Does Credit Have To Expand Over Time To Prevent Monetary System Collapse?

How often do you watch a youtube multiple times? Especially an educational one? This is one I watched once and it had enough important information that I had to watch it multiple times to see if it really made sense.

Michael Maloney explains in this long tube (click here) how the fiat, fractional-reserve monetary system works. This is the system used by the USA and virtually the whole world. Maloney claims thats that credit has to continuously expand or the system collapses. Can you help me figure out if he's right?

There's four segments that need to be considered. The first two are gimmees and definitely accurate. The key idea of the third and fourth segments are what you can help me figure out.

Starting at 20:55 and continuing to 22:15 he provides an explanation of how a non-fractional-reserve gold-standard money system used to work. This is good background material, but not particularly relevant as its been a hundred years since any country used that system.

From 22:15 to 28:06 he provides an excellent introduction to how a fiat, fractional-reserve money system works. This is something that is hard to understand, hard to believe but true and quite important. Do you get it? I accept that this explanation is accurate and reasonably complete. He doesn't mention that it is the threat of force (police and military) that is the reason why this system must be accepted by the population.

From 29:59 to 32:12 he claims that because interest is required on all of the money borrowed into existence money that the total amount of debt has to increase every month or the system starts to collapse. 

From 45:09 to 46:34 explains why he thinks the total amount of debt has to increase and why this is unsustainable and must end in a debt collapse. This is because there is more money owed (amount borrowed plus interest) than is created by borrowing (the amount borrowed) and as the debt comes due (debt plus interest) and is paid or rolled over the relative amount of debt to currency in existence increases. This animation is the thing I couldn't stop thinking about and brought me back to this youtube and caused me to write this post.

Ok, so that is the background to the claim and here is the claim under consideration (starting at 31:56) verbatim: "This system requires that we go deeper into debt every month than we were the previous month; we have to always borrow more currency into existence than we are extinguishing every single month or the whole things starts to collapse". That is an exact quote. Here it is abbreviated with fixed up syntax: "This system requires that we go deeper into debt every month ... or the whole things starts to collapse".

Help me here. Is that claim true? And does "the whole thing starts to collapse" imply that the whole thing must collapse or merely that ongoing intervention is required to keep it from collapsing and that continued intervention is inherent in the system.

It seems to me that:

1. the total amount of debt in the system can be reduced by default or debt forgiveness. For example, what happens to someone's debt when they die? It will never be paid back. Whoever the debt is owed to must write the debt off and thus the total debt in the system is reduced.
2. the debt, including interest, owed by the US treasury to the Federal Reserve is in a different category from other debt in that nothing bad seems to happen if the US treasury defaults on that debt. So, let's call total effective debt the total amount of debt minus the amount owed by the US treasury to the Federal Reserve.
3. the amount of money relative to the total effective debt can be expanded by having the Federal Reserve print money (buy US treasury debt) and having the US treasury hand the money out as it sees fit (ordinarily directly to its pals especially to the war industry).

So it seems to me that the system is not unsustainable in that it must end. It seems me that the system is economically inefficient in that economic distortions take place when the US treasury spends money (hands out money) to its pals where that money is wasted rather then invested in more productive activities that a free market select. Should we call that handing out of money to pals malinvestment or looting? In either case it sounds like stagflation to me, not a deflationary collapse and not a hyperinflationary collapse.

So, help me. Am I wrong and is the system inherently destined for deflationary or hyperinflationary collapse or is a "slow burn" (to use Catherine Austin Fitts terminology) ongoing fall in the middle-class standard of living another alternative that can be sustained for years or decades? What is it about the system's operation that I don't get that means that a collapse MUST happen?

MontyHigh, www.worldofwallstreet.us

Comments

[NK]

Read about MMT, they claim (maybe this won't be entirely correct, I have no patience to read that claptrap) that all government debt is basically deferred spending aka savings.
Personally I think that doesn't matter since it ain't right. It's created by redistributionist and kleptrocratic policies.
And also it can be pushed only so far. Which is why I won't sell my PMs.