"More debt=More wealth" and "Not enough debt"

[skyson]

These two videos I came across just blew my mind. So want to share with you.

One is from congress man Pete Stark. He said:"At the federal level, more debt means more wealth".

Another from Ken Fisher, CEO of an investment firm managing $30billion dollars. He said: we are actually under-indebted, because in the scheme of global economy, US debt is small(did he mean China is not borrowing, so US can borrow more?).

Yet they are successful men, not stupid rednecks. Apparently my little brain has hard time comprehending their rationals. I only understand basic math: 4 + 2 > 4, and 4 + (-2) < 4. So you who have PhD or master degrees in economics please explain to me what they are saying, preferably in grade 4/5 English. Thanks.



AND:

We Need MORE Debt, Says Ken Fisher.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: "More debt=More wealth" and "Not enough debt"

Here are some decent 6 minute interviews with Mark Faber and in the last one he brushes aside Fisher's comments.

http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2...video-bonanza/

[xela]

Re: "More debt=More wealth" and "Not enough debt"

Well, if true, congratulations are in order.. you all are collectively trillions wealthier.

[Diarmuid]

Re: "More debt=More wealth" and "Not enough debt"

These two videos I came across just blew my mind. So want to share with you.

One is from congress man Pete Stark. He said:"At the federal level, more debt means more wealth".

Another from Ken Fisher, CEO of an investment firm managing $30billion dollars. He said: we are actually under-indebted, because in the scheme of global economy, US debt is small(did he mean China is not borrowing, so US can borrow more?).

Yet they are successful men, not stupid rednecks. Apparently my little brain has hard time comprehending their rationals. I only understand basic math: 4 + 2 > 4, and 4 + (-2) < 4. So you who have PhD or master degrees in economics please explain to me what they are saying, preferably in grade 4/5 English. Thanks.



AND:

We Need MORE Debt, Says Ken Fisher.

From my limited perspective

Shrinking Debt Levels = Shrinking Money Supply = Credit Crunch = Quantative Easing + increased government debt to offset shrinking money supply.

All money is nothing more then a representation of a debt somewhere and hence is a representation of future labour and wealth creation by individuals; and usury a mechanism for syphoning off a portion of that future labour and wealth.

Quantitative easing does not offer any extraction value nor repersents any future wealth, but is supposedly a mechanism to induce the banks to lend (create debt) again to the wider public by driving down yield rates and hence expand the money supply through debt creation i.e money repersented by future value as opposed to money with no future value, money printing.

Government debt fulfills two functions, firstly it creates more money / debt in the system taking up the lag for private debt and money creation, secondly it ensures the survival of the parasite (financial industry) through usury payments, which are financed by individuals future labour in the form of tax payments to service the national debt.

Also because the host (the larger economy) is now been infected by the parasite for so long, removal of the parasite would result in the death of the host, so the parasite must be kept alive ergo TARP, increased government debt etc.

Maybe Ken Fisher and Pete Stark realise that debt is absolutely fundamental to the functioning of the system through its role in money creation, no debt = no money, but are unable to distinguish the host from the parasite and believe it to be the one organism.

Less debt in the system could I suppose be interrupted as less commitment to future wealth creation. More debt equated to more wealth creation.