dragoncar's point is that money is fungible and if you have ANY debt at all you can easily substitute any of your spending in that. You have a mortgage and yet just ordered pizza? For all practical purposes you just financed your pizza, even though the mortgage is on your house and you paid cash for the pizza. What practical difference would it have been if you paid $20 cash on your mortgage, and then took out another $20 mortgage on the pizza you just bought?
Again, I understand the principle.
But the original story was: a financial advisor (ha!) told someone he borrowed money to finance a wedding. I am taking him at his word that he borrowed a bunch of money, and spanked it all on a wedding. That is laughable (to us).
Yes, anyone on this board who had a mortgage and instead of paying it down spent money on a wedding was, in effect, 'financing' a wedding. But that's not nearly as comical.
This thread is literally labelled 'just for fun'. I was trying to make the point (badly, obviously), that coming up with lots of alternative theories, that, in reality, aren't all that likely (such as a guy who told someone
he is borrowing money for a wedding
, really borrowing it to invest
for higher returns) takes the fun out of it.
But now I realise I am taking more fun out of it than anyone.
But just so we're clear I don't need anyone to explain the concept to me anymore. I understand the maths. I just don't understand human beings.