Then the use of debt by local and state governments was *much* more corrupt than presently.
There is a flaw in their internal logic. They accepted the need for public ownership in certain areas, implying the validity of public capital per se. But if public capital is legitimate, so is public debt.
Then there is the interesting link between money creation and debt that Forstater talked about. If the Feds can sell bonds, there is fundamentally no distinction between it and the Fed. The Fed is just a regulatory valve (imperfect, to be sure) for the Feds' predilection to increase liquidity.
Your post on democratic money will take longer to untangle. I'll get to it later or tomorrow. The driving range beckons.
mbs
They're not with you on fiscal policy either:
>We denounce the sale of bonds and the increase of the public
>interest-bearing debt made by the present Administration as
>unnecessary and without authority of law, and demand that no more
>bonds be issued except by specific act of Congress.
and
>We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as
>possible in the hands of the people, and hence we demand that all
>State and national revenues shall be limited to the necessary
>expenses of the government, economically and honestly administered.
Doug