> If you allocate resources (lending) to projects that are value-loss instead of projects that are value-add, then your allocation of resources becomes inefficient and the whole country suffers.
You don't lend resources, you use them. And yes, using way too many words you've given us the sage wisdom that using resources stupidly is stupid.
> When the government offers debt without interest, there is still a cost associated to that lack of interest which is borne by the whole economy
And what is that exactly?
> and given that there's no interest, this encourages the use of debt
And fractional reserve fiat usury bullshit doesn't?
The rest of your comment, all of it really, is top tier word salad quackery trying to masquerade as relevant information.
*Muh government won't have incentive to debt if it's not in charge of debt! Spending resources stupidly is stupid!*
> I said I would support banning personal debt. I just don't think Hitler did that. He just banned interest but not lending which IMO is worse.
You borrow at a flat rate, which is considerably less than jew interest. If you borrow $15,000 for a home, you owe that back plus a flat rate of $500.
> The reason I suggested commercial debt is good is because generally that debt will always go toward value-add projects whereas personal debt is often for consumer goods which is not a good thing for anyone.
Debt isn't good. Period. jews opened this pandoras box and it's a race to the bottom. You can't cure poison by taking even more poison. You can be the last one left standing, but you still took and played the game of poison.
the Kike statue looks like a demon