Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Is the fact that 100% of the money we use only goes into circulation as debt the cause of our economic destruction?

In 1985, we had a GDP of $4.2 Trillion and a total debt of $7.5 Trillion.

In 1990, we had a GDP of $5.8 Trillion and a total debt of $11.8 Trillion.

Between 1985 and 1990 for every $1 Trillion in GDP growth, debt grew $2.7 Trillion.

In 1995, the GDP was $7.4 Trillion and Total debt was $16.4 Trillion.

Between 1990 and 1995, for every $1 Trillion in GDP growth, debt grew $2.9 Trillion.

In 2000, the GDP was $9.8 Trillion and total debt was $24.6 Trillion.

Between 1995 and 2000, for every $1 Trillion in GDP growth, debt grew $3.4 Trillion.

In 2005, GDP was $12.5 Trillion and the total debt was $36.5 Trillion.

Between 2000 and 2005, for every $1 Trillion in GDP growth, debt grew $4.4 Trillion.

By the end of 2006, GDP was $13.2 Trillion and total debt was $44.8 Trillion.

At the end of 2007 total debt grew to $48.8 trillion dollars.  A debt growth of $4 Trillion IN ONE YEAR!

http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/current/accessible/l1.htm

Here is our Total Credit Market Debt by decade from 1946 through 2006.

Year                 Total Debt in billions of dollars                     % increase over previous decade

1946                  359.8                                                          N/A

1956                  611.4                                                          74.3%

1966                  1,187.0                                                        94.1%

1976                  2,904.9                                                        144.7%

1986                  9,816.1                                                        237.9%

1996                  19,744.2                                                      101.1%

2006                   44,747.0                                                     126.6%

2016 (est)           101,000.0                                                    125.7%

Notice that, for the last four decades, our debt has more than doubled each decade.  This is because our privately owned, debt-based system requires more and more debt to pay the compounding interest on the previous debt.  Which brings us to the new factor, which we have note faced before in our economy.  That factor is this:  In order to borrow more and more, we much also keep borrowing what we have already borrowed - which was $44,747 billion ($44.7 trillion) at the end of 2006 PLUS we must more than double our borrowing in the next 10 years to keep this debt-based, privately owned monetary system from collapsing.  As the chart above shows, as the pattern of the last 60 years continues, we will be $101 trillion in debt by 2016 (if the exsisting monetary system does not self destruct before then).

This means that, in the next 10 years we must borrow over $50 Trillion, in additon to the 44.7 we have already borrowed, just to keep this insane system going.  (based off 2006 figures)

It should be clear that the nation as a whole can't manage or work its way into prosperity using borrowed money.  It is sad that the majority of people don't understand the sinister nature of debt-money and interest.  Many people understand and see the interest cost they directly pay when making house, car, and other installment plan payments.  Very few realize the interst on their personal loans is only a small part of the total interest bill they pay.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Thomas,

Thanks for putting together these numbers - it's staggering.  Most of us here recognize that our "debt-based" money system cannot be sustained (Crash Course #8).  And I think at least many of realize that the power of the purse has been given to an elite international banking cartel in violation of our constitution.

So, why doesn't the government admit that mathematically, we are reaching the end?  And better yet, why don't they do something about it instead of digging us further into perpetual debt? 

We are being deceived and lied to perpetuate the status quo - the survival of the parasitic banking cartel has been placed above the health, security and prosperity of the nation.  They know the day of reckoning is quickly approaching and they ARE taking actions:

  • They are preparing for martial law and the final shredding of our rights and freedoms.
  • They are going to reduce the population and cut costs by rationing health care.  It is bad enough that we are indebting unborn americans (ultimate taxation without representation) but now we will begin killing off our elderly and those with chronic afflictions.
  • Taxes will be increased and spending on the people will be slashed.
  • They are planning to "solve" our problems by stripping away our national sovereignty and right of self destination.  The goal all along has been to bankrupt the nation so that we will accept world government.  And in the process, they will buy whatever of our assets they want with pennies on the dollar.
  • Our republic will be replaced with feudal serfdom.

