This is a fair comment. I was looking at (delta assets), (delta liabilities).
(Edit:
The simplest thing is to consider a simplified accounting equation that says assets = liabilities. If I wanted to buy a house but had no personal worth, how would I afford it? Debt. The house would be the asset, the liability would be the debt.)
A liability is something you pay to keep, while an asset is something you get paid to keep. Simple and obvious examples are stocks that pay dividends and a loan that accumulates interest. How to identify into which bucket a house, a car or a company investment fall is the hard part, that was the point I was trying to make. Rich people understand this and leverage it.
The original quote is:
The rich buy assets. The poor only have expenses. The middle class buys liabilities they think are assets.
Similar to the sibling comment, I would also appreciate explanation.
Also, (for others who also missed it) I didn't understand the terms source and sink. this is what google gave me: "Sinking and Sourcing are terms used to define the control of direct current flow in a load. A sinking digital I/O (input/output) provides a grounded connection to the load, whereas a sourcing digital I/O provides a voltage source to the load."
Accounting (in the corporate sense; I kind of tripped trying to translate to a personal finance context) is based on one equilibrium principle:
assets = liabilities + equity
This is true by definition. So any increase in assets has to be backed either by an increase in liabilities or an increase in equity. I tried to compare this increase in equity to income (the change in "what you're worth") but muddled the issue a bit.
I happen to agree with Kiyosaki's position that a house is a bad investment ceteris paribus (millions of details apply, specially the country/city you live in, but also your own life cycle, etc.).
But it's not because it belongs to the liabilities bucket. It's because to acquire a house (an asset), you have to take on debt (a liability). Or pay down from your personal equity/personal worth, if you're rich dad and happen to be sitting in that much money.
To simplify: if equity was not to enter the equation, the sum total of your assets would be equivalent to the sum total of your liabilities. How else would you acquire things if not from debt?
A liability is a source, an asset is a sink. You take debt to buy a house: the debt is a liability, the house is an asset.
What's neither an asset nor a liability is your (net) income (i.e. wages, returns on capital, etc. minus spending). So:
assets = liabilities + net income.
From this equation you could erroneously deduce that
net income = assets - liabilities
but I hope I don't have to explain why this is a stupid conclusion.