A high interest rate on debt simply implies that the economy is expanding at a faster pace than interest, which is a very good macro signal. The fact that we were at 0% rates for so long is a very very bad sign, even though everyone seems to like easy money and a lower rate. After all: a lower rate means you pay back less, right? Assuming you can get a low-rate loan in the first place.
The thing is this is a flawed argument, an economy can't boom indefinitely, especially with high interest rates. As high interest rates would encourage people to save up rather than spend (which is quite essential for an economy to boom).
Low interest rates while creating an "easy money" environment, it also forces people to other investments.
As stated in the original post a high interest rate is a lagging indicator of a good economy. Increasing the interest rate doesn't make the economy better: if the economy is better it can sustain a higher interest rate.
The problem is it isn't actually a lagging indicator of a good economy. If it were developing economies with high interest rates should have had very good economies past few years. (They hadn't.)
In actuality, high interest rates are an indication of something going wrong in the economy.
Ah well sure it can mean a lot of things.
It could mean no one is willing to give out a loan because the risk is too high.
It could mean borrowers are willing pay a high premium for a loan because things are going so well.
Regardless, the main focus of this post is a world without loans at all.
So I'm really not sure what to make of a lot of these comments on the post.
It mostly reads as if the main point is nature of loans, and the world without loans part is tacked on.
Hm yeah that's fair I went off on that Twitter spaces tangent forever.
Bottom line is that every conversation point in economics is a flawed and incomplete argument because it's not possible to do otherwise.