The world has national debt of more than $100 trillion - and the income from that goes to the world's wealthiest people more than anyone else.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
If all the world's countries are in debt, and that's pretty much true, then who do they owe the money to?
That's a question that I heard asked recently on the radio, and the commentators on the programme in question did not know the answer. So let me explain.
There is roughly $100 trillion of national debt in the world at present. Now I say roughly because this figure is changing all the time, and the data is a little out of date. So take every number that I give in this video with a pinch of salt, because most will be 2023 or 2024 data, and, of course, we're now in 2025.
But, give or take, the USA is the world's biggest debtor by a long way. It had total debt in 2023 of $32.9 trillion, but which we now know is heading for something like $36 trillion. So roughly one-third of all the national debt in the world is owed by the USA.
I've made other videos on this subject, pointing out that actually the world can't survive without the USA owing that debt because the money in question is the dollar, of course, and that is the world's reserve currency. And so is that debt really debt? It's a good question, but it still leaves well over $60 trillion of other debt in the world.
China is the next biggest debtor. It owes over $15 trillion.
Japan owes around $11 trillion.
In comparison, the UK comes in a very low fourth, at only a bit over $3 trillion, roughly the same as France, a bit ahead of Italy, somewhat above India, above Germany, and then Canada and Brazil and those countries between them make up the top 10 at present.
There are, however, a vast number of other countries with debt. In fact, almost every country in the world, except its ten or so failed states, have got data that show that they are in debt.
Being in debt is something that countries do as a matter of course, which is quite interesting in its own right, because why then do we obsess about the fact that national debt is such a bad thing when every country is in debt? Well, of course, the answer is very simple and it's very straightforward. The national debt of a country represents the currency that it has effectively put into circulation in its jurisdiction, in its own domain, in its own legal tender, in a way that is essential if its local economy is to work, and, therefore, national debt is nothing more than the world money supply.
But who owns this supposed debt? That's the question that was asked, and that's the question that needs answering.
So I've had a look at this, and I'm quite surprised to find the answers.
First of all, I expected a very high part of that national debt to be owned by other countries.
So for example, in the case of the USA, I expected to find that a significant proportion of the total value of US national debt would be owned by the central banks of other countries. But in fact, only one eighth of the national debt, a bit over $4 trillion in the case of the USA, is actually owned by foreign governments, it would seem. The rest is in private circulation.
In the case of the UK, the figure in question appears to be one sixth of our total national debt is owned by foreign governments.
In the case of France, it's a bit higher than that. The situation is confused there by the existence of the European Central Bank, but the figure might be creeping a bit above 20%, and that also appears to be the case in Germany.
In Japan, one of the biggest debtor nations in the world, there is almost no overseas ownership of the debt because whilst its debt is massive in proportion to the country's gross domestic product at well over 200%, which puts it completely out of proportion with any other developed economy, almost all of it is domestically owned, either by the Japanese national government itself or by private individuals.
The point is very simple though, and it is quite straightforward. There is a massive amount of debt, which is in private ownership. Give or take, more than 80% of the world's debt is likely to be owned privately. And if that's the case, who are these private owners?
Well, you might be one of them.
I probably am as well.
And the reason why is you probably have a pension arrangement of some sort, as do I.
And pension funds are major holders of national debt. In the UK, a bit under 30% of all the UK's national debt is owned by pension companies and life assurance companies. They need it to fund their operations, because the UK government is the only person in the UK who is guaranteed to never go bust and who will always pay their debts in the pounds that the government alone can create. And therefore, pension companies, who make very long-term promises to people like me, who might live a long time on the pension that they've earned, need that assurance to guarantee that they can fulfill the promise that they've made.
And this is true right around the world. In the USA vast quantities of the US national debt is owned by pension funds, and that's true in Europe as well.
So the point is that this money, this national debt, about which the world obsesses as if it's a great burden, is in fact the bedrock of the private sector finance industry.
You would 📍 never imagine this from what is said, but there's something even more important than that, because if it is the bedrock of the private sector finance industry, then it's also the foundation of the private wealth which that industry manages. And the vast majority of the private wealth that is managed by the private sector finance industry is owned by a few per cent of the world's population.
