Here are some problems I see with the article: 1 The article assumes a causal relation between debt acquisition and a change in GDP. I can't even see how they

Here are some problems I see with the article: 1 The article assumes a causal relation between debt acquisition and a change in GDP. I can't even see how they would be related at all. 2 The article proposes that the utility of additional debt relies not on the use of the funds, but on a number based entirely on past use. 3 The article compares a scalar (debt) to a rate (GDP). This means that '1' has no special meaning in the comparison.