Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad

[Willie the Duck]

The point here, in this thread, originally was that teachers do not teach you how to be poor.

I don't think others see that as the original point of this thread (actually wasn't the original point that Robert Kiyosaki was a conman?). I think (this is my impression) that we all think that, in the first page of this thread, the point was much more that teachers were specifically a good source of information, and that this movement towards teachers not teaching you to be poor/not being a bad source of information is a later clarification (and thank you, btw, for clarifying your position).

I suppose a point of contention is the notion of what a good source is. I think this is a good source, the opposite of a bad source. I would actively look here because folks going to school are there anyways, and there is a crazy likelihood of the teachers being from a family that understands and has first-hand multi-generational experience with investing.

The point of contention seems more along the whether we're talking about good as in 'the opposite of bad' or as in 'genuinely quite good.'

Seriously this seems rather straight forward. I could just be terrible at explaining things.

I would say you are having trouble explaining yourself (connecting A to B to C, some poor sourcing, plus it was hard to tell for a long time if you were conflating cause and effect), however subject matter is also an issue. Yes, the 'reduced to base form' part of your argument is straightforward-- so straightforward, it is uncontroversial. If you had simply stated, 'Robert Kiyosaki argues that teachers are a bad source of investment advice. I think he's wrong. They are trained to teach, and, compared to the population average, more likely to be upper-middle or upper class and/or come from such families (and thus might have some experiential exposure to the subject),' it'd be so uncontroversial as to simply garner 'yeps' all around. So I think people are looking for subtext, and focusing on whether teachers are particularly good investment SMEs (and I think the consensus is somewhere around, 'better than the Chapter 11 club, but not moreso than most other white collar jobs').

Exceptions do exist, but most public schools have a fairly rigid set up guidelines for what each teacher is allowed to teach. E.g. for something that's super controversial in the USA, sex ed classes. Around here "investing" would probably be decried as "filthy capitalism" if someone would randomly start teaching about investing. Not by all, but still, it would be a departure from the agreed upon lesson plan and am convinced a schoolboard somewhere would have to answer why is this in the lessonplan and if not what business (hah!) does the teacher have teaching it. Angry parents are a teacher's worst nightmare. And I live in a place where teachers are still garner respect for their important contribution to society.
If you want teachers teaching about investing it's going to have to be in an appropriate class. Mathematics is close at hand but it would probably be divorced from any meaningful context. Home economics might be another place. Normally though there's no generalist "stuff that might be important for living in this society" class, but a lot of it is split into discrete subjects. And not quite labelled that way. Could also be it's considered something that should be taught at home.

Basically "economics is for filthy business people and they'll sort it out as needed themselves". If I wanted to be glib and American about it.

When/where in America are investing and capitalism poo-pooed? We're a capitalist nation, one of the most capitalist and one where, without going into real-world politics very far, most deviations from capitalism are controversial at least. I mean, sure there was a brief period in the mid-90s where business types where vaguely 'the man' and something to resist becoming as a young person (I recall movies like Reality Bites belittling business types and people who drove around in BMWs), but that seems pretty tame compared to labelling investment classes 'filthy capitalism.'