The thing that is really bizarre is that the answers are not hard to see.  It all comes down to who issues and controls the currency.  What I am saying is not insightful or new, it can all be supported through history.

We must take back control of our money!

Larry

propamanda's picture
propamanda
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 61
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Hello Thomas.

Thanks for compiling all of this info.  I agree wholeheartedly that our debt-based monetary system is leading to our economic downfall.  It's a self perpetuating system: In order to have money to pay interest on what we borrow, more money needs to be created.  More money is created by borrowing, which in turn means that we owe more interest.

In our earlier discussion, you say that the solution to this problem is to put money into circulation by creating money and using it to pay for infrastructure projects.  My understanding it that it would be more of a grant, not a loan, and so no interest would be owed.  This way, we could introduce enough money to pay off all this interest on the old debt without going further into debt or owing more interest.

The only problem I have with this theory is that it seems to me that the bankers have enough power in our country to influence policy.  Why would bankers, who thrive on making risky deals to constantly collect more and more interest agree to something like this?  It sounds like it will put a dead stop to the profits they have become accustomed to.  Perhaps people will finally have enough money to pay off the principal on their loans and fewer people will default, but I don't think this situation would be a huge win for the banks.  Current policy seems to be that if enough people default on loans issued by a bank, the government gives the banks a bailout and it becomes the taxpayer's problem.  The bank gets to keep the interest already paid on that loan.  The banks don't really have to worry about whether or not the principal will be repaid - they only worry about the constant stream of interest payments.

Thanks 

 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.
propamanda wrote:

The only problem I have with this theory is that it seems to me that the bankers have enough power in our country to influence policy.  Why would bankers, who thrive on making risky deals to constantly collect more and more interest agree to something like this?  It sounds like it will put a dead stop to the profits they have become accustomed to. 

Quite right, they won't allow it. These guys have far more power than we often give them credit for.

Additionally, States printing their own money in any form to promote the same result is unconstitutional, and will be stopped (and should be IMHO). This, I would submit, is a desired state, not a path or plan to get there.

Best,

Rog

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Additionally, States printing their own money in any form to promote the same result is unconstitutional, and will be stopped (and should be IMHO). This, I would submit, is a desired state, not a path or plan to get there.

Ready, who told you that states would be printing their own money?  Where did you come up with this?

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Thomas, you did in multiple other posts and via PM, remember the Minnesota transportation act?

link to latest post

This sets up the ability for a State to issue internal currency at it's core, and is unconstitutional by even the broadest brush of painting outside the lines.

I support the Constitution as it was intended, I for one am not interested in tearing it apart, rather enforcing the principals within.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

In our earlier discussion, you say that the solution to this problem is to put money into circulation by creating money and using it to pay for infrastructure projects.  My understanding it that it would be more of a grant, not a loan, and so no interest would be owed.  This way, we could introduce enough money to pay off all this interest on the old debt without going further into debt or owing more interest.

This money would be created as a final payment.  Grant money is still created as a debt through the loaning process, except the person receiving the grant doesn't have to pay the money back but the person who borrowed the money still has to.  In most cases I'm taking a guess, with grants the government has taken a loan from a private commericial bank through the bonding process.

This money would be absolutely free from debt, as a complete assest to the people.  We need to understand it would be a complete shift from how money is created currently.

 

The only problem I have with this theory is that it seems to me that the bankers have enough power in our country to influence policy.  Why would bankers, who thrive on making risky deals to constantly collect more and more interest agree to something like this?  It sounds like it will put a dead stop to the profits they have become accustomed to.  Perhaps people will finally have enough money to pay off the principal on their loans and fewer people will default, but I don't think this situation would be a huge win for the banks.  Current policy seems to be that if enough people default on loans issued by a bank, the government gives the banks a bailout and it becomes the taxpayer's problem.  The bank gets to keep the interest already paid on that loan.  The banks don't really have to worry about whether or not the principal will be repaid - they only worry about the constant stream of interest payments.