We know that the ownership of wealth around the world as a whole is massively skewed. If there are 8 billion people in the world, maybe 80 million of them might own a significant proportion of the wealth. In other words, there are 1% of the world's population with ownership of most of the world's assets. And if that's true, and if they own these funds through their pension funds and other such arrangements, then the interest paid on this national debt, which might amount to something like 3.2 trillion dollars a year, might equate to something like $40,000 per head for the top 1% of wealth earners around the world.
Now think about that. $40,000 a year in interest being paid to 80 million people, but the other 99% between them have average income of only $13,500 a year.
So the wealthiest are earning potentially three times more per annum in interest then the rest of the world are earning as a result of their labour.
Now, these figures are simplistic. They are extrapolated, and they're bound to be wrong to some degree. I make that very clear. I am working on the basis of simplified assumptions, but I'm doing so to make clear just how great the bias in this system is towards those with wealth.
It may be that the world's wealthy claim government is spending recklessly in piling up debt, which is going to be a burden on future generations and all the other nonsense that you hear right-wing 📍 politicians talk. But the truth is, when the government creates debt, somebody has to own it, and the only people who can own it are the wealthy.
And they get wealthier as a result of that debt being produced. Because, effectively, every time interest is paid on the national debt, their wealth goes up. They tend not to spend it. They, therefore, can pay for more government debt issues. And as a consequence, the ownership of wealth becomes ever more concentrated, and we get a more divided world.
What can we do about this? Well, I suggest there are a number of things we can do.
First of all, there needs to be a concerted effort, the world over, to reduce the interest rate on national debt. It is too high.
Secondly, around the world, we need concerted efforts to make sure that unearned income, which is, of course, what interest is, is taxed more fairly. At present, it tends to be taxed less than earnings from workers, and that is absurd. It should be taxed more, because quite clearly it's unfair to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income.
And thirdly, around the world, we need more progressive tax systems. Why? Because we need to recover more of this money from the wealthy to make sure that governments are not burdened by this cost to the point where they cannot provide the services that people in their countries need. That's a simple, straightforward fact.
But the ownership of this wealth also needs to be democratised, so we need to look at how we might bring it back under public control.
Japan has done this. It is possible. To some extent, this happened during Covid and during the crises after the 2008 financial crash.
Why did that happen then? Because of quantitative easing. And now the UK, in particular, is trying to reverse that through quantitative tightening. The public ownership of this debt, which has provided benefit to Japan, and does, I think, provide benefit in the UK, is being unwound.
We need to bring debt under control.
We need to bring the money supply under control.
We need to bring the benefit of the government being able to create money into the public domain and not into the private domain, which is where it is now.
So that question, who owns the debt? is very simply answered. The world's wealthy people own it, and they win hands down by doing so.
If only we understood that, if only the radio commentators that I heard had understood why it is possible for all the world's countries to be in debt simultaneously, and yet have somebody to own that debt, who are the world's wealthy, then they too would've reached the conclusion that something needs to be done about this.
Now, you know. Now you know what is required.
Go and talk about it.
Go and tell the world that the national debt is not a problem because it is our money supply, but the ownership of our national debt and the fact that the income from it is undertaxed is a problem, and that's what we have to address.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I asked ChatGPT a follow-up question on this, about private debt. Here’s the exchange. I think you’ll be interested. It adds even greater weight to your argument.
Could you have a look at this article by Richard Murphy please? https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/05/05/the-worlds-national-debt-is-great-news-for-the-wealthy-whatever-they-like-to-claim/ What seems to be missing from his analysis is the private debt created by loans to businesses and individuals (significantly, in the form of mortgages)? Could you try to analyse what difference including this form of debt would have on Richard’s findings?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 16 seconds
Here is an analytical assessment of how including private debt (household and non-financial corporate borrowing) alters Richard Murphy’s conclusions about who benefits from global indebtedness.
Summary of Key Findings
Richard Murphy focuses solely on public (national) debt, estimated at ~$100 trillion, and shows that roughly 80 % of it is privately owned—mostly by pension and investment funds—so that the wealthiest 1 % capture a disproportionate share of the $3.2 trillion in annual interest payments, equating to ~$40 000 per wealthy individual per year.
