If you don't believe that loaning to a human is analogous to loaning to a country, you really shouldn't be the one introducing it as an analogy!
The purpose of an analogy is to more clearly convey a dynamic, not muddle understanding by reference to a case with the opposite implications.
In the likely event that it still isn't clear what's wrong with ak_111's points, let's review.
"People are obviously going to be reluctant to lend to <country> because <country> is behaving like a human who spent his money frivolously after borrowing your money again. Because you would not continue to lend to that human, you can see why others would not lend to <country>."
"Okay, you misunderstood my analogy. You can't conclude anything about countries based on how you would handle a human. The situations are completely unrelated, to the point that it is impossible to reason about one from knowledge of the other."
Am I the one who doesn't understand analogies, or is ak_111?
There is nothing contradictory in using an analogy to illustrate a specific point (in this case, how a lender may be hesitant to lend something to a borrower even if the borrower acted unwisely with a small part of the money that was lent to them), and pointing out that the analogy is not the same as the actual situation.