The bankers can influence our entire society because they own and control every aspect of our society through the ownership, control, and issueance of 100% of our money.  None of the problems we face in our society will be fixed until we take that power away from them.

I know the media always says the banks make risky deals, but when they only loan a promise to pay(think about it, what pyhsical object did the bank loan you?) how could they have any risk?  If they didn't loan you anything how could they ever have a loss?  In reality they always gain through the act of theft by deception when they foreclose on real property, or use their illigitimate profits to purchase real production for mearly lending a promise to pay.

In all reality it would boost bank profits for a great many years, much longer than you or I would live, that is until all the debt it taken out of the system and the bankers have to charge for a legitimate service(just like every other business).

You're 100% right about them being accustemed to them being used to huge profits.  Lets think about it, if you only loan a promise to pay, and then you foreclose on someone, didn't you just get everything for free?

 

As far as the bailout goes, lets think about that.  Banks are the only ones who create money in our system, so the big banks cry for a bailout, then the government gets a huge loan directly from those very banks(who are crying because they need more money) and give that money directly back to those banks?  What kind of a criminal racket to we have going on in this country?

You're correct in the whole interest payment thing, except, if you really dive into their internal writings, they like to make people so short so they can't pay their bills, so they can foreclose and route that property into fewer and fewer hands.  It's just like gas stations, or farms.  When the bankers create the bust cycle by shutting down the credit supply it drives working people out of their properties through foreclosers.  The banks didn't decrease the amount of farm land or gas stations, they just routed into their buddies hands.  People much older than I have seen this go on their entire lives and it is much easier for them to compare that statement to.

 

If you could create as much money as you wanted would money really matter to you?

Money really doesn't matter to the banking system, it's all about control.

I owe I owe I owe....It's off to work I go!

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

I support the Constitution as it was intended, I for one am not interested in tearing it apart, rather enforcing the principals within.

The if that is the case you would be calling your represenatives every day demanding that they have congress create the money, instead of the private for profit banking system.

Also, this law authorized the state chartered banks to invest in minnesota's infrastructure, and has been reviewed by many a lawyers, including the FDIC themselves, and they say it would work, without question.  No where does this have the state create any money what so ever.  Why are you so resistant to debt free money?  This money comes from the same source as all other money comes from, so why aren't you attacking them left and right?

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

OK Thomas, let me take a step back and approach this from a different angle. So far, this one isn't working.

Quote:

The if that is the case you would be calling your represenatives every day demanding that they have congress create the money, instead of the private for profit banking system.

This arguement has no merit on multiple fronts, and I think you actually know this. I would not have expected this straw man from you. If you would like me to lay out how ineffective calling and wrting members of congress is, or how the Fed cannot be overthrown with a correspondance campaign, I'll do so when I have the time. Something tells me this will not be necessary.

I am not resistant to debt free money. Please let me go on record clearly as saying that I AGREE with your desired state. Where my rub comes in is that there is no realistic way to get there. At least none that have been proposed to date, but as I have told you in the past, I'll jump on should the right bus come along.

 

Cheers,

Roger

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Thomas,

I have copied your last writing (in response to me) from Davos's questionare thread below so as to continue that conversation here rather than continue distracting from Davos's thread. If you'd like to move it yet elsewhere, that's up to you.  I just wanted to continue the discussion while at the same time being courteous to those who may not give a damn what we have to say.

You continue to insist that government can produce money.  If you believe that, then you must have a different definition of what money is than I do.  I firmly believe that money represents excess production.  Since the government cannot produce anything - in fact, it itself is a product of excess production, it cannot produce money.  It subsists only upon the excess production of others, and excess production must exist in order to have money in the first place, and to create a government in the second place.

Government can "fabricate" money it arbitrarilly devines value upon, if people give it the power to do so, and which we obviously have.    But this money exists only at the point of a gun.  The police-force of the state, which by definition is founded upon violence against the individual, is used to enforce acceptance of these arbitrary units, and that is all these units are founded upon - violence against the individual producer, and in favor the collective leach, using the process of converting the product of individual members's production into pieces of paper it declares to be money, which it then spends to provide favor for the market players who produce little other than votes. 

