Debt Cures They Don't Want You to Know About

Kevin Trudeau has had quite a TV career. He's sold Mega Memory and Coral Calcium. Both made him a ton of money, though the Coral Calcium got him in trouble with the FDA and the FTC. Surprisingly his Coral Calcium claims turned out to be very exaggerated. The FTC then banned him from selling products on TV. Thanks to the 1st amendment, Trudeau didn't have to go hungry for long. He became an author and began is series of various things "...they don't want you to know about."

Debt Cures They Don't Want You to Know About is the 4th book of the series (#5 is Recession Cures - Get Rich in Tough Times). It is also the first Trudeau book I've endeavored to read. I admit to having low expectations and I was not disappointed. I found several problems with Trudeau's book, though I was somewhat surprised that some of the advice was at least somewhat helpful. Other hints were not necessarily bad, but not really useful either. The key problem is the sales pitch selling the book. Below I will discuss what was bad and the areas that weren't horrible.

The book itself is extremely repetitive, especially the first 3-4 chapters. I felt I was reading the same paragraph over and over, just with different wording (it reminded me of The Secret). The book itself could have been reduced to 150 pages (it rings in at just over 300 pages) without missing anything. That's not saying it needed to be written in the first place. Most of the repetition focused on the credit card companies and the banks screwing the American people and keeping them in a revolving-door of debt. While there's a kernel of truth in that statement, it doesn't need to be repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over... On top of that, the repetition reinforces Trudeau's attitude with the intent to convince the reader "it's not your fault you are in debt". The following quote demonstrates the gist of the book:

"Most debt and credit books on the market today talk about how to cure debt by curbing

your spending and 'cutting out fat'. They make you think that it is something you did that

created the wild debt problem." - P.218

There's nothing like absolving yourself of all responsibility. Never-mind all the people who seem to be able to manage your money just fine. The quote is fitting as well, because there isn't a single strategy to help you learn to manage your money and really stay out of debt. Why would Trudeau want that? Readers might actually realize purchasing a book by Trudeau is a waste of money.

There is some actually useful advice in parts of the book. Just about all of it is how to get your APR reduced on your credit card. I'm sure a lot of people don't think that can change at all. I'm not confident that the reductions will be as drastic as dropping from say 25% to 5% like he claims, but it can't hurt to at least try. He even discusses the importance of paying off the balance each month. Unfortunately, he spends little time on that. Much of this chapter keeps the focus on how it's not your fault. In the end it's nothing new.

Trudeau spends quite a bit of time on strategies to eliminate debt. Almost none of which are realistic. I can't say for sure that they won't work, but the number of people who will qualify for the options will be miniscule, at the most. To use the strategies your debt will need to be 3+ years old, with no activity in that time; meaning you haven't paid on it in at least three years. The main strategy is to not acknowledge the debt as yours (Trudeau refers to it as alleged debt). You can also provide a statement of income and net-worth showing you have no money so they'll leave you alone. It might work. Trudeau suggest you have an accountant friend help you. (If you have a friend who is an accountant, sue him for letting you be so stupid with your money). Trudeau does provide an example in the appendix, but it's pretty pathetic.

The appendix is the worst I've seen for a finance book, hands down!!! What is in the appendix should have just been included in the text of the book. It's as if the appendix was added to try to drum up some fraction of credibility. It's a total of three pages, two of which are lame letters that are to be sent to your creditors stating you have no money (good luck on that). On the third page are the two financial documents. Both are correct, but pretty useless, even for their intended purpose. I would expect they would be worthless if you sent them to a creditor to show you have no money, again that might work. No where does he show you how to pay down debt from multiple sources.*

