Quote from: evoorhees on July 05, 2011, 03:48:54 PM

Quote from: Vladimir on July 05, 2011, 02:58:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

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?

Maybe you are correct in that it is a misuse of the term "based on", however much of the the money supply, as opposed to the money base is created via debt. As only a fraction of the the value of the loans are held in reserve, much of of the money supply exists purely by loans exceeding the reserve. In this sense, parts of the money supply is "based on debt".