Nonsense. Absolute, unadulterated gibberish.
Thank you for your well thought through and detailed rebuttal.
Could you perhaps explain what the national debt is, if it is not
the difference between the amount spent by the government, and the amount collected in taxes?
Though not particularly helpful, I don't complain about the comment I've reddened above. But ...
Every American owes $93939 to be able to pay it off.
Or, to put it another way, that's how much money the average American has. The National Debt is the difference between dollars created by government spending, and dollars destroyed by taxation.
"Pay it off", and the average American will have (on average) no money at all.
The claims reddened here are preposterous. Do you think there is some measure of "money" that equals 31 Trillion exactly?
The national debt was about zero in 1915, and was also relatively low in 1975. Do you contend that the "average American" had little or no money in those years? During the late 1990's -- considered a Boom era -- substantial debt was paid off. Were Americans getting poorer during this boom?
More much of the money that existed was created by banks as debt rather than created by government as debt.
Money is an early system in humanity and the cultures that understood it well on a metaphysical level were sadly also rather small cultures in the deep past that failed for other reasons.
We had people who understood the theory of money using numbers with ledgers in their culture's literal stone age.
Money can, and should come from and transit to, "the pool of all numbers and contexts", which is infinite and not materially bound.
Material money existing not as a contract to the ownership of a number but as an immediate material object is more, in fact, stone age.
The gold standard was stone age.
Originally the national debt was considered the amount of bonds the government had sold against the gold they held on those bonds.
The system was instituted in a way that those who had money at the time could buy more money at a fixed rate, and the "bond" would be what the government owed on the money.
Technically the government is supposed to owe that money to private interests, however they also happen to fucking print money.
Some countries manage this the most sane way: decide who should be getting money not on the basis of who has it, but on the basis of who lacks it for reasons beyond continuing personal conduct.
This is an indirect way to supply those who work so hard in a capitalist society. Diffusion theory: put money in the hands of people who will spend it on the things they need, and then that money goes to industry anyway, but here, they actually have to work for it rather than have done work for it once upon a time.
I can see why this form of money supply would look unappealing to those who hoard money, because it makes them work harder to hoard the money, and they remember things like that when it's time to fund a world war.
