Yeah Vladmir I've seen this already, and am unconvinced because the premise forgets that money circulates... ie - there can be $100m of "debt" in an economy and only $10m of dollars, yet the debt can still be paid off. A dollar which pays debt is not destroyed, and continues floating around as it's traded.

And so I still think this "dollars are based on debt" concept is misleading. TREASURIES are based on debt - the holder of them relies on payment of the debt. Dollars are not based on debt - the holder doesn't rely on payment from anyone (the dollar has value in and of itself - though we know this is foolish fiat value but that's beside the point).

If I own $10,000 then I have assets of precisely that much. I am not "in debt" in any way. The fact that the Gov is in debt, and may try to tax me, is a separate issue, and doesn't suggest that dollars are "based on" debt. Basically, I think it's a misnomer... it's a  misuse of the term "based on." A gold-standard dollar is "based on" gold, in that you can trade it for gold at a set rate. A treasury bill is "based on" debt, because you can trade it for repayment of credit which you've extended.

There are a million reasons to condemn the dollar... claiming it's "based on debt" doesn't seem to be one of them, or am I totally misguided?