What is your opinion of Dave Ramsey?

[talltexan]

I liked when Chris Hogan was a co- or sub-host on the main show. I thought his podcast was targeted at too basic a level. I didn't read the Everyday Millionaires book, but it seemed like the closest the brand would ever get to legitimate, systematic research, and I have a Ph.D. in economics, so it seemed like an excellent study for the company to be doing. I spend so much less time commuting to- and from work today, that I've largely moved on, tho.

[ender]

Chris Hogan's advice/knowledge of financial stuff is painfully terrible.

[slappy]

I heard a good analogy today on the Bigger Pockets podcast. Debt is like a car. If you don't know how to drive, you probably shouldn't get behind the wheel. And you should probably listen to DR.

[slappy]

Chris Hogan's advice/knowledge of financial stuff is painfully terrible.

I just listen to him for his voice.

[Nick_Miller]

I was listening to Paula Pant today and thought, "she really is the total opposite of Dave Ramsey, isn't she?"

Paula answering a question: "Let's explore a framework that might assist you in coming to an answer..."

Dave answering a question: "Baby steps. I'll send you a book. Join a Dave Ramsey club at your church. I'm better than I deserve."

[Zamboni]

Chris Hogan's voice is a good balance to Dave Ramsey's voice.

DR talking to a guy in deep debt who has a truck loan AND a $42K car loan, telling him he's got to buckle down on his lifestyle:
"You been eatin' candy so much you got a stomach ache, that's what it amounts to."

Classic.

[saguaro]

Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies?  I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.

I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.

It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees.  They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due.  In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.

Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.

So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.

I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.

Right, but timeshare companies will take little things like just paying the fees from the heir's account (not the estate) as "proof of acceptance".  I'm not sure that would hold up in court but some heirs who are just trying to do the right thing have been suckered into taking over the payments.

Catching up on threads and touching base on the timeshare issue.  My parents bought a timeshare in the 90s against their financial advisor's advice with me and my sisters listed as beneficiaries.   They were convinced that we would want it but none of us did.  We were able to unload it just before my Dad passed away (Mom had already died) but it was a hassle and we had to involve an attorney to facilitate things.  Sisters were convinced we would be stuck with it, I wasn't so sure about that as we were beneficiaries it was not like we were on the deed.  Anyhoo, getting rid of it involved paying something like 2x maintenance fees, don't remember the exact details.   My parents had friends who had a timeshare at the same property (and who were the ones who talked them into it) and at the same time we managed to unload ours, those friends' daughters were still fighting with the property management.   

Don't always agree with Dave but on the timeshare issue, I have no argument with him there.

ETA:   Thinking further, the timeshare was deeded back after a lot of hassle, plus the maintenance fees. 

[talltexan]

I was listening to Paula Pant today and thought, "she really is the total opposite of Dave Ramsey, isn't she?"

Paula answering a question: "Let's explore a framework that might assist you in coming to an answer..."

Dave answering a question: "Baby steps. I'll send you a book. Join a Dave Ramsey club at your church. I'm better than I deserve."

I have been listening to a lot of "Afford Anything" lately, and I do like Paula and Joe and their approach. Lately I'm listening a lot more to this than to Dave, and I found the last half of the episode with Laurence Kotlikoff really interesting.

There are times when Ramsey does try to educate a caller--and he's explicit about doing this--from principles so they can make their own decisions, and I think these reasons provide a genuine value that is underneath the baby step process. He has modified the baby steps in response to a lot of inquiries, as--for example--when he implemented a "Baby Step 3B" which is building up a down payment for a house with the same intensity as he advocates for paying off the consumer debt in step 2.

[vand]

DR worked well in a world where information and support is scarce and not freely available.  However the proliferation of financial advice programmes available on the Internet is making him more and more of a relic of a previous era.

While I think there is still a big place for him in helping people with serious debt issues - which is, let's face it - entirely a behavioural issue rather than an educational issue, when it comes to a building a full framework for long term wealth building his baby step programme is like teaching a granny to suck eggs. 

Good financial advice needs to be tailored to individual preference and circumstances.  You don't invest the same if you're a 50yr old widow with kids who's received a large inheritance as you do if you're a 25yr old ivy league graduate with a high earning career ahead of them, but DR would just point them both in the same direction. His problem for serious investment buffs is that he isn't at all knowledgeable about markets. Listening to him still waffling on about "mutual funds" as a catch all for equity investments,  it's clear that he doesn't have even a fraction of the knowledge that he should have to be dishing out professional financial advice. Behavioural advice - yes, but not financial advice.

