This is an article by the partisan Noble prize economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
It points out that debt itself is not neccessarily a problem, nor does America have an economic problem by foreign debt holders because Americans receive higher interests for the money they lend than for the money they borrow.
To make the point quick to understand, under current conditions, the USA could borrow money in China, lend it to another state (for example a EU member) and would make a profit.
The current debt level is even rather irrelevant if the right economic policy is pursued because if you look at WWII you can see how the US made a GDP growth while not actually paying back the war debt, but creating money to make it irrelevant.
So if you look for example at the US debt in Chinese hands, how does that compare to the Fed's share of US debt and ability to acquire more of that debt.
So other than the debt issue, that is often associated with failling US hegemony, and the Chinese US debt stakeholding, associated with the rising power of a new peer competitor, the whole financial interdependence could be overstated as well as the mutual interdependence.
In a way the PR China issue, pushed as a military aggressive competitor serves as a very strange rationale for an enormous military budget and accustomes people to the idea of a clash.
I have doubts that the US is economically as weak as often presented because the article is quite right that state debt is a different animal from private debt.
