Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (320148)	1/11/2007 7:26:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573980

Debt is a always a negative in the sense I've already mentioned . Debt has to be paid back, usually with interest. Its better not to have the debt that have the debt, if you consider it strictly in isolation. But as I've also pointed out the debt doesnt' exist in isolation. Borrowing gives you funds you can use. Having debt plus thus funds (or debt plus what you buy with those funds) can be better, even a lot better, then having neither. (It can also be worse, but I'm only arguing against the idea that debt is ALWAYS a negative, not that it is sometimes negative.) I have pretty much already said the same thing. Like I said earlier, debt is the lesser of two evils: not having a house or having a house plus debt. I am not sure why you are persisting in this dicussion.