[talltexan]

The growth of his brand and his business in recent years would suggest that his advice is still found relevant by many; it feels like this growth has accelerated. We--as mustachians--can articulate important reasons that the information he offers falls short. But there seems to be a certain kind of person who finds it useful.

[Geppetto]

@talltexan - Agree - I found Dave Ramsey extremely useful when I was in my early twenties and just getting started. I learned to approach consumer & financial decisions critically, and to set financial goals that can be broken up into achievable chunks. Powerful stuff at that stage of life, when inhibitions are low and hedonic adaptation starts raging if left unchecked.

I just heard a clip of his show for the first time in about 12 years, and it's boring now, but I'm grateful to have heard the message when I did.

[talltexan]

So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.

[DadJokes]

So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.

They're re-doing the Everyday Millionaires book now and making it DR's. It even has the same subtitle.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1942121598/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1942121598&linkCode=as2&tag=melissajhogan-20&linkId=afa95f393a1c0c727f884e9caf0a4877

In 2022, I'm sure that will be the giveaway book.

[Ape86]

It's going to be hard for any of the Ramsey Personalities to replace him. He's pretty much a cult leader, and I get the vibe that only hires people who won't challenge or disagree with him. It's a bunch of yes-men and yes-women. Notice how often he cuts his co-hosts off mid-sentence, rarely acknowledges what they say. He's clearly hoping to pass the torch to someone so he can retire soon. But in order to do that, he would need to find someone with as big of an ego / as entertaining as him. Like a lot of cult leaders, I suspect he wouldn't have any tolerance for someone similar to himself! So he's stuck.

The only person who will politely interrupt him on air and try to get things back on track is his daughter, Rachel.

Still, I think Dave Ramsey himself is super fun to listen to, most of the time. I used his baby steps and it worked out well. I don't agree on his specific investment advice and will side with Bogle and Buffett.

[Ape86]

So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.

They're re-doing the Everyday Millionaires book now and making it DR's. It even has the same subtitle.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1942121598/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1942121598&linkCode=as2&tag=melissajhogan-20&linkId=afa95f393a1c0c727f884e9caf0a4877

In 2022, I'm sure that will be the giveaway book.

I noticed some (I haven't checked all of them) of the Ramsey Solutions books are copyrighted by Lampo Licensing LLC instead of the individual authors. It leads me to suspect that the authors themselves don't even write the books. Maybe as employees they are assigned a book that a contract writer put together based on Dave's instructions, get their photo taken for the cover, and go off on tour to sell it. If that is true, it makes sense Dave would just replace himself on the cover of a Chris Hogan book.

[clarkfan1979]

His radio show is starting to get harder to listen to when responsible people call in and have very reasonable low interest rate debt. I was listening to one of his personalities yesterday, but not Dave himself.

Woman is mid-20's and has 32K of student loan debt below 2%. She has 14K of cash. She has about 3K of cash left over every month. Instead of putting 3K/month toward student loans, she asked if she could split the difference. Put 1.5K toward student loans and 1.5K into the stock market (brokerage account with index funds)

Answer: Take your 14K in cash and put 13K toward your student loans that are killing you. Now at 19K with your student loans, you can put 3K toward your student loans and be debt free in 6 months.

Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.

Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.

[js82]

His radio show is starting to get harder to listen to when responsible people call in and have very reasonable low interest rate debt. I was listening to one of his personalities yesterday, but not Dave himself.

Woman is mid-20's and has 32K of student loan debt below 2%. She has 14K of cash. She has about 3K of cash left over every month. Instead of putting 3K/month toward student loans, she asked if she could split the difference. Put 1.5K toward student loans and 1.5K into the stock market (brokerage account with index funds)

Answer: Take your 14K in cash and put 13K toward your student loans that are killing you. Now at 19K with your student loans, you can put 3K toward your student loans and be debt free in 6 months.

Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.

Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.

The target audience for Ramsey's show is absolutely *NOT* those who want to do things the mathematically-optimal way.  (And let's be fair, that group probably isn't tuning in in the first place).  Rather, Ramsey's show is more behaviorally-focused: much like programs designed to get people out of gambling/substance/other additions, his show is designed to get people who have behavioral patterns of overspending/financial irresponsibility into a framework of not doing blatantly stupid stuff, and simplifying their finances to the point where they don't feel overwhelmed.

