In South Africa, with upward mobility much aspired to but seldom attained, householders must spend money they have not yet earned. Borrowing both from formal institutions and smaller moneylenders (legal and illegal) positions them uneasily: in order to fulfill social requirements in one register, they acquire intensified obligations in another. Moneylending and money borrowing, owing much to the legacies of "credit apartheid," involve an uneven mix. Embeddedness and community connection enable flexibility, juggling, and temporary escape from repayment obligations on the one hand, but systems of repayment and ever-newer technologies enable creditors to pursue debtors with inexorable swiftness on the other. Given that credit postapartheid has an increasingly formal, uniform, and financialized character, the second of these-which makes debtors get "deeper into a hole"-is becoming a predominant way of experiencing and representing the situation. The phrase, with its suggestion of entrapment, captures an important aspect of the deeply ambivalent feelings that borrowers experience in the face of debt.The three elements of this special issue of Current Anthropology-crisis, value, and hope-are inextricably combined in the phenomenon that is the topic of this paper, that is, debt. In South Africa, the moment of democracy coincided with the extension of credit to many who were formerly unable to borrow. It held out the promise and expectation of inclusion to people formerly denied it. As elsewhere in the world but here beginning in a more precipitous manner, the supply of and demand for credit interacted in a complex relationship to facilitate the rapid growth of a new middle class as well as promise the fulfilment of aspiration to a far larger group of people (Servet and Saiag 2013). As prospective consumers enthusiastically embraced the possibility of borrowing in order to secure highly valued things, opportunities, and relationships, credit also started being "sold"-as happened elsewhere (see Villarreal 2014)-to prospective takers as necessary or inevitable, drawing yet further numbers into the net. Such credit was being used not simply for materialist consumerism but to satisfy the desire for what was felt necessary for a good life. When the lure of credit turned into unpayable debt, many of those initially offered hopes of advance-aspiring to possess those things formerly reserved for people wealthier than themselves-were threatened with further marginalization. Fearful of the unsustainable and crisislike character of the situation, policy makers and analysts,