However, private debt (mortgages and business loans) adds roughly $200–220 trillion, more than double the public figure, pushing total global debt to $300–320 trillion. Incorporating this larger private-sector debt stock more than triples the pool of interest income accruing to financial intermediaries—whose ultimate owners are overwhelmingly in the top 1 %—and roughly triples the average interest windfall per wealthy individual. This omission therefore understates the scale of wealth transfers from ordinary taxpayers and wage-earners to the financial elite.
1. Richard Murphy’s Public-Debt Analysis
Magnitude of public debt: Murphy cites ≈$100 trillion of national debt worldwide (mostly 2023–24 data) and ≈$3.2 trillion in annual interest payments.
Ownership breakdown: He shows ≈80 % of that debt is held by private investors (pension, life-assurance, sovereign and institutional funds), of which the top 1 % owns the lion’s share.
Wealth transfer: Dividing $3.2 trillion by an estimated 80 million wealthy individuals yields ≈$40 000 of annual interest income per wealthy person, versus $13 500 average global wage income.
2. Scale of Private Debt
2.1 Global Totals
Institute of International Finance (IIF) reports that global debt (public + private) rose to $318 trillion at end-2024, up $7 trillion in 2024 alone.
IMF Global Debt Monitor shows total debt at 297 % of GDP in 2023, with public debt at 123 % of GDP and private debt at 150 % of GDP (household + non-financial corporate).
2.2 Composition of Private Debt
Household mortgages and loans alone amount to ≈60 % of global GDP (≈$60 trillion in 2023).
Non-financial corporate borrowing adds another ≈90 % of GDP (≈$90 trillion).
Combined, private debt ≈150 % of GDP, or $150 trillion, dwarfs the public debt ≈123 % of GDP (≈$123 trillion).
3. Interest Income on Private Debt
Average global interest rate on private debt is difficult to pin down precisely, but BIS debt-service ratios suggest a flow of 4–6 % of the outstanding stock annually.
Applying ≈5 % to $150 trillion yields ≈$7.5 trillion in annual interest paid by households and corporates to banks, bondholders, and other financial institutions.
Total annual interest across both public and private sectors thus becomes $3.2 trillion + $7.5 trillion ≈ $10.7 trillion.
4. Adjusted Wealth Transfer to the Top 1 %
If we again allocate ≈80 % of this interest income to the wealthy 1 % (via pensions, corporate bond holdings, private credit funds, etc.), that group receives $8.5 trillion per year.
Dividing by 80 million wealthy individuals yields ≈$106 000 each in annual interest income—more than double Murphy’s $40 000 estimate when considering only public debt.
5. Implications for Murphy’s Conclusions
Understated scale of bias: By ignoring private debt, the analysis underestimates both the absolute magnitude of interest income flowing to the wealthy and the ratio of that income to labour-derived incomes.
Greater concentration effect: Private debt markets (mortgages, corporate loans, securitisations) are even more concentrated in the hands of the top tier of investors than sovereign bonds, amplifying the wealth gap.
Policy urgency: Taxing interest income more progressively, regulating private credit markets, and democratizing ownership of both public and private debt become even more critical.
References
Murphy, R. (May 5 2025). The world’s national debt is great news for the wealthy… Tax Research UK
Funding the Future
Institute of International Finance. (Feb 2025). Global Debt Monitor: Return of the Bond Vigilantes
Institute of International Finance
International Monetary Fund. (2024). Global Debt Monitor
International Monetary Fund
Bank for International Settlements. (2025). BIS debt service ratios overview
Bank for International Settlements
Reuters. (Sept 25 2024). Global debt hits record $312 trillion…
Reuters
FT. (Apr 2024). Global corporate borrowing climbs to record $8 trillion…
Financial Times
This extended analysis shows that including private debt more than doubles the interest income captured by the ultra-wealthy (from $40 000 to ≈$106 000 per person), underscoring an even stronger case for progressive taxation and public control of the entire debt-creation mechanism.
Noted
Thanks
I found Pikettys explanation of the economics of Jane Austen, basically how the characters were living off the National Dent fascinating.
What about some kind of ‘two tier’ system where certain holders of Government Stock eg Pension Funds or small savers can get a better deal than the super rich?
Absolutely right
But I think I pointed that out before he did, in a presentation to the World Bank
And I like your idea
I’m getting as good as you
The National Dent
🙂
Hello Richard
Your figures are way off.
