I'm reading his Rich Dad Poor Dad book a second time now, and am pretty sure a lot of the things he says are just made up, so I treat it like fiction now, but regardless of that and what you may think of him, I just wanted to know, what do you think of his definition of an asset?
He defines an asset as "something that puts money in your pocket". This, of course, is different to the traditional definition, which identifies it as something you own and has value, so that it can be sold (realised).
He also definies liability as something that takes money out of your pocket.
So according to him, a car is not an asset because it does not produce money (unless you're hiring it out). To the contrary, it is a liability because it takes money from your pocket because you have to pay petrol, tax and insurance.
He then says "if you want to be rich, simply spend your life buying assets. If you want to be poor or middle class, spend your life buying liabilities".
This, to me, sounds fair enough. If every dollar we saved produced more money for us, then we'd be a lot better off than using those very same dollars for buying items which we'd traditionally label as 'assets' yet which do not produce income.
What do y'all think?