quote/where-is/reason..<<13)..Other/contributors..have-mentioned..debt..when future/value..creation is brought/forward..in time...Even-here..natural/law..is obviously-relevant.>>usually..i would agree

but..if by natural/
we include..human-nature[at it best/not worse]
its still/only a means/way to do the right-thing

<<What/happens..if there-is..a not sufficient/future-value..creation?>>...they simply raise..the rate of inflation..to inflate the value..of the asset[like they currently/do[in fiat/values]

see..in gold/silver..assets stay/much..the same
its only/in their..construct...fiat-paper..values..they/do their trickery...every-day..the money is worth-less

[meaning the/asset..will cost/more...[fiat..$'s..tomorrow]

<<What happens/is..there is too/much..debt/debt beyond..the/limits of future-value/creation?>>there-are..those with low/intrest..loans..
and those/with..high-intrest...debt-obligations

when..limited liability/defaults..at cents to the dollar
the poor[fully liable..real-people]..just/get..higher burden...
increased prices...inflation[of/money supply]..

[ie..deflating..the value/of their..wage/buying-power

Does the..debt’s/use..apply to producing/future-value..creation>>is a key question..obviously..simply taking-over..control..of current assets...is a dangerous/end-game

prices..must/increase...to get the same[or worse..service]..as what was before...debt-free..now-is..loaded/with..debt/obligations..it should scream/danger

<<or does-it..inhibit..or destroy..future/value..creation?>>
the more that goes direct..to bankers
the less to circulate,..in the economy

<<Does the/quantity..of debt..induce such/levels..of new claims on value..that current-money..(claims on value)..rapidly looses/value>>yes egsactly

before wee had an asset[say the rail-way..or elerctric..supply-line..or water/damms etc...that was relitivly debt-free[ok till govt started/playing games..demanding the raise-funds

<<(inflation)?..no inflation..comes when the price..of services..gop through the roof[like the current electicity/water/transport..price-spike

just wait..till-all/them..go through the system
those in the know will fix their long-term debt
and the poor cop the deflation of wages..
and inflatioon of price..for everything else

<<Where does/the money..come from..that/is..leant out>>there is the neat/trick

see our promise/to re-pay..creates..the value
part of every/loan-documernt..says you allready..got..the loan
but cl;early..the value..wasnt there...THEY REALLY DIDNT LEND US ANYTHING
our promise to repay..it created..it via the fed reserve..entering a debt/obligation..onto their books

<<(does it pre-exist>>.NO

<<is/it created..by the miracle..of fractional..reserve-banking,>>>only in part...see the bank...needs to buy..notes*..at 7 cents each..that they pay/negligable intrst..upon[rent..;till they return..the note

<<in what proportions)?>>
3 quadrillion as/near-as..any can tell
[ok..thats..the/debt]..

meaning..
some-one..got..
the value-of..it

[pre-inflation]

Who defines Natural Law? Many are willing to spout natural law when it comes to the nature of man but sit in judgement of others when clearly their view of the natural law does not apply.

If we were to make laws about homosexuality (which we have done) based on a set of biased interpretation of natural law despite the 'evidence' that homosexuals are born 'naturally' and live among us. Natural Law is a nebulous area.

Look at the chaos that descended with climate change and scientific evidence and modelling was used on both sides of the debate.

The Natural Law as you put it is not always clear cut and economics is not science but based more on ideology and beliefs about human nature - which is highly subjective, not evidence based.

This has been a fascinating discussion stemming from the original post. However, most of the discussion ignores the point that natural (material) forces always determine what happens in the operation of systems made up of materials. Our science has defined only some of the natural laws that operate. The laws of thermodynamics, motion, gravity are well known. Specialists in various fields have enunciated other laws that identify how natural forces act but that does not mean that humans have understanding of all aspects of how natural forces have acted during evolution.
Information is not subject to these natural forces as it is intangible. It does, however, have a major impact on what natural forces are brought into play. Those natural forces determine what is possible. Information contributes to the decisions on what possibilities are activated.

“The Natural Law as you put it is not always clear cut and economics is not science but based more on ideology and beliefs about human nature - which is highly subjective, not evidence based” (pelican).

Yes, exactly.

”The main issue is about including Natural Law as first priority in all democratic constitutions so that real evidence gains a stronger position over manipulation of thought. I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace” (Where_is_reason).

That is, the issue is not about defining natural law (it is not the answer but the question if you like) but about providing the populace an avenue to monitor government action. It is a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition. It is also an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought.

PS. Trying to define Natural Law in anything other than evidence based terms defeats the purpose – this is why I have emphasised the scientific method in other posts.

I think you are confusing the abstract with the material. If one cannot discern between what is abstract and what is material, you are not in the realms of science.

I see you only seem to want to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to economics.

I would really like to see an example that does not include economics applied to your proposition.

Please tell me how this 'natural law' will somehow apply to something else, lets say foreign relations, or you pick one, anything but economics.

@Where-is-reason...you may want to reconsider your premise, or re-word it. What you are describing also, though have not mentioned it, is the concept of credit, for that too is the creation of something from nothing...the spending of monies that have not been earned yet. So in effect, you would like to see people pay cash for their houses and cars, and burn their credit cards.

I agree we live in a false economy, but we can only dream about the banks and governments changing this concept.