Channeling Suze Orman
I was near the deadline for a column when I glanced at a TV screen. “The Suze Orman Show,” airing on CNBC at prime time, exerted a powerful force in my hotel room. And the fate of this column was sealed.Orman made a big splash many years ago on public television — the incubating environment for her as a national phenom. With articulate calls for intelligent self-determination of one’s own financial future, she is a master of the long form. Humor and dramatic cadences punch up the impacts of her performances.
Seeing her the other night, within a matter of seconds, I realized that the jig was up. How could a mere underachieving syndicated columnist hope to withstand the blandishments and certainties of Suze Orman, bestselling author and revered eminence from the erudite bastions of PBS to the hard-boiled financial realms of General Electric’s CNBC?
To resist was pointless. What if I tried to write as a carping critic? After all, Suze Orman has already explained that such critics, particularly the males of the species, just resent a strong woman with the guts, smarts and determination to cast off the shackles of a retrograde past. “Ladies,” I could hear her say from the stage, with one of her magnificent flourishes, “don’t let that nonsense wreck your future.”
So, in hopes of putting myself in sync with her redemptive power, I turn the rest of this particular column over to a distillation of Suze Orman’s messaging:
- Your money, your life. It’s as simple as that. Ladies — and you men, too — the time is past when we hold back. Not having control over our own money is something we can’t afford, and I mean that literally. We just cannot afford it.I’ll be blunt here. Anyone who tells you there’s something wrong with getting rich and then richer has some serious unresolved problems. Heh heh.
If you want a solution, you go out and grab it. You rule money or money will rule you. People who can’t wrap their minds around that vital concept — they get nowhere.
You want to solve social problems, start with yourself. If you can’t let yourself accumulate wealth, you’re part of a social problem — like I used to be. Now I do very well, thank you, and I don’t want to hear about how some financial company is making money from my self-help website. Sure, I’m getting richer all the time. You got a problem with that?
The more people get rich, the happier I am. Even a leader of the Chinese Communists (and you know what dummies they were) said it straight out maybe 30 years ago — “it’s glorious to be rich.” The baggage we’re still carrying around tells us not to mind if some guy says it but if I as a woman make the same point then the knives come out. Ladies, to hell with that. We’re not going back.
It’s not glorious to be low-income, that’s for damn sure. I know what that’s like. Now I go back to PBS at pledge time, and they welcome me with open arms. Public broadcasting. Makes me almost sentimental. But catch me on CNBC these days, and you’ll see that I’m swimming with the big-money fish.
I was a waitress for a pathetically long time. I had to find the courage. The courage, ladies. And I did. Now look at me.
I don’t just want you to plan for the future. I want you to make enough money to buy your future: lock, stock and barrel. Money money money. I’ve got it on the brain, and I make no apology. I love money. It’s freedom, and ladies — you can earn freedom if you apply yourselves.
Some people can’t stop complaining that the economic system has winners and losers. Whether they realize it or not, that’s probably because they’re bound and determined to be losers. Well, I think it’s a heck of a lot better to be a winner — don’t you?
What kind of media future do you think I would’ve had if I chose to keep complaining about the system because of losers? I’d probably be a loser too! Not if I can help it. And I can, obviously.
So, I’m rich. And I’m trying to inform you about how to get rich, too. If you can’t make it happen, maybe you haven’t listened to my wisdom closely enough. You got a problem with that?
Norman Solomon’s latest book is “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State.” Video of his recent encounter with CNN’s Glenn Beck, now on YouTube, can be seen at: www.normansolomon.com
What a great tactic! You let her hoist herself on her own petard! OK, so I will be the one to point out the truth that Suze Orman is so in denial of. Money is NOT wealth. Money is the measure of the DIFFERENCE between one person’s wealth and another’s. Having a lot of money is only meaningful when there are other people who do not have a lot of money, so you can compel them to do things for you. In order for some people to be winners following Suze Orman’s strategies, others must be losers. And if we all follow her strategies with equal fervor, we’ll all be busy “making money” and nobody will be doing anything useful.
The new Golden Rule : He who has the gold makes the rules. Exposure on mainstream media is gold for these media whores. This particular whore is no different from her peers or the anchors they are trying to topple. These guys and gals will gladly sell out to get that airtime. They know what buttons to tweak, like their colleagues in professional wrestling. Jack London wrote in IRON HEEL: “The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”
Hoa binh
“Money is the measure of the DIFFERENCE between one person’s wealth and another’s.”
That’s *all* money is?
“Having a lot of money is only meaningful when there are other people who do not have a lot of money, so you can compel them to do things for you.”
Or rather, when the parties in question *agree* to terms. No one is compelled to work for anyone, they agree to.
I don’t see the problem in helping people understand personal finance. The levels of ignorance on this subject are astounding, I think it should be mandatory in public schools.
