In this second of a series of columns on the recent uproar over U.S. federal debt surpassing $40 trillion, law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan examines the scope of government borrowing, including debt crises and interest-rate effects. Professor Buchanan argues that the headline number itself is not the real problem; what matters is whether debt grows unsustainably and, more importantly, whether the government borrows for productive public purposes rather than wasteful or politically motivated spending.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the public debate over the U.S. federal debt, focusing on how media coverage of the “$40 trillion debt” relies on confused, misleading, or context-free comparisons and on basic terminology mistakes such as mixing up debt, deficit, gross debt, and net debt. Professor Buchanan argues that the raw debt figure is not meaningful on its own and that sensible analysis requires context—especially debt relative to GDP—so scare-driven coverage distorts the real fiscal issues.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan offers yet another illustration of why we need not worry about the national debt—the biggest businesses do it. Professor Buchanan points out that nearly every Fortune 500 company carries debt because doing so is good financial management, and if our country were to be running a surplus, that would mean that the government is collecting more in taxes than it needs to cover current spending.

In this first of a two-part series of columns responding to a front-page article covering “non-news” about the national debt, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan responds to the only substantive claim the article raises. Specifically, Professor Buchanan debunks their claim that higher interest rates will create hyperinflation while the bond market melts down.

In this first of a two-part series of columns responding to a front-page article covering “non-news” about the national debt, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains how the reporters misleadingly frame a familiar (and wrong) anti-debt argument. Professor Buchanan argues that the reporters highlight an arbitrary “milestone” and inexplicably assign significance to an unremarkable and all but inevitable fact.