Trudeau's discussion of credit scores is half decent. The main problem again is the angle he takes. He explains the credit scores fairly accurately from what I can tell, but how he attributes the motives of the credit card companies is completely off the mark. I'm not saying the credit card companies/rating agencies are saints and that there isn't some trickery involved in what they do. The devious motives are over-stated. Unfortunately, Trudeau is mostly concerned that the credit card companies want folks with low scores because they can keep them in debt with high interest and high fees. He goes so far as to say they almost don't want people with good scores. I don't doubt that there is some truth to that. But, keep in mind that credit card companies are gambling, to a certain degree, on who will pay off their debt. If you are a greater risk, then they'll charge you more to be in debt to them to minimize their risk. They may hedge their bets greatly in their favor (possibly unfairly), so it pays to have good credit. Trudeau is noble enough to point this out. Again, it's nothing new, though the way Trudeau explains it, you'd think he's discovered Cold Fusion. Then again, I wouldn't put it past Trudeau to "discover" Cold Fusion.

At the end of the book there are two chapters about free money. Virtually all of it involves government programs.** Some of the programs may be worth looking into, but like the debt strategies, you might not qualify due to narrow requirements. They may be worth checking out. Just remember there's no such thing as Free Money. That you can take to the bank. In fact the chapter serves as a condensed version of the Matthew Lesko*** book as far as I'm concerned.

All in all, this book certainly does not live up to the hype. Plus, when you call, as is the Trudeau way, you'll be asked if you want to get his monthly newsletter with even more debt cures. The book certainly isn't ground breaking, though the way the infomercial puts it you can't find this stuff anywhere else. If you are in debt, you're better off finding a book that targets the area where you struggle. First, this book is too general to give any credence to anyone area. Plus, Trudeau's reputation also calls into question the validity of many of the strategies he offers. If you are looking for a good general finance book, I recommend something by Andrew Tobias, Ric Edelman, or even Suze Orman.**** When it comes to finance, I think you are better off going with somebody who has an established reputation versus somebody with a reputation for misleading his customers. BUYER BEWARE.

* If you have debt, pay on each item and apply any surplus to the debt with the highest interest rate. As debt gets paid off transfer all that surplus to the remaining debt with the highest interest rate. Repeat the process until all the debt has been paid off.

** This would be the libertarian's favorite section...to burn!!!!!!!!

*** Lesko is the dork with the suit covered in question marks as see here. He's like a deranged version of the riddler. See the video at the bottom of the page.

**** I wouldn't call Orman my favorite, but I think she has sound advice for the most part. One issue is that she sells some of the things she recommends which I find a conflict of interest. She also takes a more emotional view of money, so she'll likely appeal to women more than men.

Joe Wilson and the Rude Crew

With Joe Wilson, Serena Williams, and Kanye West all acting up, it made for an interesting week. I have to say that I found both Williams and West to be idiots for their behavior. Williams was the worst by far. Kanye wasn't too far behind, although his apology with Jay Leno was by far the most sincere celebrity apology I've ever seen. We'll see if it changes his behavior, because in my book he's still one of the most annoying celebrities.

I really want to talk about Mr. Wilson. Although his comment is considered rude by many, I liked it. He may have been incorrect in his assessment. From what I understand, the bill doesn't include provisions for illegal aliens. That would make Wilson incorrect, though I doubt illegal aliens would be turned away. We'll in effect pay for them as we do now. What I like is the spice Wilson added to congress. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Bush had been challenged like that? It reminds me of the british government where the Prime Minister has to answer to the parliament. Our presidents need to be challenged the same way. It's part show and entertainment in Britain, but I'd like to see the Congress and Senate face the president with criticism and cat-calls. I doubt Bush would have been re-elected if he had the face this kind of crowd.

Here's to you Joe Wilson. Just get the rest of your colleagues on board, then we're talking. This may be an area where Kanye is well suited.

Foucault's Pendulum

After several years of planning to read Umberto Eco, I finally picked up Foucault's Pendulum. I've heard it referred to as the thinking man's Da Vinci Code. Since Foucault's Pendulum came first, I'd much rather consider The Da Vinci Code as the idiots Foucault's Pendulum. There is a drastic difference between the two books, that's for sure.