While quote mining, Solomon skips one that Oreman uses constantly: “People first, then money, then things”.
There is another way! Suze Orman and the other, financial self-help televangelists, are selling consumption based financial planning that is destroying our planet. It is no accident that the word “Rich” is constantly deployed. It’s a marketing messaging ploy designed to appeal to two of your most basic human traits - Greed and Fear.
They will tell you how to get “Rich”. And therefore, help you to satisfy your greed, and eliminate your fear.
The basic approach is to accumulate wealth, the more the better, so that you can continue to consume - the more the better. It’s ego-economics. Besides destroying the planet, it doesn’t financially, or mathematically work.
There is another way - Conservation!
Conservation saves you money, your retirement, and the planet.
And that’s how, Norman, you answer Suze Orman.
Ramsay Mameesh
Some people equate the meaning of life with wealth accumulation. Surprisingly, many of these people are utterly miserable. Wealthy people suffer from loneliness and other social maladies we sometimes assume are reserved for the working classes and the poor. But when you observe the rabid individualism of the wealthy, you understand that few can comprehend concerns such as friendship, love, community, and loyalty without referring to capital accumulation. Remove their wealth and they’re just lonely losers; return the wealth and they’re rich lonely losers.
If the American people would actually think for themselves, the empty-headed demogogues like Orman, Coulter, and Limbaugh would be pan-handling to earn bus fare and a bite to eat. We wouldn’t need to follow these foolish, self-serving leaders whose concern for us exists as long as they profit from us. We are the pedestal upon which Suze Orman has placed herself.
“But when you observe the rabid individualism of the wealthy, you understand that few can comprehend concerns such as friendship, love, community, and loyalty without referring to capital accumulation.”
Are you just making this up or do you have any evidence that it’s true?
And she’s a virgin! Well, don’t know bout nobody else, but I done been converted. From now on, it’s all about money. My money. Mine mine mine. And there will never be enough, that’s the fun - it’s a long term obsession without the worry of ever having that awful feeling of accomplishment or success! Because, goddamn, like Suze sez, if yer goal ain’t to get richer and richer until ya kick, well, “you have serious problems.” Like Mother Teresa, and Ghandi, and everyone who’s every served in our military, and…
“like Suze sez, if yer goal ain’t to get richer and richer until ya kick, ”
What’s your best evidence that Oreman subscribes to this?
Did Solomon just make up these quotes? I googled some and this article is the only thing that comes up.
I apologize. Looks like my use of the phrase “a distillation of Suze Orman’s messaging” was too ambiguous. I didn’t put quote marks around what followed from there because I was paraphrasing the gist of her message, not quoting. (In the piece as I sent it out, there was no indenting.) Now I realize that I should have been clearer about this. In the column above, I was summing up the Orman message. I was not quoting her.
– Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon: I’m convinced that you were channeling Suze Orman in this piece. I could imagine these very words come out of her mouth with her trademark flare! Quite funny, but also cuts through to what’s wrong with her message — capitalism ain’t built for everyone to be a winner.
I just thought she was a different version of Susan Powter.
“It’s money that matters. Hear what I say?
“It’s money that matters in the U S A.” (randy newman 80’s)
The few people I’ve meant with plenty of money are afraid someone’s gonna take it from them so they keep their distance in the well off world. While the rest of us spend it on each other raising a glass to the past when the endgame seemed so far off in the distance.
“I apologize. Looks like my use of the phrase “a distillation of Suze Orman’s messaging” was too ambiguous.”
Thank you for the clarification. I am curious as to what you think of her sign off line, “People first, then money, then things”.
Wealth, whatever the sum, is the measure of what one is willing to give. When a person experiences the extent of their own generosity, they feel wealthy. Otherwise nothing is ever enough. The disgusting appetite for hording or exploiting capital with the appendages of excess when EARTH MOTHER is experiencing paroxysms of overkill is psychotic, but it does support the MSM and its advertisers who must push the consumer agenda regardless of its merits, or the fragile state of the natural world that we rely upon.
I watch CNBC all day, and while I think it is fine to pursue wealth if you have a knack for it we can’t have a society where you are either a winner or a miserable working class loser. I was raised just wanting to be comfortable, that isn’t the mindset nowadays. When someone on cnbc was talking about the plight of the working poor one of the guests quipped “well they just should have gone to college and gotten a better job”. Who do these people think is going to do the work? Ok, you have the immigrants for the real dirty work but what about the putting out fires and fighting crime to save your rich asses?
I don`t know exactly what Solomon`s problem is with Susie O as I have listened to her a few times and never got the idea that she was a greedy money mad monster. Of course she has to talk about money as she is trying to help people that have made a horrible mess of their financial situation and we all know plenty of folks like that. Solomon must have been in a bad mood and thought Susie was making more than he was and doing it easier. I see no problem, if you are in financial difficulty, listen to someone who knows abour finance, if you are depressed, go to a shrink, if you have no purpose in your life, go to a pastor. Another possibility if you cannot stand any of these helpers, is to study these problems yourself and be your own counselor, which can work just fine.