If you're actively deliberating whether to pay off your mortgage or invest money in the stock market, you're not Ramsey's target audience.  His target audience is people who aren't saving/paying off debt in the first place, who have a habit of overspending and thus accumulating debt on various lines of credit.  (And yes, some of Ramsey's "conventional wisdom" doesn't always apply when we live in a world where people have loans whose interest rates lie somewhere below the current rate of inflation.)

All that said, while I'm not a big Dave Ramsey fan myself, his message *does* help some people get on a path towards more financial responsibility.  I just wish that he didn't grossly oversimplify many subjects, but apparently that's the sort of message that sells to a subset of people.

[Ape86]

This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article

I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.

I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2.  I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%.  Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using.  He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?

From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality

When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.

Is this the flaw / B.S. in Dave Ramsey 12% logic?

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp

"The S&P 500 Index originally began in 1926 as the "composite index" comprised of only 90 stocks.1 According to historical records, the average annual return since its inception in 1926 through 2018 is approximately 10%–11%.[cite] The average annual return since adopting 500 stocks into the index in 1957 through 2018 is roughly 8%."

[LadyMaWhiskers]

I guess I dig the folksiness and of course the love-ya-brother / here’s a face punch schtick. The advice is way to uniform and geared toward people who get into consumer debt for me to take seriously, but I do ge t a kick out of it.

[Sugaree]

.
And number of credit cards?  Who cares?  Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter?  Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%.  I haven’t closed the account because why would I?  Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.

I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all.  I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills.  Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.

I see you've met my ex-husband.  Some people need Dave Ramsey.  I married a couple of them.  He's like AA for people who are bad with money. 

[Apples]

To answer the title of this thread, I think Dave Ramsey is an asshole.  I think he used to be just a blunt guy and very certain in his opinions.  But how he handles Covid, disagreements with employees, the Chris Hogan situation*, the "righteous living" clause, and general attitude that he is king drive me nuts.  I wonder what his kids actually think of him, or what their spouses think of him.  And he definitely wants to retire and pass the mantle on, but there are no good options.  The main one got very publicly fired (Chris).  His daughter, and I hate to say this, does not have a voice for radio.  She's gorgeous, so I think she does really well doing Youtube videos where you both hear and see her.  I don't watch any of her content, but I have a spendypants friend who loves her and has gotten her book, journal thing, and envelope system.  20's and early 30's women, especially moms with young kids, is a great market for her because I don't think Dave hits that market overall very much.  But I don't think she can take on the radio show, which is the engine behind the whole thing.  And as someone else pointed out, the personalities don't really write the books.  I think they are part of a process, probably get input into what goes into the book, and probably do "writing" so the book has their voice.  Like, may actually write out most of what ends up in the final product, but are working off an extensive outline with all of the content already laid out for them.  And Lampo Group owns everything - I think that was a big reason why that one guy (can't remember his name) left several years ago - all of his work done there was not his, including the books.

*if you don't know, Dave and the board of Lampo Group were meddling in Chris's marriage, and wanting the couple to go to counseling at their church and then that pastor report back to them...rather than fire Chris for obviously violating their righteous living clause.  Meanwhile firing other employees for having sex outside of marriage.

[calimom]

.

Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.

Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.

I caught this ep on Youtube and found the answer to this question spectacularly bad. Dave wasn't involved in this one but the two guys agree selling a cash-flowing rental to pay down debt (that included a boat) to be a fine solution. It was insane.

On another note, does anyone have any information about the SmartVester Pros? I am picturing a bunch of Edward Jones-ish affiliates. Never, ever have I heard Vanguard or Fidelity being mentioned or recommended for the people that call in who are sitting on a pile of cash.

[Proud Foot]

.

Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.

Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.

I caught this ep on Youtube and found the answer to this question spectacularly bad. Dave wasn't involved in this one but the two guys agree selling a cash-flowing rental to pay down debt (that included a boat) to be a fine solution. It was insane.

On another note, does anyone have any information about the SmartVester Pros? I am picturing a bunch of Edward Jones-ish affiliates. Never, ever have I heard Vanguard or Fidelity being mentioned or recommended for the people that call in who are sitting on a pile of cash.

The few SmartVester Pros I know are Edward Jones advisors. I haven't asked about the program to know how it really works though.

