[api]

> It's not anything that future generations have to "pay back."

I really wish the term "debt" were not used in these contexts. This type of "debt" is fundamentally different from private sector debt or other ordinary forms of debt.

In this context the term is being used to refer to an accounting construct that looks like debt, but the meaning of this particular accounting entry is completely different. Using this term only creates confusion among the public and even politicians who don't understand the complex and esoteric details of modern economics.

[samsonradu]

> This type of "debt" is fundamentally different from private sector debt or other ordinary forms of debt.

It depends. If you are Lebanon and borrowing USD it’s pretty much like a corporate debt and future generations are paying it back.

However, if you can print the world’s reserve currency while borrowing in it at the same time then there are different terms.

[nybble41]

In the end it's still a debt. The nominal value in USD may not be all that important, since the Fed can manipulate it more or less at will, but you're still borrowing productivity from the future—by consuming capital—and that debt will be repaid one way or another.

[api]

The fallacy here is assuming that capital is finite over all time. It's not. Capital is created.

Of course not all economic activity creates capital at the same rate, and I do definitely agree that the type of economic activity you get during and after a recession with massive QE is likely of a lower quality than what you'd get otherwise. But it may still be that more capital (wealth) is created this way then if you allow the economy to completely shut down.

I also disagree with the premise that recessions/depressions are good because they clear out dead or dying companies. Dead or dying companies do die under such circumstances, but so do really innovative ventures that have not yet reached comfortable sustainable profitability. A mega-recession right now might take out a lot of junk, but we'd also risk losing stuff like SpaceX, Tesla, Boom Supersonic, and hundreds of small innovative startups. We might also lose the whole renewable energy revolution and any work being done on next-gen nuclear power like small modular reactors.

In short we'd lose both the bottom and the top end of the innovation curve, keeping just the boring middle.

[nybble41]

I suspect you may have intended to reply to a different comment, but since you're here…

> The fallacy here is assuming that capital is finite over all time.

Capital is "finite"—as opposed to "infinite", "unlimited", "superabundant"—but I agree that it isn't fixed. There is no law of conservation of capital; it can be created or destroyed.

With that said, taking on debt is not necessarily a bad thing; it depends on how you use it, and whether you have a viable plan to repay the debt out of future earnings. QE fails on both counts; there's no real direction beyond "inject more money into the economy", and no viable repayment plan.

> I also disagree with the premise that recessions/depressions are good because they clear out dead or dying companies.

I'm not sure whose premise that was, but I would also disagree. Clearing out underperforming companies would be a silver lining at best, and not enough to make recessions or depressions "good". In any case the companies hit the hardest are not necessarily the ones with marginal profits but rather the ones which are incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. That can include old companies set in their ways as well as new, experimental ones which depend on emerging opportunities.