The fact our particular brand of money is technically created by a private banking cartel, and not the actual government, is inmaterial to this discussion.  What you are proposing is the creation of money by government, and what I am contesting is that your system would be no different than what we have now in almost all respects.  Therefore, when I refer to our existing system, and the "government" behind it, I do so conscious of the fact that although it is not the actual government, but a private banking cartel licensed by the government, that detail is irrelevant to what what I see as completely wrong with both the existing system and your proposed system.

One thing you have not explained, at least to my satisfaction, is the concept of interest-free money.  That is illogical and unsustainable as far as I can see.  Would it then be illegal for one person to rent his property to another?  If not, then why would one asset, real estate, be treated differently than another asset, money (which you would make illegal to rent)? 

We practically had interest-free money this whole decade.  That didn't work out so well, and I don't see how any system that makes the cost of money zero or close to zero could possibly avoid bubbles in one asset class or another. 

How would savings be encouraged in your system, if there were no return upon the savings due to zero interest?

These are just some of the basic questions that come to mind when contemplating what you have still mostly refused to explain.  I appreciate the links you have provided, but I am not going to read them until you can provide, in layman's language, a brief summary of what I am going to find there.  All I keep seeing from you are nebulous posts, critiques (which I mostly agree with) against the current system, Socratic questions (which are getting annoying at least to me to be totally frank), all followed up with far too general and as far as I can tell, greatly lacking "solutions". 

You can do whatever you want.  I, however, am no longer going to participate in your "discussions" until you start providing enough "meat" that leads me to believe there may be something worth learning about in the links you provide.  Maybe I'm just a bastard, but I do try to be an honest one, and I am interested in the truth, wherever that may lead me.  What I don't like is wasting time.

 

Quote:

Thomas,

I will be happy to answer your questions even though you have not answered a single one of mine, either on this or any other thread.  I cannot in fact find a money-related question you have answered from anyone on any thread.  Just what kind of "talk" show do you host?  Sounds more like "20 Questions, No Answers".

 

I'm currently in the beginning stages of a TV show production and I will be returning to radio in a short time.  Again, this all takes time, and this Friday and Saturday I am at a convention 400 miles away from home way down in Kansas City, MI.

For some reason it's hard to fight the money power when they have unlimited money and I have to operate on a budget.

I ask you questions because I know that I don't have all the answers, and I like to ask lots of questions because I know I can always learn something new, because as much as I would like to know everything, I know that I do not.

Can you please address how you would have money put into circulation?

The government cannot produce money anymore than it can produce anything else.  Governments only exist via the excess production of others, whose production is taxed in order for the government to pay for services.  Therefore, money should arise locally, based on the goods produced by each jurisdiction, and "voted" upon capitalistically, with the market choosing the medium of exchange best suited for the jurisdiction, or geographic area in question.  

There is no need then, to "put money into circulation".  In an economy with excess production, money will arise naturally, based upon what is produced.  Government-enforced notes, or fiat money, is not produced.  It is merely fabricated and is used to defraud producers.  

It follows that government cannot exist until there is excess production on part of the people in order for the costs of government to be afforded.  That is why government is a local proposition.  Its purpose, its costs, and its uses are best controlled, funded and appreciated at the most local of levels.  As you move beyond that level, it loses its purpose, oversteps its bounds, and becomes an instrument of tyranny rather than a tool for justice and prosperity.  

The government can produce money and it should, but the fact remains that our government does NOT create any money.  Only private commerical banks create money, and they do it every time someone takes out a mortgage on their property.

If there is so much excess production to go around, and so much extra, why would people care if the government took some away from them?  Who would even want that excess if everyone already had to much?

I agree with you that money should arise locally, but I believe we should have a uniform money system across the country.  It's true the people should be able to control how much money is in circulation, but that is not the case as of right now.  The banking system absolutely, without question controls how much money is in circulation.  If they stop making loans, and people continue to pay on their principle, the money supply will dry up as that priniciple part of the loan is destroyed.  Again, the true money in our system is interest bearing bank credit(debt) not government enforced privately issued bank non redemable bank notes.