First off, Foucault's Pendulum has much less action than a Dan Brown book. It also takes place over more than a 24 hour period. The most striking difference is the depth of the plot. Rather than be filled with a series of simple codes and and connections that unravel as the book progresses, Eco weaves a complex history and conspiracy that requires the reader to pay full attention.

Eco begins the book with the conspiracy alive and ready to expose itself. We see Causaubon enter a museum in Paris to find is friend Belbo who has informed Causaubon that The Plan is real. Eco quickly pulls the story into flashback and the majority of the book takes place in the past, a past that spans 10-15 years, or more. Causaubon is the main character we follow for the entirety of the book. He is a n expert on the Templar's and is drawn into a publisher to screen books about the templars. Eventually he and his friend Belbo begin to work up their own conspiracy regarding the Templars and other secret societies. In the end the made up conspiracy, known as The Plan, turns out to be a reality. Most of the book deals with the creation of The Plan, with little real action.

Overall I found the book enjoyable. It's not a book that should be read in small snippets, whichh unfortunately is how I read it. I took two months to actually read the whole book. The language is not difficult, but the themes and the history detailed in the book require the reader to pay attention in order to get full enjoyment. In contrast, The Da Vinci Code requires no such attention due to its simple nature. I would recommend this book to anybody who enjoys history for sure. Just make sure you have time to read it in large chunks.

Nessie?

Google Earth may have unearthed (unwatered???) the Loch Ness Monster. Just enter the coordinates 57°12'52.13"N, 4°34'14.16"W into the search for an amazing find (for the record I did just that and located the image on my own). Of course it's only amazing if your IQ is in the Forest Gump range. The said image is shown (I stole this copy from foxnews.com) and as you can see, it hardly looks like famous monster, unless it got exposed to some serious radiation resulting in deformation of the creature. My best guess is that his is a boat of some sort followed by a wake. The Lock Ness Monster's existence is already questionable for a myriad of reasons. The most notable reason being that Loch Ness can not supply the nutrition to support such a creature. It would be totally awesome if there were such a creature, that's for sure.

Captain Organic and the Wing Nuts - RANT

John Mackey should know when to keep his big mouth shut. Wasn't he aware that reasoned debate is banned in this country? Apparently he missed the memo. When it comes to health-care in this country, capitalism has failed and we need government needs to swoop in an fix things. To suggest otherwise is akin to treason and those who choose to breach the code must pay the price and unintelligent rambling attacks.

Mackey's article in the Wall Street Journal set off an IED of sorts in the liberal bloggosphere. Judging from the reactions printed in the Huffington Post, you'd thing Mackey had gone Imus on Obama. The Huffington Post is really just a sample of what has happened. What was Mackey's crime? He merely suggested an alternative to fixing health care using the government. His article isn't even negative, aside to referring to the government reforms as Obama-care*. He merely presents his view of the situation and how he thinks heath-care can be reformed and uses his personal business experience to back it up. It wasn't a rant from a nutcase just to bash Obama. He is making his case based on his EXPERIENCE and his political beliefs. That is not a crime. It should be commended by the very people who are trashing him and calling for boycotts of Whole Foods. At least there are some who can state their disagreements and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can understand that some disagree with the point of view presented by Mackey. I agree with his point of view. I am a believer in the free market. I believe it is the best place to weed out inefficiency over the long run. The free market is not perfect by any means and as many free market supporters have said before, bad things will happen. Bad things happen in nature, but that's part of living.

I don't have confidence in government to take care of me, because it can't it can't take care of me the way I can take care of myself. When there are problems like health-care, the default can't be to have the government to come in and fix things. I am open to a debate and fixing the problem with data and evidence. Unfortunately, many of these issues get turned to the Michael Moores and Rush Limbaughs of the world. I'd much rather the different perspectives present their viewpoint in an intelligent manner with data and sources, so it can be properly evaluated.

