In reality you did not borrow 50.00 from each, if you had you would still owe each 50.00. You borrowed 49.00 from each. You spent 97.00 on the shirt and had 1.00 left over. 97.00 for the shirt + 1.00 you have left over = the 98.00 you owe to your parents.

If you work for Goldman Sachs, you have $100 million of your mom/dad's money in a Swiss bank account and expect the government to buy you a new shirt factory.

It's like if 3 farmers gave you 10 bullets each (30) to kill wild pigs in the area, you shoot only 25 (1 shot 1 kill) pigs leaving 5 bullets over, so you keep 2 bullets and give the farmers back 1 bullet each meaning they have given you (9x3) 27 bullets and your 2 only add up to 29...?

Or, after a rancher's death his 3 sons are dividing up his herd of 17 horses. According to his will, the first son get 1/2the herd, the second gets 1/3 and the third son gets 1/9. After arguing how to divide 17 by 1/2, 1/3 and 1/9 a neighbor rides up and, being a long time friend, puts his horse in with the other 17. That makes 18 horses in the corral, so 1/2 = 9, 1/3 = 6 and 1/9 = 2. Therefore being that 9+6+2 = 17 the neighbor takes his horseout of the corral and rides back home.

The liberal math argument $50mom + $50dad = $97shirt + $3change transforms to $49mom + $49dad + $1change = $100 because you feel like it should and you could not recognize a logical statement if it was biting you in the face. Not liberal math statement $50mom + $50dad = $97shirt + $3change transform the equation by removing $2 from both sides ($50mom + $50dad) - $2= ($97shirt + $3change) - $2 reduce ($49mom + $49dad)= ($97shirt + $1change) $98 = $98

There is no missing $1. You have a shirt you paid $97, and you have $1 in cash. You have total of $98 value. You owe mom $49 and dad $49 which is $98 total. It all comes out even. You can prove it by returning the shirt for $97 and with your $1 added in, paying back mom $49 and paying back dad $49.