There's actually a fair argument to be made that total national debt (i.e.-public +private debt) is a better indicator of a nation's economic health than public debt, alone. I suppose it matters where one is in the economic cycle as to whether this is actually true. In an environment of strong growth, for example, high public debt is less relevant, since this scenario assumes that private debt levels are at least low enough to encourage capital formation + higher employment.
Date: February 2nd, 2012 8:13 PM Author: emerald garrison sandwich
hmm i think it generally has been the opposite. in strong economic climates public debt is low and private debt starts going bonkers. then ITE hits, and private starts paying debt down and killing spending while govt has to borrow to fund stuff due to decreased revenues/continued spending (harder to stop spending as govt than private).