> this type of math always puzzles me Yeah, it's really counter-intuitive. That's because economics is not just based on maths. The only schools of economics w

> this type of math always puzzles me Yeah, it's really counter-intuitive. That's because economics is not just based on maths. The only schools of economics with pure-mathematical analysis are neo-liberal schools with game-theory axioms (which are provably wrong). Mathematics fail to prevent economic crashes of the capitalist system, as they have for more than a century: 1929 was going to be the last crash ever, or so they said. To understand economics, we have to study social/political context. That's why economists that actually make sense are studying it as a social science, not a branch of mathematics (though mathematical principles apply). > We don't get our own money back from ourselves? Debt is a complex topic. But many NGOs and economists over the years have argued it's a system designed to keep the poor and the third world in check. That's evidence by the fact that rich nations/people owe [m,b]illions without any concern for their safety, while poor people will have their property seized for minor debts, and entire countries will be wreaked just to pay off a handful of greedy banks (Greece). And that's assuming the debt is legitimate in the first place. See concept of odious debt in international accords/law, which applies to most country's debt, which has been contracted not to help the people but eg. to develop the military or give away money to private companies through dubious public-private partnerships.