Wrong. He recommends paying the minimum payments on all other debts, and putting all the remainder of the money (plus, if possible, some extra) to paying off the smallest debt. This establishes [ ...]
You need to acquire some critical reading skills. Paying off one debt obligation agreement first does not imply defaulting on other agreements. My statement is not wrong.
I agree that one should consider paying off the one with the largest interest rate first, but remember, he's not talking to people with a firm grasp on finances. This is a simple plan that provides a fairly mindless method of paying off debt, while at the same time offering intermittent rewards; all stuff someone who's bad with money (ie, someone in a great deal of debt) will need to push themselves forward. This isn't intended as a standard practice, but as a way out of an emergency.
So what ? This is a provably sub-optimal way out of an emergency if the goal is to avoid fiscal instability and accumulate money, when viewed from a critical/skeptical POV. Go re-read the OPs query and try again.
The majority of your criticisms are like that: you assume that the target audience of these radio brodcasts are fiscally responsible, a fact contradcted by the broadcasts themselves.
Apparently you didn't read to don't understand the OPs request in post #1.
As a newbie skeptic and nonbeliever I now want to look at debt elimination through the eyes of critical thinking and reason [..]
So I am reviewing Ramsey's advise to the undisciplined or illogical in that light. I don't have any particular opinion on whether Ramsey's methods are effective for his target audience, but that isn't the question. Ramsey's advise is provable sub-optimal when viewed from the standpoint of applying logic and reason to his apparent goals.
THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE .....
stevea said:
One thing to realize at the start is that any advice (like Ramsey's 'steps') can only be evaluatesd in terms of goals, and that all goal selection is purely subjective and emotional - not based on reason or logic.
Completely and utter bovine byproduct.
Since you disagree, then certainly you can rebut with at least a single example of a 'rational' goal.
Your choices to live in some way or to spend your time in some way are
not ultimately driven by logic or reason. Instead we have (or accept) goals and then we can apply reason in achieving those goals. Goals derive from emotion and instinct, and actions are ideally chosen are based on a reasoned and rational method to achieve these goals.
What if your only goal in life is to .. possess the Hope diamond. Well you might consider ways to buy or steal it, but Ramsey's advise abt paying down debt and saving for college would not be a rational derivative of this goal.
Your position is rubbish thinking. For example Ramsey's
apparent and unstated goals for his adherents are to have then accumulate assets for expenses such as retirement and children's college expenses. But of course Ramsey's advise is useless if you have disease that will leave you dead and childless at a young age. If you don't share his goal, then his rationale and reasoning do not apply. So I would consider Ramsey's advise to be reasonable tho' sub-optimal for ppl who share his apparent goals, but irrational for ppl who do not.
------------
More generally ...
A volitional action can only be considered rational or effective vs irrational and ineffective when considered in light of some specific goal. There is no basis whatsoever for evaluating the goal itself as rational or irrational. Goals arise from emotions and instinct.
I defy anyone to posit a counterexample.
