People keep talking about debt as if all debt is made equal. It's not. It's a bit like someone talking about his salary as an amount, without specifying whethe

People keep talking about debt as if all debt is made equal. It's not. It's a bit like someone talking about his salary as an amount, without specifying whether it's per hour, per year, per minute, in a world where the unit of time is constantly changing. That'd be completely meaningless. Fact is that interest rates reached levels between 10-20% in the post-war era. Today they've reached 0-3%. Higher debt levels aren't necessarily a problem if interest rates drop meaning debt servicing is low, and inflation mitigates rising nominal debt levels meaning debt in real terms stays low. I'm not saying that debt is not a problem at all, but that it's completely taken out of context by looking at nominal debt figures rising. Even if you express debt as a percentage of GDP, you're still missing interest. Debt servicing as a percentage of GDP isn't at particularly high levels. Second, we must consider what the alternative is: less debt the past decade, or decades, would've likely meant we'd see a deflationary cycle, inhibited investments, research, development and growth. As long as there's a bail-out for the 'reasonably' losers of systemic crises (which is not trivial, but mostly feasible and which we're seeing now), the use of debt the past few decades has probably been a net benefit.