk - anybody with the ability to read a balance sheet could see that many tech companies were overvalued. Every now and then, you get one hit wonders. They might never be right again, but they have the ""credentials."" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with ""secret, genius"" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions. The US will implode if nobody accepts our money. Nobody will accept our money if we're no longer the reserve currency or hyperinflation occurs or something like that. People have been predicting doom after every bubble, but that doesn't make it true. Some of his points (like the fact that we have too much debt) are valid, and I predict that the world will go into a period of deleveraging now. Nonetheless, the whole ""we will implode"" story is a scary picture, but it's just that - a picture." "Sorry to say it this blunt, but you really have no idea about his true nature. You know what others wrote or said about him. Not him personally.  I think this whole debate is rather moronic. We have a lot of hearsay about all the ""bad"" things Jobs did. Think about your own life. Think about how people who don't like you could easily describe your actions as evil. Not even by lying, just by leaving out certain parts.  I don't know if Jobs was an asshole or a nice guy. And I don't give a shit. Why would I? I think this debate is mostly about linkbait and fanboys going at each other. (""My hero is the best!"", ""No, your hero is evil!"")  Please don't drag this idiotic debate here." Hello,  I'm​ very interested in learning money. I used the search function, which led me to Investopedia, and already I'm learning a bunch.  Could you recommend me some introductory reading on finance and economics? I have no education on this subject, and I realise that reading isn't anywhere near having a good formal education, but some knowledge is better than none.  I'm looking to put this knowledge towards understanding what is a an enormous organ of power, and gaining the ability to recognise opportunities and profit.  So yeah, economics and finance, but I will study anything you throw my way, so the more the better. Especially because investments and accounting also seem interesting and useful.  P.S.: I'm European, if this makes a difference in what content will be relevant to me.  Thank you for reading this. I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment.   In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't'  I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff. "Benninga's book(s) are pretty much the best crash course to financial modelling with Excel - be aware though, he has two distinct types of book. One is more of a walk-through of financial principles in Excel('Principles of Finance with Excel, 2nd Ed.'), and the other could better be described as a 'glossary' of financial applications in Excel(the oft-recommended 'Financial Modeling') . As far as I'm aware, both contain roughly the same volume of information about the same topics (could be some minor differences, as the walk-through-style book is newer), but are taught in somewhat different ways. It might be useful to obtain a copy of one or the other from a library and see if you enjoy the style of the book before purchasing it. I was fortunate enough to have a roommate where between us, we have both, but doing this individually is a 200+ dollar endeavor, and you will only be duplicating identical information. ;)  If you're interested in reading other interesting material, that may help you develop different perspectives/insight into investing, I would suggest, aside from reading the usual stuff (Intelligent Investor, Random Walk, etc), also obtaining a copy of Seth Klarman's ""Margin of Safety"". You'll have to do so in .pdf form, as the book is entirely out of print (and from what I've heard, Klarman himself bought out many retailers of all of their copies and had them destroyed), but it's an interesting read, that has a lot of modern relevance -  perhaps best evidenced by the fact that it's author, president of one of the largest hedge funds in the world, no longer wants it in print." &gt;The labor theories of value (LTV) are heterodox economic theories of value which argue that the value of a commodity is related to the labor needed to produce or obtain that commodity. (Wikipedia)  Note that it does not say that value is always _directly proportional_ to the labor needed, only that the labor needed is _related_ to the value. Ergo: labor does not _create_ value automatically, but value (when existing) is determined by labor, because someone will demand more for something that takes a lot of effort and/or time to create.