1. The implication is that this is a question of who can put the money to the greatest possible use. If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get pai

1. The implication is that this is a question of who can put the money to the greatest possible use. If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get paid something for that. It follows that the person taking the money thinks they can use my money and end up with more even after they've paid me back. Here's the question. Is every act of commerce an act of theft? If so then none of this means anything. If not, if a company borrowing money is making good and services (and jobs) that everyone benefits from then in theory my putting my money to work is making everyone better off. The alternative is that government will use the money more positively. On the upside they just spend it on the downside all they do is spend it - the feedback from "good" and "bad" spending is delayed.