The author is correct. Growth is typically just a debt-fueled spending binge. The cancer is actually the fiat, soft money that’s improperly aligning incentives in the economy.
What a conclusion. Debt and borrowing exist in hard money environments too. Debt is as old as time.
Low interest rates reduce the threshold for what could be considered a successful business from a macroeconomic perspective, though, and can lead to misallocation of capital. Nothing to do with fiat.
Potential growth and the ability to pay back dept is the foundation for receiving money.
What the author ignores is that it is a race. There are many opportunities but not all will be successful. Failed investments transfer the money from those who made wrong predictions to those who made successful ones. This creates sustained progress because those who are good at predicting the future have the most influence.