Wow! Okay.

What do you think the vast American debt is? Borrowed money, fool.

It's an accounting record of government spending. There are two 'debts' to be precise. One is interest on treasury bonds; the other 'debt' is the money in your pocket/bank account. The federral govt doesn;t borrow money. I told you this already.

INteresting story, I know it. It was taught to me at university. It's wrong. It's up to you if you want to accept it. You'll find no compelling evidence for it. One needs to be a diligent student of history to understand how idiotic it is,.

So sad how your education had failed you.

Posting statement images is of no help. But whatever. There are many neoliberals like you who think they're 'progressive' in economics.

Typical ignorant conservative.

Another. Around 1939 US congress refused a $4bn investment in infrastructuire in the 'lease-spend' bill, apparently couldn't 'borrow'. In 1940 (when France fell) it had spent $300bn, didn't go 'bankrupt' and transformed the economy. How?

Here's conundrum. In 1925 Tussia was wrecked and has no 'gold' and a flat currency. In 1933 it had invested 60 billion Rubles and had new factories, schools, homes, hydroelectric plants etc. Who did it 'borrow' from? There was no 'market'.

Corrections: 'Russia' (not Tussia!). 'Had' no gold.

Even if you believe governments don’t borrow, this is how they access additional funds.

No it is not. What do you mean 'additional funds'. The US govt has all the 'funds' it would ever need. That is not its problem. If you were talking about here in the Netherlands I would say 'yes' Euro user since it doesn't issue the currency it uses. But that's a different case.

🤣🤣🤣Are you taking economics lessons from Ron Vara?

No. I give them. Not to 'Ron Vara' though. He comes out with the same things you keep saying.

I'm a member of a socialist party (Dutch as it happens) Irrelevant though, because it has nothing to do with facts about monetary economies.

"Fool?"