Yes, as I understood it, mist, your strategy is to 'diversify' your debt and to deploy it to speculate (gamble) as a means to pay off debt. 
 
Not wanting to degrade or demean the intention of the borrowings - but I watched alot of folks do just that in the 'heady' end of the 80s (the time our dear leader was practicing his trade at Elders) who didn't come out of the exercise at all well.
 
Even more so now - I don't think the little guy has a hope in hell of calculating a calculated risk.  Remember, fairies are in charge.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes. on all three counts.
I'm not trying to be ad homein about the "get to know how the market works" comments, you are too used to dealing in the real, and you're focusing only on part of the system.

I have debt, because it's bloody tough making a company work with $5 a week surplus funding above rent/food/fuel.
But what do I do with that debt. It's invested (spent, long) into other real things.  Thus those things must return, over time (!!), at least equitable value.  One of those values must be currency to service the debt in its entirity.
In an ideal world without debt, the price of the farm (to pick one business area), would reflect the available purchasing power of the individual person or company.  However that would mean the purchaser would not be able to "save" or "invest" their purchasing power anywhere else while they accumulated it.  No bank accounts, no debt instruments to other business awaiting repayment.  They would have to have stashed it under a mattress/buried it in the backyeard, or have a previous asset awaiting sale to a third party before releasing the funds.   That would considerably reduce the price they would be able to pay.   However, if they have a relatively liquid asset they're selling that would give significant advantage in what they can bid.   Also if they have multiple equity partners, they could bid more.... but if all those equity partners are not communally working the business we have a capital (debt) investment system.  That is to say they expect a return (or recognition) of their contribution, which is to say it's a debt position over time (long - they paid in and expect things to improve over time so they can get future benefits).
  That's for a simple operation with few specialisations, a farm.  For an engineering shop, or factory, it becomes complex.  Someone has to create demand, design, build, develop, produce equipment that their collective does not use. In the speculative hope of positive return, that a buyer will want the order.  The buyer somehow has to find a way to produce those funds, in advance, without benefits of plant.  If not, a debt situation occurs.
 
The easiest way to deal with debt situations, is to find someone who has surplus from elsewhere, and their exists a market-maker that has created a system of transferring the surplus, to where the demand is.  Maxwell's demon in it's current state insists that this arrangement will incur overhead, and make the process less than perfect efficiency.  However without any form of transmission medium, the surplus and demand are isolated, and the demand (potential) has no free energy in which to act, with the exception of the free energy leaking through with time and imperfect isolation.
  
So I receive in advance (my short, receive on account) surplus funds.  I am thus able to purchase equipment (cows) and start production.  The service cost for my purchase, is around 1,500$ a month.  100 cows at this point in time produce 1.5 kgMS, which I have a tradeable consumer with currency, who is blackboxed to the rest of the market (ie I don't have to work about anything past trading with PhonTerror).  They pay 3.85 per kg, this month (with a variable remainder on 'tic' owing to me, until they receive their final contract payment).   So, 100x1.5x30 x 3.85 = 17,325 +gst.  Which is my income for that month. I deduct interest of 1500,  rent of 7333+gst. wages 2,000. GST from prev 2 months, 9500. PKE and transport for winter feed, 4500.  Fuel, power 3,000. and so on.   Of which I'll skim 2%-ish off the side [gross].  17,325 *0.02 = 350.  That 350, I put somewhere else.  In this case I'm putting it on the forex market.  I have previously had smaller income, so that got put in house investments (eg paying more to get the mortgage "Sorted")
  After 6 months, that 350 is a little over 2k, which can swing a few good positions in forex, and turnover quickly. and the profits of the profits, used to offset the interest costs, leaving more funds for the business operation.
  However - Fonterror, it turns out don't actually drink all my milk themselves.  They turn it into an ever increasing range of ...stuff.  And sell it.  To foreigners.   But foreigners don't have any NZD.  Not much call for it in foreign places, mostly NZD is used in local shops...for local people. (honk, if you know the quote ;)  )
  So where do the foreigners get NZD?   they can borrow it (debt again) and they have to borrow it from someone who has NZD.  If no-one had NZD to lend them, they would be stuck in the same place as the farmer/farm purchasers - all that demand and no currency!  The obvious place for them to get NZD is for the NZ government to give it to them (print some just for them).  But there's not really much point in that (although it means foreigners would buy a lot more of Fonterrier's stuff).  After all people in NZ demand fancy stuff from foreign places. (apparantly they don't make nice shoes in NZ ;) ). So NZ has to come up with a way for foreign demand to be able to purchase NZ surplus.  We could all hold hands, get a single currency, sing kumbaya, and wait for the group with the biggest surplus and sneakiest bankers to led us all to prosperity.  Or those with surplus NZD could lend it to the foreigners.  Still doesn't stop the government getting a bunch of NZD and promising it the foreigners really relly cheap, but at least it gives them something to trade with.  And we borrow their surplus currency, to do the same.   To keep it kind of fair, there would have to be a flexible scaling system, otherwise those with massive surpluses (of worthless paper, printed just for that purpose) would be able to purchase the other peoples' hard work for next to nothing.
 But someone has to front with the 350NZ to allow trading.
 
