You are confusing the issues even further than Arjay already has, Ludwig.

I suggested that “our present financial situation has nothing to do with money, or the concept of money. It has to do with debt, and the creation of debt.”

To which you responded:

>>Huh? How can debt not having anything to do with the concept of money, within a financial system?<<

At a simplistic level, of course it does. But let's see if I can explain my point with a sporting analogy.

Australia are playing India at cricket.

Brett Lee (assuming he's fit) bowls a bouncer at Virender Sehwag, hits him on the helmet, and causing him to be led off the field.

Now, in this situation, the bouncer is debt, and money is cricket.

Bouncers happen in cricket. They are part of the game. All fast bowlers employ them.

Without cricket, there are no bouncers. It requires a bowler, and a batsman, both of whom are necessary for the game to be conducted.

You ask "how can bouncers not have anything to do with cricket, or the concept of the game?"

My suggestion is that Sehwag's hospitalization "has nothing to do with cricket, or the concept of cricket; it has to do with bouncers, and with a bouncer making contact with the batsman's head"

While it is true that without the concept of money, debt would not exist, and that without the concept of cricket, bouncers would not exist, there is no direct connection between the game of cricket itself and the hospitalization of Virender Sehwag.

There are many steps between the two concepts.

Cricket leads to confrontation between bowler and batsman, which sometimes leads to bouncers, which occasionally leads to a crack on the head.

Money leads to various financial instruments, including the ten-dollar bill, the CD, the overdraft, the mortgage, the loan book etc. which sometimes lead to debt, and which occasionally leads people - and companies, and countries - into debt problems.

Is that a little clearer?