I just read something that made me think about how some investors view the subject of debt completely differently. Robert Kiyosaki, the famous author of *Rich Dad Poor Dad*, has a rather particular stance on the matter. The person publicly declares that he maintains a debt of between 1 and 2 billion dollars with banks, and the most interesting part is that it doesn’t keep him awake.

His argument is straightforward: if he goes bankrupt, the problem is the bank’s, not his. It sounds controversial, but there is logic behind it. For Kiyosaki, debt isn’t necessarily something bad if you use it correctly. The question is what you do with that money.

While many avoid taking on debt, Kiyosaki invests in gold, silver, cryptocurrencies, and real estate. His reasoning is that these assets defend better against inflation and economic crises compared to having cash saved. In other words, he borrows money and puts it into assets that, according to his philosophy, generate value.

What he proposes is a clear distinction: there is “good debt” and the bad one. Good debt is the kind that works for you, generating a return. The bad one is when you work to pay it off. Robert Kiyosaki has built his reputation precisely on this idea that, when managed properly, debt can be a powerful tool rather than a burden.

Certainly, it’s a perspective that sparks debate. It’s not the typical advice you hear in most places, but it’s interesting to see how some of the most successful investors think radically differently about how to handle money and financial obligations.