Why don't construction prices go down?

Who receives these interests?

International investors, banks, insurance companies, funds, private investors, etc.
They are mostly highly liquid and tradable federal bonds, federal notes, treasury bills, and the like.

These are mostly bullet loans, while new loans are taken out every year. That is why they are usually revolved. The concept of repayment from a private perspective only applies to a limited extent here.

Bullet loans at 0.5% interest are replaced by bullet loans at 3.5% interest. Bullet loans as with most funds or housing companies as well.
It’s just shitty when you increase total debt (not only nominally but also relative to the economic output of a country) and then also have to pay rising interest on it. That’s why debt is often considered bad – but not always.

If that is a problem, then why didn’t, for example, Schäuble replace old, expensive debts with new, cheap long-term debts to the maximum extent possible during the absolute low-interest phase? He didn’t do it because new borrowing is always seen as very bad. The rest of the world also did not understand this about Germany.

Good question, next question. But Germans financed themselves significantly better in the medium term (with the 30-year bonds with partly negative interest rates).
For example, on one billion euros (actually more was refinanced), Germany saves about 600 million euros in interest over time compared to Austria.
NRW, for example, has also issued 100-year bonds.
But that doesn’t relate to the question of debt, it’s a different topic.

Let’s get to my first question: Could the following generation also own the debt securities, thus also receive the interest payments? At least partly? This is never talked about, even though the interest payments and the repayment don’t just disappear into the void. But that’s how it’s acted…

Huh? I wrote who buys the securities. The next generation doesn’t benefit from that, except paying taxes so the state can afford its interest payments.

What Chand says.

Otherwise:
Condemning Greece to an absolute austerity course, by the way, dealt the economy there the final blow because it strangled domestic demand. This is one of the main reasons why Germans as tourists are not as welcome there as they used to be.

There is certainly a limit to debt that is still "healthy" for a national economy, but it is not measured by some hard number (60%) or other KPIs that someone simply set (but e.g. by the utilization rate of production resources).
The best example is Japan, which has operated with an immense debt ratio (compared to Germany) for decades without inflation or interest rates getting out of control.

I recommend the book again:
Gutes Geld: Wege zu einer gerechten und nachhaltigen Gesellschaft
by Philippa Sigl-Glöckner

She examines the entire European and German debt rules and how they came about.
Afterward, it is unfortunately even more absurd why almost all politicians and even some economic "experts" want to stick to the rules.

Condemning Greece to an absolute austerity course, by the way, dealt the economy there the final blow, as it strangled domestic demand. That is one of the main reasons why Germans are no longer quite as welcome there as tourists as they used to be.

From a current article...
"Greece remains on a steady growth path. While in some EU countries the economy has already stagnated or even shrunk for the second year, Greek gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.3 percent in the second quarter. It thus grew almost four times as fast as the economic output of the EU countries on average. That increased by 0.6 percent. For the whole year 2024, the Greek government expects growth of 2.2 percent. In contrast, the EU Commission projects only 0.8 percent on average for the 27 member states this year.

In Hellas, on the other hand, things continue to improve. A recession is not in sight. For the next two years, the Greek government anticipates growth rates of 2.3 and two percent,

The economy in the first half of the year was mainly driven by tourism and investment. The latter speaks for the soundness of the upswing. Another factor is the need to catch up after the era of the sovereign debt crisis of the 2010s."

Yes, the debt crisis really hurt Greece. But it hurts anyone who is over-indebted. It is no different for a country than for a company or an individual. Insolvency is no birthday party.
But the result that has emerged from this (correct economic action and only spending the money one has or taking on debt that one can also finance) speaks for prudent budgeting. Whether and how a debt brake must exist, one can discuss.
But doing everything on credit and especially thinking as a state that one can do it better (Nortvolt, Intel, Thyssen etc.) has always been a fallacy.

Banks, insurance companies, funds, private investors

and the interest is then gone because they cash it out as cash and then burn it? @Greece: This means you are back to pre-crisis levels = catching-up needed, just as the quote says. And besides, you achieve this with investments. And yet the debt ratio is top in the EU. At the same time, the cost of living and housing shortage have risen immensely, but pensions and wages have not (after they were previously cut). Tens of thousands of people are taking to the streets; there is talk of a general strike. All this is a large redistribution project from bottom to top. And who else benefits? - The right-wing parties.

When investing in the future, debt is good. Germany and other countries in Europe have taken on debt but did not invest the money in the future... otherwise, we would not have the current problems...

When you invest in the future, debt is good.

I find this a very good expression, especially much better than what is often circulated: investment vs. consumption. Because there are expenses that are household-wise consumption (salaries for teachers and educators, for example), but still would be an investment in the future. The most wonderful and modern schools are useless if there are no teachers in them.