If there is no need to have money put into circulation they why are we having an economic crisis?  Who created the crisis and why did they create it?

I still can't figure out why you so many people are hung up on "fiat money".  At best, only 3% of what is in circulation can be called Fiat Money(FRN's, Government issued coins) the real true money(bank credit) is not in any sense of the word fiat money at all.  Matter of fact, there is no law calling it money, nor could it be called money in any sense of the word.  It's just a promise to pay you money which isn't court enforceable.

 

May I ask you a question, would a government for the people, and by the people allow private commericial banks to issue and control the money and then levy oppresive taxes on the people to pay the bankers their massive profits,

or

would a govenment for the people create it's own money and spend it into circulation for the benifit of the people?

 

I absolutely agree with you that the local people should control how much money they need to conduct their business, which is why I'm confused as to why you aren't shouting out for the Minnesota Transportation Act.

Here is a three part video I put together with Byron, and from the sounds of it, it is exactly what you've been looking for!

 part 1

 part 2

 part 3

 

If you want to use your production as money, what is stopping you from overproducing whatever you make right now and using it for money?  Wouldn't that be a barter system?  Can you please put into detail exactly how your plan would work?

Nothing is stopping me, Thomas.  I routinely convert my excess production into things I can use, eat, or save.  The saving part is a bit tricky in a paper-money world, but there are ways.

But if you're bartering the things you produce for other things how is paper robbing you?  We don't use paper for money, we use bank credit.  Can you tell me what the difference is between a 1 dollar bill and a 20 dollar bill?  Is there any difference in the quality of the paper or the ink used on it?  Is there more paper in one bill or another?  What is the only difference between the two bills that determains it's worth?

 

Also, what would the service sector use for money since they only provide services (secretaries, security guards, ect.) and do not produce anything?

Service sectors rest upon an over-productive sector which makes the existence of the service sector possible.  All societies with any level of complexity beyond agriculture and mining require excess productivity at those levels in order to support all other specialties.  Why do you think it is necessary for service-providers to use anything but the same money their productive-sector is using?  Money comes from the ground up, figuratively and literally.  The service sector services the producing sector and would therefore arise from the payment of monies from the producing sector to the service sector.

What would the non-producers pay the producers with?  From my understanding earlier you said get rid of money and only use your production?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have your money represent your production instead of representing how much you owe at the bank?

Money does not come from the ground up.  Currently money only comes into exsistance through an interest bearing loan.  There is no money until somebody borrows it.  Remember that money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred.  There are no exceptions.  Another way of saying it is the only way we are prosperios for us to go collectively massively deeper into dept to inject lots more money into the system.  I think we both know and understand that having that type of money system simpley isn't sustainable to the producing public, but is very sustainable to the banking system.

 

What would you do with all the current outstanding debt?

If you are referring to the debt we owe the world, we have no choice but to produce our way out of it.  Well, that's not true.  That would be the only fair choice.  We could be unfair and simply cheat them out of it, go to war, or have a change in government whereby the victors claim old debts are void.  I prefer the fair way.  

I am referring to the total debt(federal governmen, state, local, county, business, private, ect) which 100% of that came into exsistance in the form of an interest bearing debt owed to a privately owned and controlled banking system, that operates under the economic laws of destruction.

How could we produce our way out of a monetary debt?  When is the last time you did any form of production and had it turn into money (and not capture someone else's borrowed money).

How would going to war pay off a monetary debt?

How would a change in government whereby the victors(i'm confused are you suggesting to overthrow the government when the government creates no money, only private banks do).  claim old debts are void work?  If you destroy the debt, you also destroy the money.  Also if you destroyed the debt on social security, what are you going to do with all them people since they will have no income?

I'm a firm believer that we have the greatest form of government ever invented, it's just the people running it need to be replaced.

Now would you change how money goes into circulation after uhmmm had your victors take over?  I think the biggest problem we face right now is that people who go into government are power mad, and it almost seems to me that if you had your way, nothing would change.

