I dont agree. The debt still has to be paid back with interest, and the infrastructure will require maintenance (costs) in the future. If a country or municipality is debt free they can build new with excess revenue. If not, there is little hope of getting the budget under control by borrowing to create more obligations.
There is an obvious catch, but this uncritical "debt is baaad" rationale does not stand.
That's true but kinda also not true. There has to be the possibility that the debt is to be paid back. More important: the interests have to be payed. Rest is cashflow management.
Hypothetically more infrastructure would mean more taxes and so one. Like in SimCity.
Just think of it this way: where does the money comes from that the state makes? If it is not spend the state has all the money but no one else.
It's more like activa and pasica on a balance sheet
That's what debt is for - short term improvement for longer term gain. The notion of continually refinancing debt only serves the lenders.
Aren't the lenders your citizens? You would argue that they are the big banks. Ok but who works there? Your citizens? And yes the pay taxes.
Who do the banks lend money to? Companies and citizens who in turn create tax revenue.
You don't run the state like a company. Where would your profit come from?
You are applying newton's physics to the solar system. It works approximately good - but some things are odd and won't fit until you have a big problem and everything unhinges
If the state does not go into debt and the industry doesn't do it then there are only a) the other countries or b) your own citizens.
Just ask yourself - who lends a country money?
So it is considered good for a country to go into debt if it uses the money for infrastructure. With this money people and companies get paid and thus produce GDP. With this GDP growth the debt can be paid.
But this would be in a perfect world.