Not that I entirely agree with the parent, but as you said:

> if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble.

That's a function of cost of borrowing, not the amount borrowed.

If you also mean negative interest, than yes. Otherwise, the rate of interest is meaningless if the debt cannot be collected.

The cost of borrowing is the difference between the amount borrowed and repayed. So yes it matters. Even with negative interest rates there's principal to repay.

The Unites States will always pay the coupon. QE4 is currently supporting our record issuance in the repo market - you know, the support that was supposed to be unwound by now, but has in fact grown in position since the beginning of the year.

We will monetize our debt forever, just like Japan, until there are currency consequences. The MMT people argue there will never be said currency consequences. We shall see.

The currency consequences come in the form of inflation. So it's already happened. But if you mean real, paradigm altering consequences like what's happened to places like Zimbabwe or even Argentina, no, it'll never happen as long as demand for their products (and currencies) remains high.

So you truncate my sentence, call me an idiot and cite nothing to back your assertion?. Oh-Kay buddy.

Debt requires a payment to the holder. Regardless of the interest rate, if the debtor cannot make the payment, the rate of interest is fully irrelevant.

If the holder cannot collect, the value of the debt and the borrowed assets value decrease.

> That's an interesting assertion and frankly, crazy.

That's your quote. If you understood debt even at the level of a freshman in an econ 101 course or hell, if you've ever taken out a loan, you wouldn't have written it.

My assertion is as basic as saying the sky is blue. Want a citation for that?

Hint. Debt is used to purchase assets. Assets have utility. Depreciation is a thing. If utility is more than the cost of borrowing and depreciation over the timeframe of the loan, it's worthwhile.

And that's not even considering that governments can print money, so the consideration isn't can they pay it back, more like what's the cost to pay it back in inflation.

>> Hint. Debt is used to purchase assets.

This is true for corporate loans, but in case of federal budget most of the money borrowed are spent on things like healthcare, pensions, food stamps, etc. which aren't exactly profit-bringing assets.

Any money that goes to consumers at least partially is returned in taxes. Infrastructure is a big spending item and again, increases commerce and taxes. Government loans are also special in that money can be printed to repay them.