This number is useless without the context of GDP, which is growing exponentially. Even if debt grows at 1.5%/yr, debt-to-GDP ratio can go to zero if GDP grows

This number is useless without the context of GDP, which is growing exponentially. Even if debt grows at 1.5%/yr, debt-to-GDP ratio can go to zero if GDP grows >1.5%/yr. This has the funny effect of people seeing exponentially larger debt numbers and freaking... due to lack of context. Here's some more historical context, England's interest rates and debt over the last 300 years. About 100 of those years had debt-to-GDP of over 1.0.... And no problems with interest rates. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/28/opinion/102813krugman2/102813krugman2-blog480.png http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/28/opinion/10281... Finally, the article's closing scare tactics of coming up with a high interest rate doomsday scenario is a red herring. In such an example, the article fails to mention the USD would depreciate and GDP would skyrocket(denominated in the dollars would go up, because about half of S&P500 revenues are foreign). The net effect would be a drastic lowering of debt and increase in GDP, thus somewhat fixing the debt-to-GDP ratio and largely fixing the high interest rates. Of course we should pay down our debt when(or if) it makes sense to do so: when unemployment is low and inflation is close to target (or above target). Now is not the time. Additionally, structural government reform is sorely needed, although it should target more outstanding issues, rather than an out-of-context debt number. If secular stagnation holds true, we may not have "normal" interest rates again.