As far as mentioning Vanguard or Fidelity, there have been a few times I have heard it mentioned as a fund provider, he is very careful not to mention specific investments and the closest I know if is when he mentions an index fund, like an s&P500 fund. I am sure this has a lot to do with compliance as well as pushing them to one of his SmartVester Pros so he can receive the referral money.

[RetiredAt63]

.
And number of credit cards?  Who cares?  Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter?  Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%.  I haven’t closed the account because why would I?  Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.

I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all.  I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills.  Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.

I see you've met my ex-husband.  Some people need Dave Ramsey.  I married a couple of them.  He's like AA for people who are bad with money.

Was your husband a twin?  I could have written the very same thing about my ex.   ;-)

[Missy B]

It's going to be hard for any of the Ramsey Personalities to replace him. He's pretty much a cult leader, and I get the vibe that only hires people who won't challenge or disagree with him. It's a bunch of yes-men and yes-women. Notice how often he cuts his co-hosts off mid-sentence, rarely acknowledges what they say. He's clearly hoping to pass the torch to someone so he can retire soon. But in order to do that, he would need to find someone with as big of an ego / as entertaining as him. Like a lot of cult leaders, I suspect he wouldn't have any tolerance for someone similar to himself! So he's stuck.

The only person who will politely interrupt him on air and try to get things back on track is his daughter, Rachel.

Still, I think Dave Ramsey himself is super fun to listen to, most of the time. I used his baby steps and it worked out well. I don't agree on his specific investment advice and will side with Bogle and Buffett.

Yeah, when he's not doing it anymore they'll lose 90% of their market overnight.

What I find most disagreeable about Dave is that he doesn't know what 'socialist' actually means.

[talltexan]

I caught an episode about five years ago where Dave read the Abraham Lincoln quote (from a speech he gave to Congress in 1861):
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

I was shocked. I never expected to hear Dave Ramsey advocating for Marxist ideas on air.

[AO1FireTo]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

[HPstache]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

Did MMM lose you too?

[Gronnie]

I like the new guy Dr. John Delony. It seems Dave actually respects his opinion and authority.

The rest of them I don't care for it all. A bunch of yes men and women.

[Apples]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

All agreed.  Round of applause for your joke in the last bit lololol.

[talltexan]

I like the new guy Dr. John Delony. It seems Dave actually respects his opinion and authority.

The rest of them I don't care for it all. A bunch of yes men and women.

Dr. John seems to go beyond the Ramsey narrative in interesting ways, I'm really impressed by him in the limited amount I've listened.

[OtherJen]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

Did MMM lose you too?

Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.

[Metalcat]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

Did MMM lose you too?

Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.

Yeah, MMM's post was rather tone deaf and aged very poorly as the facts of the pandemic eventually became clear, but it was nothing like was DR has done.

[talltexan]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

[Nick_Miller]

IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."?  Of course not.

Ramsey acted like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.

So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.

[RetiredAt63]

IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."?  Of course not.

Ramsey like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.

So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.

What really got to me about that incident was that he forbade others to wear masks.  Especially the caterers.    It looked like a power play.

[Nick_Miller]

IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."?  Of course not.

Ramsey like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.

So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.

What really got to me about that incident was that he forbade others to wear masks.  Especially the caterers.    It looked like a power play.

Oh it absolutely was just straight up an abuse of power, just for optics (we're not afraid here at Ramsey Solutions!) and to feed his ego.

[OtherJen]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

[NorthernIkigai]

So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.

Ramsey’s actions related to Covid didn’t change my view of him one iota. His rampant sexism and bad investment advice were already enough evidence for me.

[HBFIRE]

I think for the general person who is financially illiterate, he is a positive influence.  He focuses on behavioral personal finance, which is arguably more important than anything.   For those wanting more optimal strategies, they'll quickly move on from him.  Note:  This is just my opinion of him from a personal finance standpoint, I don't really care what his personal views are.

[AO1FireTo]

I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19.  He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.

The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.

Did MMM lose you too?

Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.

Yeah, MMM's post was rather tone deaf and aged very poorly as the facts of the pandemic eventually became clear, but it was nothing like was DR has done.

Yes, that's what soured me on Dave.  It's fine to have your own beliefs but he intentionally put his employees health at risk.  Last I heard, MMM doesn't impose his will on other people.

[talltexan]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

[OtherJen]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

A broken clock is right twice a day. I don't have the mental or physical space to store a broken clock.