I think the comment You rule money or money will rule you is apt as is financial literacy among the suites of literacy required to thrive in this society whether we like it or not; this is a social responsibility and sustainability goal because how we earn and spend our money has impact.
Women have money now and some people may not like that fact. I hear women are giving millions away too!
She and everyone else and their children can continue shopping from their rafts as well. Have a nice day Suzy!! Right Norm???
Mr. “expert on everything” strikes again.
When will this idiocy ever end?
When I am channel surfing, vainly looking for something worth watching on the hundreds of channels on cable, I occasionally hit the Suze Orman show. I have watched it for up to, say, 15 or 20 seconds. I have always assumed it is an informercial for some get-rich-quick scheme where the person getting rich is the one on the screen.
I haven’t changed my mind.
“I have watched it for up to, say, 15 or 20 seconds. I have always assumed it is an informercial for some get-rich-quick scheme where the person getting rich is the one on the screen.”
“I haven’t changed my mind.”
She sells books, but her message is basic personal finance. Going a bit more than the 15-20 seconds might have told you that.
I browsed a few of Orman’s books & shows. I was never impressed. Everything she says is never beyond common sense reasoning about personal finance. There are any number of self-help demagogues thriving in the books & media industry. Another classical self-help demagogue is Robert Kawasaki of the “Rich Dad & Poor Dad” fame.
A typical message of the these self-serving self-help gurus goes like this:
———————–
“You can do it. You can become rich. You can become sexy. You can win social status and influence. Simply follow my 4 step formula, …be determinted to follow these steps no matter whatever else happens to you.
Repeat to yourself 10 times a day: I will be rich, I will be richer, I will be richest.
You want proof? Look at me, I went from a store sales clerk 20 years ago to a multimillionnaire media emperor by applying the above principles, …
If I can do it, you can do it
…… ”
————————-
An so goes the litany of prescription and “proof”.
Let us see - what have these media moguls accomplished besides getting wealthy for themselves? Do they have any professional success - e.g., by way of an engineer, a doctor, a univeristy professor or a public administrator, or public policy influencer? Nothing. Have they founded anything, by way of public institution or policy reform efforts, of lasting value? Nothing. Have these people excelled in anything that entertains or engages people - by way of a serious artist or a serious athlete? None. DO they do anything that helps the younger generation and children to develop themselves - by way of a school? Nothing. Do they do something to demonstrate that money with compassion is what builds stronger societies that would want men and women to be part of? Nothing.
Then what have these self-help gurus got? A lot of money by repeatedly parroting the same common sense bylines ad infinitum. The value they derive is through the snow-balling public attention they have garnered over the years. It is the we the gullible public who serve these naked emperors by clothing them with our collective attention. The logic goes something like - “because some many people are paying attention to them, because they are selling so many million copies a year - they have some magic that will turn our fortunes inside out”. The tactic works because it appeals to the egoist is all of us - we all beleive that we are capable of more than who we are. Add to it sectarian slant along gender & racial lines, it has an even better appeal to the masses.
Getting rich is a zero-sum game. The fact that I got an extra dollar today implies, someone else has one less. People get rich by robbing the less fortunate of their rightful labor & value addition to raw materials. There is also another means by which we all become collectively wealthy and quicly - through environmental destruction. The more energy we extract from fossil fuels & nuclear means, the quicker we apply that energy elsewhere - to produce more - there by polluting the planet even faster.
Hari
And Norman’s point is what?
Suzy - along with Dave Ramsey, Clark Howard and a few others preach a practical message that you’d think folks trafficing this web site would endorse.
To wit - get control of your own finances, don’t load up on consumer debt, live within your means, invest prudently over the long haul. Then you won’t find yourself at the mercy of the payday loan guy or being bombarded by collection calls.
Getting rich is not a ‘zero sum game’. Anyone who asserts this sort of nonsense is either wilfully lying or woefully ignorant. The steady progress in individual and national wealth in this country and throughout the rest of the world over the last century give the lie to this nonsense.
Equally laughable is the environmental doom & gloom that are part and parcel of the zero sum baloney. Rich people and nations can afford the luxury of clean air & water. It is the poor of the world - folks by and large ruled by despots and/or kleptocrats - who subsist in filthy subsistence communities. Communities I suppose many on this web site romanticize as some sort of primal Eden without cell phones, Jerry Springer - and a life expectancy of about 40 years.
“Everything she says is never beyond common sense reasoning about personal finance.”
From what I see, the ignorance on the subject is at astounding levels.
“Getting rich is a zero-sum game. The fact that I got an extra dollar today implies, someone else has one less.”