The total global external debt for example is estimated (by the IMF) in 2023 to be $250tn (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GDD/2024%20Global%20Debt%20Monitor.pdf).
The UK has a gross external debt sum of over £7.5tn and this figure is published by the ONS (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/zaus/ukea)
You are including all debt
I was looking at government debt
Forgive me, I see that now.
“In Japan, one of the biggest debtor nations in the world, there is almost no overseas ownership of the debt because whilst its debt is massive in proportion to the country’s gross domestic product at well over 200%, which puts it completely out of proportion with any other developed economy, almost all of it is domestically owned, either by the Japanese national government itself or by private individuals”.
The Japan national debt/GDP ratio is 250% (IMF).
The UK national debt/GDP ratio is 100% (IMF).
Our approach to debt in the UK has been allowed to be determined by international money markets, in part because we allow financial markets and the City to lead our expectations of growth in the economy. We are therefore encouraging the development of the problem that is destroying the standard of living of ordinary British people. The reason for that, I believe is because we have ignored the fact that we run endemic trade deficits, which in combination with a money-market dependent economy is lethal cocktail for Britain’s economic stability, especially in an increasingly volatile economic world. The problem is ideological in Neoliberalism, and is therefore self-destructive for Britain.
Japan combined its relative immunity from the worst turmoil in money markets (in which Britain is the paradigm flotsam bounced around in every ripple of uncertainty) with a long-term trade surplus, from an export oriented industrial economy. This trade surplus stability came to an end worldwide with the financial crash in 2008. Japan has more typically been running a deficit since then. The picture is made more complex by Japan’s countervailing big trade surplus with the US (and therefore substantial surplus in the critical US$ dollar currency, which determines so much of world pricing).
Ironically, Neoliberal economics has dismissed the significance of Japan; it is an outlier, and is effectively ignored by economists. This is very like the same blunder made by 19th century physicists, in failing to take sufficient account of the precession of Mercury’s perihelion (first noticed around 1859), in order to preserve the universality of application to all physical phenomena of Newtonian classical physics (until Einstein).
Britain obsesses about its 100% debt/GDP ratio for two reasons. It has designed its economy to fail, and because Neoliberalism is a paradigm Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
A system such as this has no right to exist as far as I am concerned.
Its the personal sovereignty of a few over the sovereignty of democracy.
I don’t mind people having more than me; it’s how they get it and what they do with it that bothers me.
And if they have got rich in a way that makes me poorer, I’m not having it.
The balance between the individual and the collective has been upset, and the money supply – who benefits most from it – has been the Trojan Horse that has done this. I think that much the same could be said about the tax system.
Of course the discourse is about other stuff, immigration, streams of need competing for resources, Europe, laws and borders, so your exhortation to get us to talk about debt rentierism is spot on.
An excellent article, very clear for those like me without an economics background. My summary so I can have a simple conversation on this:
Every debt is a credit on someone else’s balance sheet, and the very wealthy are the beneficiaries of government debt. Government debt is the foundation private wealth (finance industry) is built on. The lion’s share of interest on national debts goes to the wealthiest 1%.
Governments are paying too much interest, our government can pay less.
Fairer and more progressive taxation is needed a) to reduce inequality (both income gap and affordability of assets such as housing) b) to reduce the burden on government, so that it can do more to care for citizens and build a sustainable future.
Questions I might ask people to consider – is it fair that work is taxed more than wealth? How is money best ‘put to work’ , making 1% of people richer, or ensuring children and adults suffer neither hunger nor cold, and building the infrastructure we need to cope with climate change?
I’m fairly introvert and not good at thinking on my feet, but I can see that even I have to talk to people. I may not meet many readers of your blog as I walk to the shops, but they need to learn as I have that there is hope and practical solutions. As Gary Stevenson says, ask your mum, ask your neighbours… I left notes on the village notice board when I moved directing people to your YouTube content and his. I hope they survived a few days.
Good luck with your book and thank you again for your analytical and educational output.
Thanks
Appreciated
I think that we also need to be mindful about private equity. It seems to be nothing short of a scam. See:
“How Private Equity Plundered The American Economy” (2022)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PLEZiSZVw
Despite the title, it applies to the UK too. Labour has pledged to climb into bed with private equity companies to “rebuild Britain”.