[NorthernIkigai]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t dismiss his intellectual output regarding behavioural personal finance, because that’s his specialty? While he’s telling people the stock market returns 12% per year (and even skips the “on average” in some instances)? That’s just setting people up to fail.

[Metalcat]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

Nonsense.

DR isn't rich and powerful because he created any brilliant financial advice, he's rich and famous because of his personality. He hasn't produced any fucking groundbreaking financial content; he basically just tells people to stop being idiotic with their money, and breaks the concept of tackling debt down the the kind of intellectual pablum that an infant could digest.

His product is largely his personality, so why wouldn't his personality be up for judgement.

Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.

Why was Harvey Weinstein's rampant rape an open secret in Hollywood? Because his product was more valuable than the product of the women he was raping.

As long as we are willing to say things like "well, we can value their contribution without judging the irrelevant, personal details of the creator", then we will always have men like R Kelly making fucking great music and literally holding female children imprisoned as sex slaves.

There are more than enough brilliant people out there to fill all of the gaps that would be left by holding people in power accountable for their moral failings.

There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.

[Zhiantara]

Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.

Why was Harvey Weinstein's rampant rape an open secret in Hollywood? Because his product was more valuable than the product of the women he was raping.

As long as we are willing to say things like "well, we can value their contribution without judging the irrelevant, personal details of the creator", then we will always have men like R Kelly making fucking great music and literally holding female children imprisoned as sex slaves.

There are more than enough brilliant people out there to fill all of the gaps that would be left by holding people in power accountable for their moral failings.

There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.

Hear, hear!

[talltexan]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

Nonsense.

...

Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.

...

There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.

I'm not arguing that Dave Ramsey should escape consequences for criminal behavior. I am arguing that we should not dismiss material such as that contained in The Total Money Make-over from the conversation about how people can make responsible financial choices.

[Metalcat]

I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.

I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?

Your values are different from mine here.

As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?

I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.

Nonsense.

...

Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.

...

There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.

I'm not arguing that Dave Ramsey should escape consequences for criminal behavior. I am arguing that we should not dismiss material such as that contained in The Total Money Make-over from the conversation about how people can make responsible financial choices.

Has anyone actually done that though?

I've been reading DR threads here for YEARS and never have I seen anyone dismiss the actual good advice he gives.

One can criticize him AND think that the world would be better off without him without saying that they think literally every thing that the person has ever said is total garbage.

That's a leap that I've literally never seen anyone ever say.

Hell, I've heard Donald Trump say some interesting and intelligent things in my lifetime, it doesn't mean I don't think he's a rotting fart of a human being who should never be listened to.

DR has some very questionable financial advice and has set an example of absolutely offensive, immoral behaviour in terms of the pandemic. So yes, I would be perfectly happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there are COUNTLESS financial personalities out there who could easily fill the demand of giving very basic financial advice.

He's nothing special in terms of his advice. That is not his value AT ALL. His value is in his personality and the way in which he's entertaining, so people are inclined to want to listen to him. Hell, we have people in this forum who so don't need his advice who choose to listen for pure entertainment's sake.

So what is DR *really* bringing to the table? His personality.

And if his personality is the problem, then do you see why I find it fair game to heavily criticize his entire empire since that's what it's based on?

Because if it was based on the actual financial advice, then every single human being with basic financial common sense would be as rich and famous as DR.

Let's not give the man credit for anything that he hasn't earned. He didn't reinvent the wheel of financial advice, he just delivered the exact same type of basic, basic, dumbfuck simple financial advice as everyone else, but with a flair that caught people's attention.

He hasn't created any brilliant ideas or content, so let's not pretend that he has.

[carolina822]

Dave Ramsey says you shouldn't contribute to retirement until you're debt free except for the house, even forgoing employer matching. Meanwhile, he does NOT tell you stop tithing 10% to the church. Granted, I'm not religious so I'm biased to think tithing is strange, but if you're in a hair-on-fire debt situation, paying 10% of your income as essentially a club membership is not a smart financial move. If someone was donating 10% to Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or some other non-church charity, he'd tell them to knock it off until they had some actual money in the bank.

[OtherJen]

Yes, and he also claims that credit cards are always bad, no exceptions, even if you pay them off in full every month, and anyone who uses them is a moron.

It's fine that he can't trust himself with them. It's myopic to apply one's own shortcomings to everyone else.