Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The hate" is that people such as Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman, and on the "investment" side, people like Jim Cramer, have become the dominant voices in personal-finance. They control the narrative. They set the tone. They influence the culture, the expectations among regular investors, the discussion at dinner parties and at office water-coolers. They've turned lifelong quest of amassing funds and deploying funds judiciously, into a trite bromide. They encourage, on the one hand, simplistic and bovine renunciation of anything creative, and on the other hand, embrace of the speculative, where money is a kind of game, instead of lifelong achievement.
Their bloviating tends to crowd-out alternative voices and alternative discourse, in particular serious advice for people trying to be serious investors.
Their shows were never meant for serious investors.
Imagine a world where kids are taught some basic financial fundamentals throughout their school years. As they advance in grade, the depth of knowledge is increased.
They learn that to avoid the trappings of debt and bankruptcy they must never spend more than they earn. That means they must know how to develop and live within a budget.
They learn how to keep their spending under control.
They are taught the definitions of MUSTS and WANTS.
They are taught the basic principles of saving and investing.
They are educated on the fact that at some point they will be old enough to retire, and unless they want to be forced to continue working in their old age they must learn how to plan for that retirement.
Imagine a world where kids are taught some basic financial fundamentals throughout their school years. As they advance in grade, the depth of knowledge is increased.
They learn that to avoid the trappings of debt and bankruptcy they must never spend more than they earn. That means they must know how to develop and live within a budget.
They learn how to keep their spending under control.
They are taught the definitions of MUSTS and WANTS.
They are taught the basic principles of saving and investing.
They are educated on the fact that at some point they will be old enough to retire, and unless they want to be forced to continue working in their old age they must learn how to plan for that retirement.
I don't agree with that either. They were for people who lack basic fundamental financial knowledge and skills. People in debt, people without savings and unsure where to start or who need education on such things as difference between trust and wills, basic but important things. For serious investors or those with money maybe that's entertainment but for the millions who fit that description his and Suze Ormon's show (which I watched religiously and still miss) a very valuable source of knowledge.
I listen to Dave Ramsey now and then. I find him entertaining and some of his callers are rather interesting, particularly the hard luck cases. Good warnings for what not to do.
Seems he touts something that used to be quite common-- fiscal prudence. He is a rare counterweight to our culture of spending.
Fair enough, but then, they're lowbrow entertainment. Contrast them with "Wall Street Week, with Louis Rukeyser", from the 1980s. That show was festooned with gimmicky soliloquies and even limericks, not to mention cheeky banter. But it was informative. It had useful nuggets of knowledge, about how the stock market works, about interest rates vs. inflation vs. debt and profit margins and so on.... currency fluctuations, tariffs and trade, short-term vs. long-term bonds, and so on. Yes, it proffered stock tips too, but the idea was to do further research, and not to call one's broker the following morning with a buy-order.
In short, a difference between then-and-now, is that we've replaced Louis with Dave, Suze and Jim. Not a good trade!
Fair enough, but then, they're lowbrow entertainment. Contrast them with "Wall Street Week, with Louis Rukeyser", from the 1980s. That show was festooned with gimmicky soliloquies and even limericks, not to mention cheeky banter. But it was informative. It had useful nuggets of knowledge, about how the stock market works, about interest rates vs. inflation vs. debt and profit margins and so on.... currency fluctuations, tariffs and trade, short-term vs. long-term bonds, and so on. Yes, it proffered stock tips too, but the idea was to do further research, and not to call one's broker the following morning with a buy-order.
In short, a difference between then-and-now, is that we've replaced Louis with Dave, Suze and Jim. Not a good trade!
We started watching Wall Street Week back in 1979 and that is what got us interested in investing and eventually both my wife and me into working in the securities industry. I would have to say that Louis Rukeyser is the main reason we have been able to retire in relative comfort.
Fair enough, but then, they're lowbrow entertainment. Contrast them with "Wall Street Week, with Louis Rukeyser", from the 1980s. That show was festooned with gimmicky soliloquies and even limericks, not to mention cheeky banter. But it was informative. It had useful nuggets of knowledge, about how the stock market works, about interest rates vs. inflation vs. debt and profit margins and so on.... currency fluctuations, tariffs and trade, short-term vs. long-term bonds, and so on. Yes, it proffered stock tips too, but the idea was to do further research, and not to call one's broker the following morning with a buy-order.
In short, a difference between then-and-now, is that we've replaced Louis with Dave, Suze and Jim. Not a good trade!
They are for entirely different audiences! A single mother with $20,000 in CC debt, no savings, no retirement is not going to benefit from an investing show. She is calling for a place to start to fix her financial life.
Same thing with Suze. Suze tried to get to the "why". Why can't you save, why are you spending so much on this or that, why are you supporting your 32 year old son? Because many people in situations like that need psychological AND financial advice.
I don't get why people are judging it so harshly simply because it doesn't apply to them.
I don't get why people are judging it so harshly simply because it doesn't apply to them.
It is because the relentless catering to the common-denominator crowds out any alternatives. The more the Suze and Dave get popularity and come to dominate the discourse, the less space remains for alternative voices, who might be speaking to a more "esoteric" audience. And, as people come to identify ALL financial advice with Suze and Dave and their ilk, the whole concept of financial advice gets cheapened and bowdlerized.
For example, if our city had a fine tradition of classical music concerts, but along comes a pop-music act that draws huge crowds, then it might eventually come to be, that the symphony orchestra has to close, leaving only the pop-music performers. That's great for people who like pop, but it leaves the classical music fans underserved. Foreseeing this, it's to our advantage to discredit and malign the pop-music performers as being boorish and vulgar, in hopes that people would be swayed to turn away from pop-music.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