“Labour is putting its plans for Britain in the hands of private finance. It could end badly” (2024)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/02/labour-plans-britain-private-finance-blackrock
Sorry to post again but did you get around to reading Richard Vague’s ‘The Paradox of Debt: A New Path to Prosperity Without Crises (2023)?
I think his conclusions may indeed align with yours, the book is centred on America a great deal. He does however spend a lot of time analysing the debts, but then offers suggestions towards the end.
Overall, he see’s private debt as the problem; debt’s paradox is it’s use for growth but it is inherent instability is a problem and effectively dismisses state money production as inflationary. And he advocates the production of state ‘non-debt money’ ( he calls it ‘perpetual money’). However, he does not link this to tax – as I think you would.
The thing is, Vague’s book is far from orthodox, certainly heterodox and its worth a read as heterodox you certainly are. Steve Keen seems to be a fan.
I have it but have never read it, bar the intro chapter
I must try harder….
Be assured that I’m not expecting you to ‘try harder’.
You have spoken a lot recently about new ideas so I just thought I’d ask because the Vague ends on a very open note about what could happen next and this openness might prompt something. He does seem rather pro-government and seems interested in new concepts of state financial intervention which go beyond being called debt in the traditional sense and which would avoid the trap set up by Neo-liberals to connate the state with failure and waste (again he does not see state involvement as causing inflation as just a knee jerk reaction like the Neo-libs do).
I think Vague is pushing at new concepts, new narratives which more technically gifted and informed people here might make more out of. And why? Money is an illusive subject matter, as much a part of our imagination as it is a part of the economy. As you yourself have often said, there is a distinct lack of imagination, currently. And who is to say the current narrative is the only and best one? Well we know who they are don’t we?
That’s the only reason why I have mentioned Vague’s book.
Thanks
It’s been a knackering, and very good day.
I think there’s been a similar sounding set of proposals and associated campaigns (for non-debt based government created money) running in the UK for some time, mainly fired off with this paper published by the New Economics Foundation (https://neweconomics.org/2000/05/creating-new-money), I think in 2010, and then the subsequent “Positive Money” movement (see for example: https://positivemoney.org/uk/archive/our-new-book-modernising-money-is-out-now/ or more recently: https://positivemoney.org/uk/archive/sovereign-money-introduction/).
Sadly, though, none of these proposals seem to have had much impact.
Thank goodness for that
Those by Positive Money are most definitely very profoundly harmful. I have writtemn many times on this.
Looking at the US debt is interesting.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-heres-who-owns-u-s-debt/
I assume this is government debt (the total seems correct).
What is interesting here is that, apparently only about 3% seems to be owned by pension funds.
Most of it appears to be owed by one part of the US government to another. 20% is intragovernmental debt. Another 15% is owed by the Federal Reserve system. And 5% by State and local governments. That’s 40% owed by US government to itself, confirming your argument that it is the currency needed by the economy to work.
That still leaves 17% owed by US savers who will be doing very nicely.
Thanks
A lot is owned by the social security fund a pension arrangement
Another interesting web page is:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/102-trillion-of-global-debt-in-2024/
Very good
Excellent article which I’m sharing with friends and family. Essentially it boils down to Sectoral Balances on a Global Scale: if the government has a negative balance, all the other sectors in aggregate must have the same balance, but positive. While the total economy is constantly changing, at any given time it holds good. It’s a fairly simple concept for people who have no knowledge of economics to understand. Even BBC presenters and MPs might understand it!
Thanks
Enlightening and entirely correct. Time to do the thing Thomas Piketty and a hundred other economists, MEPs and other campaigners once urged the ECB to do. Don’t attempt to pay back all the public debts purchased by central banks via QE. Certainly stop QT. More explanation (if anyone reading this here actually needs it!), including sources, here: https://gezwinstanley.wordpress.com/2024/10/28/infrequently-asked-questions-about-quantitative-tightening-that-you-were-never-even-meant-to-ask/
A couple of thoughts from my own personal finance perspective. I’ve no idea of the aggregate numbers, but in the UK a lot of people like myself keep a lot of their savings in National Savings products of one sort of another, including Premium Bonds which pay out a competitive underlying rate tax free on up to 50k per investor. The Government is also paying out very large sums in unfunded Civil Service Pensions like mine. I haven’t really thought this through but is that a cost on debt which is off balance sheet? Yes I do know how lucky I am.
