ok pug.......I agree that part needs an explanation...or...

ok pug.......I agree that part needs an explanation...or expansion....for some of you...in order to understand the mechanics of this argument/debate

debt is good in some circumstances as I stated....
but only when it is attached to a good asset....a non depreciating asset as stated...
that asset grows in value....mimicking the value of the debt...so they both stay aligned in value...the leverage...

ie asset value is 100 million....debt is 50 million...
but the asset earns an income more than sufficient to pay the interest which accrues on the debt....

but not good when it is wasted....as in the current govt borrowing....
they have no assets to which the debt is attached to....
they are borrowing to waste the money....
for eg; kevin rudd is running up travel expenses as a VIP of up to $80,000 per trip....
plus he is spending on average $500 million dolars for each and every welfare donation to thousands of organisations....world wide.....
most of those donations are going towards a despot, leader in charge of some god forsaken country....supposedly as aid, food for the poor....but in reality, it is the leaders, the despots that receive and control that money...

in that case....there is no corresponding asset...that will increase in vlaue...
so that at some stage in the future...the asset could be sold to extinguish the debt in full....

and it stands to reason therefore....that if there is no asset attached to the debt....then there is also no income generated to cover the interest payments on that debt....

the current world govnuts are playing, an absolutely ignorant, debt defying...lehmann brothers, bernie mannick ? type of investment scheme, and placing the burden on you the taxpayers...to pick up the humungeous tab, plus your grandchildren,,,and generations of their children to come...
the only way out of this debt defying feat...is to print more money, out of thin air....or pretend their is a money tree, at the end of some rainbow.......
the govt is running a huge ponzi scheme....except in their case...there is no income generated, from any assets held, to support the usual type of ponzi schemes...

ponzi schemes, usually have some assets, that generate an income...to pay new investors into the scheme....at the beginning....until the number of new investors required to support the scheme, outnumbers the old investors....who no longer receive income...
then the shit happens....
comprehendi now ?