Thank you so much for the kind words. I hope my posts are useful to others. I know their discussion has been useful to me.

I cringe when I think about what I might have posted two or there years ago. How much I may have misrepresented what actually goes on or misled someone else. But I have a long held theory about being wrong that goes like this:

A. If I don't make any mistakes and am never wrong, I must be perfect.

B. If I am perfect I must be God, because God is the only perfect one.

C. If I think I am GOD, the real God likely will not be amused. That would be a bad thing.

D. Since I'm sure I'm not the real GOD I must be imperfect

E. Since I'm imperfect I must make mistakes and be wrong at least part of the time

F. Using logic, it means I an GOING to be wrong, and need to remember that

G. Since I'm going to be wrong I need to search out where I'm wrong and try to correct the wrong knowledge or mistake

But to your question - Iowegian said:

I do have a question/comment on your interest drag observation that I admittedly do not know the answer to with certainty. I understand what you, and quite frankly, others have insisted upon in that there is a structural flaw in that there is not enough money to cover the debt b/c of the interest expense on debt that is created. Makes sense on the surface. However, when on considers that the interest paid on debt to the banks is what primarily helps the banks to grow their capital base, which, in turn, allows them to create more loans and hence more money via the fractional lending system we have, I have some reservations in wholeheartedly agreeing with that concept. In your readings have you seen this issue addressed?

The answer was no, but thanks to your question and this discussion board and some Google searches I have. And I think it is addressed pretty well in the link I will provide. But as cfdr has pointed out to me on more than one occasion, things are not always simple. I actually had questioned the same thing, but had never really come to a good conclusion. I had accepted some of the simple conclusions presented. Turns out it is not simple at all. But I think the explanation given in the link does a decent enough job even I kind of "get" it. Here is a quote for the "long reads" challenged:

--------------------------------------------

Debt-based Money

Now update this to the debt-money system where the supply of money is NOT FIXED and debt has to be perpetual because if there is no debt there is no money. In this system, principal payments EXTINGUISH money and new loans are the only way to CREATE money.

Despite these differences, it is still true that, if there is only a single loan cycle and the bank spends 100% of the interest it takes in, there is no shortage of money and all payments can theoretically be made.

If, however, the bank uses interest income as any form of investment for gain instead of spending it, the increased volume of investment generates demand for increased returns from the same limited amount of money created by the original loan. If interest income from the original loan is re-lent at interest, part of that original limited amount of money is now divereted into its own repayment cycle where it can only be borrowed to pay off the original loan.

----------------------------------------------------

Reference "Money as Debt": Disputed information

There is more to the explanation than the above quote, but before everyone's eyes glaze over from reading this post I will stop with that amount. The explanation starts about half way down the page in the link. Look for the "Debt Based Money" title and it starts there with the above quote.

Here is the latest version of the video talked about in the above link It has some improved portions of explanation compared to the original 2006 that is talked about in the link above.

Here is the original 2006 video talked about in the above link.

Enough for one post. May have more after supper.

Thanks again for the kind words. And thank you for showing up and participating in the discussion. One of my biggest fears is promoting wrong information. I don't want to mislead anyone. Having someone like you in the industry read my posts and take me to task where I'm misrepresenting something means a lot to me.

John