The comment made it clear credit card was a reductive example and that the diversity of debt makes the overall situation unfathomably complex.

Your comment is likely in bad faith.

▲

bryanlarsen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

That comment also set up a clear straw man, I don't think the parent comment was in good faith either.

Thinking about debt like a credit card isn't reductive, it's just plain wrong.

▲

cucumber3732842 13 hours ago | parent [-]

The math that underpins a credit card, mortgage, bond, etc, etc, is all the same. The values are different. The terms are different. Some of them have complex add on functions, etc.

But at the end of the day it's all compounding interest. And there's so much of it in both volume and diversity and inter-connected requirements that nobody can accurately predict the behavior of the system in response to large changes or over large timelines. And then of course the government controls the currency (but what it can do is limited to some degree) so that adds even further complexity.

A credit card or any other "normal" debt is a fine starting point for understanding.

I greatly look forward to your explanation of how it's "just plain wrong"

	▲	bryanlarsen 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You already acknowledged a key part of one of the reasons in your own comment. "Government controls the currency". Another part is to think about how money is created. Another component would be to study what happened the only time the US paid off its debt.