I'd love to meet the "sensible people" who believe that debt, both personal and national, is not at all implicated in the economic divide between rich and poor that David Simon speaks of.
> it would be better if you simply just stated your case and/or evidence because that is what HN is for.
I think you have it backwards. The OP suggested that "sensible people" (all of them, apparently!) don't believe that debt ("in and of itself", whatever that means) is "a serious problem." That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But I'll indulge you:
1. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated "I've said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat."
2. David Walker, former Comptroller General and head of the GAO, has been sounding the alarm about the tens of trillions of dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities the United States has racked up for years. He has warned that unless something is done, the US will plunge into a "fiscal abyss."
3. Barack Obama, as a Senator, stated, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Are Mullen, Walker and Obama not "serious people"?
It means that "debt is bad" is a ridiculous proposition. Again, debt cannot exist without an equal and off-setting asset, by definition. So, saying "there's too much debt!" is functionally equivalent to saying "there's too many assets!"
>Are Mullen, Walker and Obama not "serious people"?
Politicians, all of them. Don't really care what Mullen or Obama's opinions about debt are.
As far as Mr. Walker, it appears he's appealing to populism and Republican talking points. Because I'm sure he understands that talking about "unfunded liabilities" only looks at one side of the ledger, as a scare tactic. I mean, those liabilities aren't going into the fire, they're being received by real people, spent into the economy. Where is that counted?
You might also want to add in Ray Dalio. See 'how the economic machine works' and his research pdf.
It's a more nuanced view than the 'we're all going to die' and 'debt doesn't matter' viewpoints*. That said, there clearly are huge risks with having such unproductive debt.
Just don't expect things to ever change. There were debt jubilees in the bible.
Ok - debt is not a problem if you can repay it (i.e. the growth can compensate for debt). There.
Debt isn't the problem. If you however close yourself in your house for the fear of someone mentioning debt don't be surprised you lose your job and can't repay it.
Consumer debt and the increase of public lotteries are the schemes that allow inequality to exist as long as it has. Take them away and you take away hope.
I'd love to meet the "sensible people" who believe that debt, both personal and national, is not at all implicated in the economic divide between rich and poor that David Simon speaks of.