This is a static view, assuming a pie of finite size. Many economists subscribe to a dynamic view, where the pie can increase in size.
“People get rich by robbing the less fortunate of their rightful labor & value addition to raw materials. ”
There is no robbing going on, it is done by agreement.
g l tirebiter:
>> The steady progress in individual and national wealth in this country
>> and throughout the rest of the world over the last century give the
>> lie to this nonsense.
As I have already hinted. It used to be a zero sum game among individuals within a nation, if we go back to the days of industrial revolution & Dickensian times. Then it became a zero sum game among nations - as during the colonial era & today’s global dominance of American/Euro corps over the world - developed & undeveloped alike. Now it is a zero sum game between man and nature - with the global warming threat looming over our head ever closer & the now developing nations like India, China & Brazil joining the fray for the planet’s resources, …this game is biased against nature at an ever faster rate. It would be man’s turn to figure whom to play this game with next. If it is a +ve sum game, why do the global MNC giants are buying more more political influence over governments world over, to influence public policies in their favor, to extract undue concessions from their public exchequers? Why was a supposedely deregulated banking system rescued from a subprime paralysis of their own creation with tay payers’ billions? Who got richer in the process? Or, as it goes in another essay in Common Dreams, why do Pfizer & Lily peddle unsafe drugs by buying up the top heads in the FDA? Lily makes an extra billion, adds a +ve billion to the economy - right? We need to look no further than Walmart to see why building wealth is a zero sum game between the giant corps & their less fortunate employees who have “agreed” to work for sub-subsistence level wages.
Hari
So the citizens of S. Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore are poorer because of the dominance of the American/Euro corporations? How about the growing middle classes in China & India?
Are you better off than your Victorian era ancestors? I know that I am. It always amazes me that the great majority of ‘poor’ people in this country own autos, televisions, air conditioners, and are fat.
You still haven’t answered the basic question - if this is a zero sum game why are people who live in countries with greater economic freedom under the rule of law better off both relatively and absolutely than at any other time in human history? And I hope you don’t say it is because we are making Sudan or Bolivia poor. Those unfortunates - and most of the rest of the impoverished, unhealthy billions - owe their misery to the heavy hand of their own rulers.
Is the US housing market in a mess? Yep. But I’m not sure what ‘taxpayer billions’ are bailing out the bankers? So far it’s the banks and other investors who are getting the haircut. Along with the borrowers who bit off more than they could chew - they probably should have listend to Suzy more closely. I hope the government stays out of the mess - rewriting loan terms after the fact will only slow down the inevitable drop in home prices to more reasonable levels. And tighter credit terms will help ensure fewer forclosures in the future.
Sure coprorations and other actors will be rent seekers - trying to curry favor & preference from governments where they do business. That’s part of the price we pay for having governments regulate markets. Exhibit A these days are the firms trying to rig aspects of carbon regulation. It’s a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach. The companies know - just as anyone who looks at the so called science knows - that man made global warming is bunkum.
I suggest you check out the work of Julian Simon - one of the best debunkers of the Malthusian world. Nature is (and will be) just fine - and so will you. Brazil, China & India - and all the rest of the developing world improving the lot of their citizens as they grow and prosper. And lay off the Paul Krugman - he’ll clog your arteries.
Would you like some cheese with that whine? Big (and small) pharma companies supply products that add years to our lives & make them more comfortable. They too have to swim in a regulatory ocean that adds cost and uncertainty to product development. Are they perfect? No. No institution crafted by men is. But as I look at the old rleaible g l tierbiter “Good/Bad” meter the needle is way over on the “Good” side.
> Thank you for the clarification.
> I am curious as to what you think
> of her sign off line, “People first,
> then money, then things”.
It reminds me of countless corporate slogans, like MasterCard associating what’s “priceless” with spending money. The motto is a way of reassuring people that the content of the message — glorifying money — is actually in a humanistic context. But the message is still overwhelmingly what it is: in Orman’s case, a vision of societal success that’s focused on individual financial success.
OK, Mr. Solomon, thanks. I’m kind of surprised by your take. If you look at it in the context of some of her programming, it seems more like one’s relationships with people is the most important thing in life. Then by listing money second, I don’t see her tying it to the first, but rather stressing it’s importance in general. That’s the way I took it for the few time’s I’ve looked at the show.
It seems to me that money is neither the most nor the least important thing. I tend to be more interested in how one spends their time, whether while earning or spending money or doing neither. Yet money is the only universal way that one might quantify one’s “success”.
There is a good book called “your Money or your Life”. It discusses how we all trade our life’s energy in exchange for money, and how it is also possible to do the reverse. I reccomend the book.
Norman Soloman should have spent more time listening to Orman. Her message is essentially how to take proper care of your money. Many people (mostly women) think they can’t solve financil problems and thus don’t try. thereby becoming victims.