![\"\u2018$13,426](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/GettyImages-109832186.jpg\")
\t<\/p>\n\t\t<\/p>\n
\u00a9 Rick Diamond\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n
On a recent Ramsey Show segment, a caller named Todd admitted he had run up credit card debt buying Pokemon cards he planned to flip for profit. Dave Ramsey did not soften the diagnosis. \u201cHere you are. $13,426 of stupid. I wanna define my stupid very carefully and thoroughly.\u201d<\/p>\n
The stakes here are not abstract. Todd financed a speculative side hustle with the most expensive money a household can borrow. The average credit card APR sits at 21.00% as of February 1, 2026, in what the Federal Reserve data classifies as record territory (post-2023). If you borrow at that rate to chase an asset that has never paid you a dollar, the math is not close. It is a guaranteed loss compounding against a hoped-for gain.<\/p>\n
The verdict: Ramsey is right, and the math is brutal<\/p>\n
Ramsey\u2019s advice is correct on every point, and the reason is arithmetic, not attitude. When you borrow on a credit card to speculate, the hurdle rate you have to clear is the APR plus your losses on unsold inventory. Todd told Ramsey his debt was \u201cprobably like $10,000 to $15,000,\u201d that he \u201cwent a little too far over,\u201d that he \u201cdidn\u2019t really pay attention to it like that,\u201d and that he \u201ckind of just winged it because I saw other success stories.\u201d No profit ever landed.<\/p>\n
Run the break-even. On a $13,426 balance at 21%, interest alone runs roughly $235 a month before a single card is sold. To simply stay flat, Todd\u2019s Pokemon inventory has to appreciate more than 21% a year, net of eBay fees, shipping, grading costs, and the cards that never move. Professional collectible dealers with decades of experience do not consistently clear that hurdle. A first-time flipper following YouTube success stories has no realistic path to it.<\/p>\n
The mindset piece is where Ramsey lands his hardest punch. Todd told him, \u201cI\u2019ll use their money because it\u2019s not mine,\u201d and admitted he was \u201ckind of bouncing around employment.\u201d Ramsey connected the two: \u201cYou believe crap like it takes money to make money.\u201d That rationalization is the trap. Borrowed money is somebody else\u2019s money only until the statement arrives. Then it is yours, at 21%, whether the cards sold or not.<\/p>\n
The variable that flips the math<\/p>\n
The single factor that determines whether any borrowing-to-invest strategy makes sense is the spread between the interest rate you pay and the reliable, risk-adjusted return of the asset. A mortgage at 6% funding a home that historically appreciates and provides shelter is a different animal from a credit card at 21% funding trading cards.<\/p>\n
Consider two scenarios with the same $13,426 outlay. Scenario one: the money sits in cash and earns nothing, but there is no debt. Worst case, you are flat. Scenario two: the money is borrowed at 21% to buy speculative inventory. Even if the cards hold their value dollar-for-dollar, you lose roughly $2,820 in the first year to interest. The asset has to grow by that amount just to break even, and it has to keep growing every year the balance sits.<\/p>\n