Interest rates are where they were in the mid/late 90s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS). The idea that these interest rates are unsustainable/dangerous is just silly. If anything, the 2009-2016 and 2020-2021 periods at an interest rate of 0% are the anomalies.
The problem is is that the amount of debt is percentage of GDP, and therefore the interest rates that we need to pay are significantly higher now. This kind of analysis is hopelessly naïve without taking into account overall macro situation.
I always see people say the national debt doesn’t matter because it isn’t like household debt. However, I just fail to see how that is true. At some point the can won’t be able to be kicked down the road anymore. I guess everyone is hoping that it won’t be during their lifetime.
My point is just that national debt is more complicated than household debt. And every attempt to reduce it to household debt is flawed. They are fundamentally different.
> At some point the can won’t be able to be kicked down the road anymore.
No country other than New Zeeland bothers to properly account for the asset side of the national budget. Increasing liabilities is fine if there's a corresponding increase in assets. But most countries are basically guessing about the second half. (This is also why we see so many wasteful privatisations where national assets are sold off for way less than they're worth)
I mean, yeah, that's ultimately a potential problem for the federal budget. But that's not what tripped up SVB - long-term Treasury prices declined because higher interest rates made short-term Treasuries more attractive than long-term ones.
