That's obviously not the angle this article takes though. Obviously there is more than enough assets to cover worldwide debt and one only goes into debt to obtain something of value. The context here is debt on paper excluding assets.
And every debt is someone else's asset. I have a retirement plan that owes me money, that has US bonds, that I pay part of the interest on with my taxes. It is when the credits all pile up on the same group and they don't use it wisely, the world can get into a real conundrum that seems to only be solved by violence.
In other words, $350k home = $300k mortgage + $50k in equity. You still have debt. Its just that the debt was exchanged for something. Its the same equation for credit card debt.
No one takes on debt without receiving something in return.
Well people do take on debt for things that are quickly worth nothing. For example, you buy groceries with a credit card. You eat them; they are gone. But you still have the debt.
Or you buy a car. It quickly loses value, but you still have the debt based on the original purchase.
The formula still holds, but the "equity" part is negative, which leads many people to conclude that bankruptcy is a better option than paying for something they no longer have or is no longer worth what they owe.
> Or you buy a car. It quickly loses value, but you still have the debt based on the original purchase.
Aside from perhaps the first year of owning a financed car, it is worth more than remaining principal on the loan for the majority of the loan's duration.