It is on the consolidated balance sheet.
The Bank of Japan is much more inclined to intervene in the bond market, where neoliberal ideology means most central banks are reluctant to wade in, the BoJ has few such qualms, Generally The BoJ controls its bond market, it doesn’t allow the bond market to control Japan.
Agreed
I’m struggling a bit. I understand why we need a bond market for pension funds and for foreign central banks and international corporations to hold sterling, but I really can’t see why we need a bond market and to pay interest to the other 80% when we have the BoE that can control the money supply directly
You rather misunderstdand the point. They are the 80%. About 1% are owned by individuals in their own names. The wealthy own and control the pension funds and the international coororations.
Thanks. I re-read the script of the video. I get it now
Thank you Richard. Great video!
As an MMTer myself, I have two questions [I would be happen with references if you have them].
(i) At the 9:43 min mark you say that the debt needs to be brought under control for the government not to be burdened by it. But why is the government burdened by the debt when it can always pay its bills?
(ii) At the 9:50 min mark you say that the ownership of this wealth needs to be democratised. I would like to know how Q.E. (which has gained a terrible reputation) can be used to bring the public debt back into public ownership. During Q.E. the Central Bank buys bonds and other assets in the open market and in so doing creates bank reserves.? But how does this help?
I do not get your first question. Govermnment can always pay its bills, for sure, but that does not mean interest is not a cost and that the allocation of resources against priorities is not an issue. I suspect you have not understood MMT if you think otherwise.
And at 9.50 I mentioned QE as a an example, to illustrate the idea without necesasrily saying that is the only option. As I have made clear, time and again, there are also other, better options, but I was seekinmg to avoid going through them all agaim.
Thank you.
(i) I agree with your response to my first point.
(ii) Bringing the debt under public control is new to me. I need to chase up your other approaches.
Thanks
Thanks for this – much needed. But just to clarify:
Re:
” . . . we need concerted efforts to make sure that unearned income, which is, of course, what interest is, is taxed more fairly. At present, it tends to be taxed less than earnings from workers, and that is absurd. It should be taxed more, because quite clearly it’s unfair to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income.”
So are you saying it should be taxed at the same rate as earned income or at a higher rate? The former would be an improvement of course, but the latter is surely warranted in terms of economic justice? Or would the latter have negative unintended consequences?
As much, including NIC, would be very good. That NIC point is key.
Sadly, the broad community comprehension of the realities of money hasn’t advanced in the last 100 years, as will be made clear from Fred Soddy’s Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (1925) https://ia800208.us.archive.org/20/items/soddy-f.-wealth-virtual-wealth-and-debt-1925/SODDY%28F.%29-Wealth_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt_%281925%29.pdf.
The temerity of a scientist, lawyer and polymath to tell economists of the day that their thinking on the subject was flawed. He suffered the expected pile-on for his revelations, as I understand it. So nothing changes.
The conspiracy theories in the book have not aged well.
Hard to recommend, evn if some of the insights are relevant.
I’m sure the technicalities of issuing a non-debt based fiat currency would be complex, and that the success or failure of any such scheme would very much depend on those details. It’ll be even more complex when such a form of money is created as a modification of existing arrangements rather than from a “blank slate” too. Very likely, the full “unintended consequences” of any such scheme would be impossible to anticipate a priori, and some form of testing/piloting/experimentation would be necessary to tease those out, as well as careful monitoring and possible further tuning during rollout. Nor does the idea of non-debt based money easily fit into the framework of MMT or a “balance sheet” model where everything ends up summing to zero, but really that’s by the by.
However, though borrowing will often be unavoidable, there are many disadvantages to debt, just as, in fact, you’ve explained above. Debt creates imbalances in power, tends to make the richer even richer through the payment of interest, and so causes inequality to spiral, and can also lead to instability. Non-debt based government issued fiat currency, backed by said government mandating it as legal tender (so having real value and not value based on consensual delusion like private crypto), cuts through the Gordian Knot of all the concerns you correctly raise, and therefore does seem like an idea worth pursuing, at least in the medium or long term.
There is no such thing as a non-debt based fiat currency. They are as impossible as unicorn’s horns.