Every financial debt has a corresponding financial asset. Why follow the 'debt' and not the 'asset'? Because you have a psychological anchor on the word 'debt' that causes an emotional reaction?
All money is somebody's debt. That's how the accounting works. Rather than looking at the books from the 'credit' side, why not look at it from the 'in credit' side?
What I find amusing is how the bank borrowing from you so you are 'in credit' with the bank is a good thing, but the government borrowing from you so you are 'in credit' with government is a bad thing.
Given those are identical propositions in accounting terms, rationally the view about them should be the same.
If that happened all at once, for every credit and every debit, it would indeed be a problem. But that doesn't happen, ever.
Assuming the 'power factor' of the economy is one is a category mistake.
What is a 'real asset', when nothing exist outside the casino? At most, you could change your chips for another casino's chips.
And when the banks decide to peg their liabilities to casino chips to leverage that drive from taxation, what then?
Once you are required to get casino chips, or else, you will offer up real goods and services to get them.
Cash isn't real. It's an accounting fiction.
I don't know what you are talking about.