Others have a bit more than 350NZ.  say like 19M.  Well they allow a lot more trading, which is probably good, because I don't think NZ will get very far on $350 a month of exports.  Also the guy with 19M, probably not to sure what he wants to buy Right Now, so he'll probably lend out some of the surplus - or more likely enter into an agreement for someone else to lend it out, and give him a cut.  Which will give me the money to buy 100 cows (without me having to create a CFD [futures] arrangement with him personally for the cow funding).
 
My concern is not with Reynolds receiveing a "thanks for not wrecking our company" payout, merely the size of when compared to the wages of the workers who actually put their time, focus and training into the company.   19M allows Mr Reynolds to get a LOT of future returns.  Whereas those workers whose efforts are more vital, and just as time consuming, and as much personal risk, after living costs are removed, have much less opportunity for future returns of their wages (having much smaller surplus).  [personally I think workers should receive a _small_ portion of shares with paypackets, we have the technology to handle it (microlots) these days.  And with a surrender option at termination. ]  Because Mr Reynolds received a sizeable paycheck during his period of service, and thus has much opportunity to invest and enjoy the surplus.  Yet the workers who get almost no bonus, have little worth during their service period that they can invest. (reminded of the first $1000 I put on term dep.  9 months it took to save, scrimping and saving.  90days down, and it was hell not to touch it.  for ... $6.    six lousy bucks (5litres of gas or 2 cups of coffee at the time) to show for 12months hardship. lols.

But long to short.
I have debt, leveraged.  To create a minor surplus and modest risk.
I get a small return (most surplus, services and deleverages the debt).
The return I invest elsewhere, more liquid and diversified from the main operation.
The farm, gross revenue, would pay off any one of the outstanding mortgages in 3 months (give or take, depending on month).  Or a good portion of the debt elsewhere.

The forex equity, would cover the farms debt servicing for 3-6 months if needed, and the government don't funk it up totally.
See it's not just a system, but a complex machine, each eco-system connecting into the other.   It was quite fragile in the beginning, especially when the professionals (accountant especially) screwed up and left me hanging.  But I'm applying austerity (prudence) so that each of the parts is more robust.   And when a greater fool comes along (which is common but not required) as they did with my second house, it cashes out all the current holdings and lets me reconfigure a more evolved pattern.  But that requires me to have access to funds, and to provide the surplus to others in order for them to build their own organism.
  

"'I'd have said unfortunately that is what most people don't realise the system is."
That's just a junk argument. Do you know that reynolds number lift coefficient to fly on an aeroplane. most likely not and it doesn't matter.