I completely agree with the quoted paragraph.
"Since money have no intrinsic value, the size of the debt in total is not equal to actual goods or services produced and consumed."
This line seems problematic to me. Lacking intrinsic value, money is "backed" by everything that can be produced and consumed. Isn't the conclusion then that debt is always exactly equal to the sum of actual goods and services produced and consumed??
Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
I don't want to give up the "intrinsic value" concept. Think of it as value for direct use. You can not use modern money (except gold) for anything directly. Hence no intrinsic value. Only money value or value for indirect exchange. Consumer goods for example have direct use value. It is not about backing. It has been discussed in depth. I think that the elevated economic discourse going on here at bitcointalk deserves to have a good nomenclature.