If you preffer the fair way, wouldn't the fair way be to let the people own the means of their production(the money)?

What would you do for the retirement community who has spent decades saving for their retirements to be told they now have to produce in order to live.  What about people who are disabled, or to old to work?

It is not a return to sound money that would take away their retirements.  Their retirements are about to be taken way due to the collapse of our existing currency.  You are asking me how to rescue a generation that is the victim of another money-system's fraud.  There is only one way retirees or anyone else in need is going to have a chance, and that is by the rest of us becoming much more productive while at the same time desiring to help those in need.    A new money system may not be able to save the victims of the fraud we've been enduring.  All a new system can do is prevent a repeat of what we've already done.

 Is a sound currency money that is owned by the people, free from debt, and free from interest?  Would it matter what the currency is made of if only the banking system lent it out at interest?

I'm not asking you to rescue a generation that is the victim of another money system fraud.  I'm not asking you to care about our generation, or the one before us.  I'm asking you what would you do to ensure that the next generation will not have to suffer through a money system that only benifits the banks and is designed at its core to transfer all the real wealth away from the producers into the hands of the non-producers(the bankers).

Once again, I will try to get answers to my previous questions:  How would your system avoid run-away inflation, corruption by the money-controllers, and how would it provide market-driven interest rates rather than government-mandated ones?

A return to a wealth based money system would avoid run away price inflation by addressing the root cause of the increase in the cost of doing business, INTEREST.  If we could ever get the people to understand that it matters less what we use for money, and matters only under the principles under which that money functions(honesty -vs fraud) (wealth money -vs- debt money).

Interest is the cost of doing business.  As long as people refuse to address the interest cost of doing business we will continue to have price inflation because as the debt grows so does the interest load (generally, though they could lower the interest down to zero for everyone which would lower the cost of doing business).  Currenly there is no interest free money in our system.  Every penny and every dollar came into exsistance as an interest bearing loan.  There is NO money until somebody borrows it.

I'm absolutely in favor of getting rid of interest all together, and it must be done, or the money powers will always use it to their advantage.  History has proven time and time again, any country that has allowed it's money to be debauched(switched from an evidence of wealth to an evidence of debtiness) has been completely destroyed in time, and few countries, if any, have ever returned to their former glory.

I would avoid corruption by the money controllers by revoking their ability to create money as loans, and outlawing the practice of interest all together.  Return honesty to our monetary system by returning our money to the principles of gold and silver(came into exsistance through the peoples production, as a wealth, not as a debt, there just isn't enough gold or silver in the world to have it work as a general meduim of exchange because if there would have ever been enough the goldsmith would have never got started lending out receipts at interest to increase the money supply).  Obviously the amount of gold didn't increase but the amount of paper interest bearing debt receipts did.  What the people didn't realize is that not only did the quantity of money change, but so did the quality(the money went from a representation of wealth to a representation of debt).  Again, honesty -vs- fraud.

Until one really studies the sinister nature of interest and the power of compounding interest they will never know or understand anything about money.

In short, if all money in exsistance was NOT owed to anyone and was just out there being traded around, if you were able to capture just 10% of the money supply and lend it out at 10% interest it would only take you 25 years to own all the money in the world, along with having all the power that would come with being the only source of money after that.

One final two part video, which I'm sure I've showed you before, and I appoligize if I haven't showed you this before.

Part 1

Part 2

What more could you want?  Lower taxes, a stabilized economy, increased wages(or at least steady ones) and a lower cost of doing business(lower cost of living).  I just don't understand what more people could want?

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Wow Patrick, you hit that nail on the head!

I had not given all this no interest money the thought that you clearly have. I have to say you have brought up some fantastic points here that I had not even considered. You are really making me think here. Maybe others could learn from the delivery method.

Best,

Rog

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Total Debt Growth vs GDP.

Thanks, and glad I could shine some light on something, Rog.  I may come knocking on your biodeisel thread in the near future for advice.  It's on my to-do list, but first I have permaculture to attend to.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments