1. True for this discussion, but I still feel that it's important to point out that this is just one option. Money can have intrinsic value, like making it out

1. True for this discussion, but I still feel that it's important to point out that this is just one option. Money can have intrinsic value, like making it out of gold coins. 2. True, but NOT in this case. The US government finances it's own debt. So the US borrowing more does NOT represent a willingness (of anyone but the US government) to borrow to the US government. This is true for most/all governments worldwide. 3. True, with MAJOR caveats. If we're talking about 5%, -5%, then sure. If we're talking about a 50% shortage, then we're in the danger zone. If a government finances it's spending to a significant extent ... well there's no historical examples of it ending well. Even "when it works" it's very bad for the people living under such governments. Likewise, it's very bad for a government to run a large surplus. So 3 only applies for "small" values of unbalanced. 4. Sadly, not true. This is a myth coming from the fact that the financial world effectively rewrites history to "erase" bankruptcies. If you reintroduce them it becomes clear that if you owned a global debt index, say, you'd be screwed. (so, sorry mr. Bogle, you're only right for very recent history (given "too big to fail") and frankly, you know damn well that you're wrong for the long term).