What a shit piece of "journalism". They didn't even ask the guy for a comment, and it's all just someone picking and choosing specific bits of into from online postings to come up with a narrative. Apparently in this case it's "OMG! Look at this guy who doesn't trust the dollar to hold its value in the face of record defecit spending!" It looks like they didn't even call the guy for a comment. They didn't even try to compare assets against liabilities. They just say he has XXX debt and we're all supposed to freak out like a bunch of ignorant rubes. OMG Amazon has $312 billion in liabilities everybody!!!!! Let's cherry pick that one number with no context and all freak out! I wouldn't go to this guy for detailed investment advice, but his basic message regarding financial literacy should be taught in every high school in America.
Nah, he believes in Bitcoin, all he has to do is use the USG's massive computing power to mine Bitcoin and pay off the national debt.
Yahoo Finance wrote: That's ridiculous LOL Either the Yahoo author or Kiyosaki doesn't know what they are talking about... On some highly abstract level, I think I understand his point, which may be that you should not borrow money to buy consumer goods or other products that are going to get used up, i.e., wear out and depreciate in value, but rather that debt should only be used to finance investments, such as buying a house, or owning a business, or buying stock on margin. And that is a rational idea. But a car that you own, even if there is a loan on it, is an asset on your balance sheet. The balance due on the loan is a liability. The car is an asset even if you are underwater, i.e., even if the loan balance is greater than the car's fair market value. He would probably claim that he was using the terms asset and liability metaphorically, or something like that. But these are terms of art that have formal definitions in the world of investment and finance. Using them to mean the opposite of what they actually mean is not a metaphor or an analogy; it is wrong-headed, misleading and dangerous. Let's put it this way: If he ever finds himself in bankruptcy court--or, for that matter, any type of legal proceeding where he has to produce a financial statement for the court or for another party--his own lawyers and accountants will tell him that those cars are assets--not liabilities. Actually, I would love to ask him... Do you treat those vehicles as liabilities when you calculate your net worth? Guy's a fu**in' idiot
You really should spend 3 minutes reading his key points in his own words. Modern journalism is garbage and is almost always pushing an adgenda rather than trying to inform. The basic way he uses the term liability is "this is going to cost you money to have". Keep in mind, his book at targeted a people who weren't taught anything about managing money and don't have much to start with. His point is that regular working class people should not go out and buy a $100k boat because you inherited a $100k windfall because the ongoing costs of ownership will put you in financial stress. His message is targeted at the crowds that go out and buy a house, 2 cars, a jetski, an RV, a snowmobile, a 4-wheeler and often do so on credit. He's not talking about how to read a 10K for a company. His most famous book is basically, "how to have more money coming in than going out." From that point of view, a t-bill or ownership in a laundrimat is an asset. Driving a car around is a liability. Driving an even more expensive car is an even bigger liability. We're talking about the basic dictionary definition of the word liability, as in: an obligation. Owning and operating a car forces outlays for fuel, insurance, tax, inspection, maintenance, tolls, parking, etc. These are obligations. This is not metaphorical, it's just not how you're used to hearing it because you're used to looking at things like balance sheets. "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is not "The Intelligent Investor". The target audience is different and thus the language is different too.
Dumbing down for the audience is, to put it plainly, dumb. Whether a media subject, outlet or former Prez does it.
The cash flow quadrant went into reverse! His outdated view of commercial property has probably cost him big. As for cars being assets- Ferrari, maybe , Rolls Royce, Bentley liabilities. Much as I'd like to be positive about British high end cars, most of them lose up to 75% of their value in 3-4 years if bought new.