More On The National Debt

This is a hub page that has been created for a more in detailed response to a comment left on an old Squidoo lens. A comment was made on and I do wish that you could have taken a look at that lens first before you continue on with this one.

i do plan to make a full hub about the National debt situation, since the old Squidoo lens is no longer online.

A comment to my old Squidoo lens indicated that he thought that there would be no currency if there was no debt. It seemed like he thought that debt created the currency that we use as money. In the modern economic system, I could see how he got that view, and only in some aspects he might not be very far off track.

However, I do not think that money is an instrument of debt. I think that debt is an instrument of money.

If it be the dollar, the yen, the peso, or one of many other names, money is a representation of symbolic value and debt is a promise to pay something of value in the future. Before the banking system started the money system had been well established. Something of value was exchanged for something of value, or that represented value. Over time, a promise to give something of value became acceptable practice.

It does seem like a political debate as to how much a country should be in debt, but money or currency is not equivalent in any way to debt. Yet, taking on debt is a way to add to your current money supply.

Below are two clips from YouTube that illustrate one point of view on how debt and money are related to each other. The presentations are well crafted, even if you do not agree with their conclusions, or interpretations of the facts.

In an ideal situation, should the govenment of a country operate without going into debt?