Second, all debt is created from nothing, or fabricated into existence. The cash flow increases and economic expansion also correlate exactly with the increase in debt.

That's not right. It's a much too sweeping claim, even though it's true that the present banking system is seriously problematic. Money and credit are not the same thing, and lending is not inherently inflationary. As for "economic expansion", estimates of nominal output (GDP) correlate somewhat (but by no means exactly ) with the money supply, but real output doesn't, at least in the long run.

I don't know which asshole downvoted me, but not all debt is the same. The difference between debt for an automobile, and house, for example are different. One is not an investment, while the other is not. The economic climate has changed a great deal. Social services have expanded, so has foreign aid. Then we have cash flow increases, economic expansion, and a larger population (22 million versus today's 35 million). You have to take all of that into account, instead of just being a downvoting cunt face. Or should I have clarified better? Or do we just want to generalize, and over simplify numbers?

Not all debt is scary. People are idiots when it comes to the term debt. Let me show you a quick scenario, where debt can be used to make a profit.

I borrow $1,000 at 1% per year.

I loan it to someone else at 2% a year.

I make 1% profit from the difference.

See that? Simple.

This is why it's important to challenge the premise for the original debt in the first place. It's up to the debtor to produce the original signed documents, else their claim lacks merit. Thats no easy task considering a huge portion of these are in the form of mortgage backed securities which have been packaged and sold off (with AAA ratings) to 3rd party collectors. Those 3rd party collectors are the ones who need to assert the burden of proof with these documents and without them any debtors claims lack merit.

After that you could still argue that financiers have a fiduciary obligation when issuing loans, like a doctor giving medical advice, ergo any predatory loans issued to pad the bank's back end, ie: if they gave bonuses to loan officers for inflating numbers of people who should not qualify to increase stock market performance, would be illegitimate. Depends on the judge though, not all would feel bankers ought to be held to the same or similar standards as doctors.

This article brings up some very interesting points, but they are incorrect on at least one point, which is how the Bank of Canada lends out money. Many times, for long periods, it has loaned out money at 0%. Or more commonly 1%. Also, if you take into account inflation, the debt isn't as bad as it seems.

Still -- the article brings up ideas we should think about.