I think that since most people accept that typical household debt to income ratios are not catastrophic, it would be incumbent on someone who wants to argue tha

I think that since most people accept that typical household debt to income ratios are not catastrophic, it would be incumbent on someone who wants to argue that the same ratio for a sovereign national currency is a problem to explain why there is a difference. Otherwise, they are both just debts that are assumed to be paid off with future income or capital gains realization. Yes, I'm well aware of how the real estate market and its machinations, particularly in the anglosphere, has been a major driver of one of the more widespread but still pernicious wealth redistributions of the last 30-50 years (probably not the worst one, but an important one). I don't think that this is particularly germane to the question of the national debt compared to anything else. Sure, taking on insane levels of debt is a bad idea. The problem in the national context is getting agreement on what insane means. For a household earning $100k/yr, $10M of debt is insane. For a country with a GDP of $23 trillion, what's an insane amount of debt? (sorry for the delay, learning how to be a firefighter in the daytime hours right now)