I agree with the author of the article that the metaphor is actually very fitting. That said, I think Ward Cunningham's view is also correct in the context of

I agree with the author of the article that the metaphor is actually very fitting. That said, I think Ward Cunningham's view is also correct in the context of how debt is viewed today. That said, historically, debt has been regarded as something which was bad for the borrower and only good for the lender. The distortion likely came about because of reserve bank near-0% interest rate policies enabled by unlimited 'money printing'. Once reserve banks started offering near-0% interest rate loans, private banks found that they could still make big profits by making loans to people on very low margins like 2% to 5% interest rates (since they could themselves borrow upstream at 0%)... But these rates are impossibly low if you think about it. Would any private citizen in their right mind loan their own hard-earned money to other people for 5% interest per year? Let alone while knowing that inflation is almost 5%? Even ignoring inflation which entirely cancels out all the profit, nominally, it barely even covers the risk of the borrower stealing the money and leaving the country... Today, private lending doesn't make sense from the lender's perspective, even when you ignore inflation. Direct lending of one's own money today only makes sense for very risky short term loans with unethically high interest rates (loan sharks). Anyway, to get back to the point; low interest rates brought on by reserve bank manipulation are unnatural; they made the deal unnaturally good for the borrower (at the expense of the average citizen). Historically, debt was in fact correctly perceived as dangerous for the borrower.