Please note where I disengaged from the effort. Some people have the ability to consider new concepts without automatically applying pre-existing filters and some don’t. Learning is often as much about forgetting/setting aside what we know as it is about absorbing new information/data. Also note that he, in his first reply, stated that “any sane person” would naturally agree with him. I always worry when I hear that in the event that it is their last remaining tether to sanity and I’m about to cut it.

The point where grenade lobbing started was where I realized that this was not going to happen and we reached an impasse because of his incorrect assumptions of the purpose of Treasury bonds and monetary operations in general. If one is vested in theory for no other reason than the inclusion of a word, “debt”, out of its intended context and refuses to accept any degree of logic then the effort is destined to be fruitless and I’m too old to waste any more time than necessary.

I often see this reaction at the point where someone figures out that having all the answers only works if those answers fit the questions and are correct. There is a need to be right, even when incorrect, that is unique to politics because so many issues are wrapped up in that label and we have no idea what those issues may be for any individual. Becoming angry when faced with logic, such as one cannot collect or borrow what doesn’t yet exist, displays that the dedication to a view involves much more than the issue in question. Further engagement is seldom productive because one is threatening much more than someone’s understanding of economics. Some people are wound up pretty tight, which is why I don’t post or comment in any local venues.