I haven't had my coffee yet and the world is still looking fuzzy to me, so I'm probably just being dense.
But does this not make sense to anyone else? Why would my income to debt ratio change because I've spent my borrowed money somewhere?
I must be misunderstanding this argument, is he saying that as people spend more we all end up making more, and then we all end up borrowing more on what we've made? That would make sense (though in reality what happens is that most people's incomes stay level and the proceeds are funneled to investors - this is largely the reason that the top 5% fall into a more top-heavy Pareto distribution of wealth whereas everyone else is exponentially distributed, but I digress...), but that still shouldn't increase proportional debt, unless I'm missing a key part of this argument.