A: Quantity of money must grow with the amount of goods/services in the economy.
B: Money can only be created as debt.
If A and B, then total debt must grow with the amount of goods/services in the economy, which is absurd. Why/how is increase in debt necessary for growing the amount of goods/services in the economy? Can debt grow indefinitely?
In the long run, we are all dead.
Then nothing matters and we may as well blow humanity into smithereens this very moment?
Seriously, how is it possible to for such a enormous logical gap to remain unnoticed? What am I missing?
Well, actually it appears that most economists don’t mind the debt…
But they also don’t mind the inevitable conclusion that the total debt must grow?
Just like they don’t mind the conclusion that we must have inflation. Yeah.
Inflation (increase in the quantity of money) is bad, I agree – it distorts property boundaries in its own right. But the king could just print new money and acquire resources for himself and his friends without any new debt being created.
My point is that things are doubly bad if such supply of money is exclusively increased through creation of new debt. There is a sinister socialist (centralist) motive embedded in such exponential debt creation. At some level of debt, property boundaries become distorted to the point of non-existence: “We all end up owing everything to ourselves.”