[pa7x1]

The money is owed to our future selfs or generations to come, who pay the interests.

If the money obtained through debt is well invested such that it creates growth that outpaces the interest rate then all is good, as future tax payers will have a larger economy to be taxed in order to pay that debt. But if it's not, we are just stealing from the future.

When a country acquires debt to finance its pension system, that's just plain and simply inter-generational robbery. It's pensioners voting to give themselves money at the expense of the younger generations. It will become more and more pervasive across the west given our demographics and is crippling entire economies across Europe.

[bryanlarsen]

Money is the way we divide up the productive capacity of a country. To become richer as a nation, you increase the productive capacity of a country, you don't collect little pieces of paper.

[snapplebobapple]

Debt is not money though, debt is a future claim on some portion of that output and that claim is to the whole comingled basket of productive capacity that took out the debt so in a country's case itis a claim on all of it because a country can income tax and/or wealth tax up to 100 % of the income/wealth. So a coubtry can get richer by increasing capacity more than the claim on capacity or it can decrease the claim on capacity freeing up output for the country.

[SubiculumCode]

This response does not address the parent's question, and ignores that issuing currency with a debt mechanism isn't anything but an artificial constraint (not an immutable law of nature).