I think what irks me most about the reaction to Mackey's article is the level of unnecessary negativity. Mackey present a fair alternative that should be evaluated on its merits, not the knee-jerk reaction that ensued because he didn't support the public option. I find the reaction as bad as those making false claims about the public option (death panels). I start to wonder if anybody lives in reality when I hear what's going on.

I oppose the public option for several reasons and they are valid reasons. I get concerns about too much power going to the government. What happens when people decide that we need to have a real war on obesity because it cost too much money? Does that mean the government gets to invade people's lives to get the cost down? They can decide what you can eat, how much and when to exercise? That's extreme, but there are possibilities there. When Oregon instituted its seatbelt law, drivers would not be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. A fine would only occur when a person had committed another infraction. That last for one year before it was changed so that not wearing a seatbelt became its own offense. I fear that similar things can happen with government health-care. I think Dan Carlin presents a more articulate argument than I. It's mostly the second part of the 1-hour show, but it's a good listen (I suggest the whole show though).

Ultimately I was greatly disappointed in the reaction to John Mackey's article. I think it was a prime opportunity to debate merits. Public health-care should not be the only alternative that can be discussed. If there is a better way to meet the goals of the left using the market, they must be considered. In the end, isn't this just about helping people get the care they need? What is wrong with allowing the market to perform it function? I don't argue that health-care is a right. It is a right, not a guarantee. I have the right to get job, but I don't have that guarantee. If people care about the poor and want them to get health-care, use a charity or a non-profit.

* The reference to Obama-care came not from Mackey himself, but the editors of the WSJ who printed the article. Nowhere in the article is this term used and according to Mackey, he was simply responding with an alternative to the public option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One last rant. Barney Frank is not my favorite politician. He got to hold one of the famous townhall meetings and somebody showed up who was passionate about the health-care issue. Rush Limbaugh sure has done his part in inspiring stupidity. My point is, Mr Frank handled this woman the way he should have. More people need to be treated like this when they visit from their fantasy world (just like those anti-vax people). I hated when people called Bush Hilter and I hate when it's used on Obama. It's like I said above, we need reasoned debate with data and evidence. I disagree with Frank's position, but fully endorse his reaction to the question. Here's the clip:

This Might Explain Sarah Palin

The US conducted 2400 nuclear tests which were performed in several states including New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Mississippi, and Alaska. The largest such test was performed in Alaska with a 5 Megaton bomb. The bomb was placed 5000 feet underground; you can see the results below. The radiation I'm sure leaked out affecting certain politicians from Alaskan wilderness. The largest ever nuclear test would be the Tsar bomb detonated by the Soviets at 57 Megatons. The first clip is from a video entitled Atomic Journeys. It's an awesome film, and by awesome I mean the destructive power is breath-taking and haunting. While some may feel the film celebrates the tests, I still found the film to be more cautionary. The footage of the Hiroshima devastation and the aftermath was important in the film. The second clip is the Tsar bomb.

What's Jenny McCarthy Been Up To Lately?

Well, she may not be a serial killer, but it seems she's been out racking up quite a body count with her anti-vax rhetoric. You can get your weekly update from the link above which takes you to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count website.

It tends to be a crap-shoot when it comes to celebrities and pet causes. Unfortunately many are grossly uninformed, but make a lot of noise like McCarthy. The interesting thing is McCarthy's son Evan may not even have Autism. Some medical experts have indicated that his seizures are indicative of Landau-Kleffner syndrome. Apparently seizures are not associated with Autism at all, which is what led to Evan's dianosis. On top of that, Evan is recovering and that is also something that does not happen with Autism.

Amanda Peet, a celebrity, does offer some celebrity balance to the autism-vaccine equation, but she's not quite as loud as McCarthy. Here's her PSA on the topic. You can also check out some facts on this blog I found.