The point of analogy is that it's very different from the actual issue. In fact, an analogy will always be different from the real situation, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the thing in itself.
There is nothing contradictory in using an analogy to illustrate a specific point (in this case, how a lender may be hesitant to lend something to a borrower even if the borrower acted unwisely with a small part of the money that was lent to them), and pointing out that the analogy is not the same as the actual situation.
Yes, I'm aware of all that. But when you pick an analogy, you should pick one that helps your case, not where the central dynamics are opposite from or incomparable to the dynamic you're trying to illustrate.
If you don't believe that loaning to a human is analogous to loaning to a country, you really shouldn't be the one introducing it as an analogy!
The purpose of an analogy is to more clearly convey a dynamic, not muddle understanding by reference to a case with the opposite implications.
In the likely event that it still isn't clear what's wrong with ak_111's points, let's review.
"People are obviously going to be reluctant to lend to <country> because <country> is behaving like a human who spent his money frivolously after borrowing your money again. Because you would not continue to lend to that human, you can see why others would not lend to <country>."
"Okay, you misunderstood my analogy. You can't conclude anything about countries based on how you would handle a human. The situations are completely unrelated, to the point that it is impossible to reason about one from knowledge of the other."
Am I the one who doesn't understand analogies, or is ak_111?
There is nothing contradictory in using an analogy to illustrate a specific point (in this case, how a lender may be hesitant to lend something to a borrower even if the borrower acted unwisely with a small part of the money that was lent to them), and pointing out that the analogy is not the same as the actual situation.