No, not really.
Only people who don’t understand investing agree with that. I mean, I guess one could argue in a technical, general sense that it would be preferable to not have debts as opposed to having them, but at the same time there’s no way to really go into debt without taking on debt…which means if you care about getting ahead financially (in a significant way, at least), at some point you’re going to have to be in debt.
The whole point is what the borrowed funding is used for. In finance debt is called “leverage” for a reason. Investing guru Robert Kiyosaki says “A lot of people say they lie awake at night because they’re worried they have too much debt. I lie awake because I’m worried I don’t have enough debt.”
What he’s talking about is leveraging the resources you have to achieve maximum financial growth…a lot in the way an appropriately placed lever can maximize the amount of weight that can be lifted.
Of course he’s not talking about overextending yourself, he’s more just trying to wake people up to the fact that there is “good debt” and “bad debt.” For most people “debt (period)” = “bad”.
If you’re interested, his flagship text is Rich Dad, Poor Dad. It’s not so much of a financial advice resource, as much as a “look at things differently” aid.
A large part of the bad economic times ahead are due to the coming inflation. An inflationary environment is the best time to be in debt.
I had a somewhat related conversation with Malachi about this a while back.