Talk:Government debt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename?[edit]

"Public debt" has a serious potential for confusion. When one says "the public debt" then this does mean "the debt of the government, as does the term "government debt". But "public debt" does not mean "debt of the public" - the public pays for it but the debt is not collectable from the public. To avoid confusion I suggest this article be renamed government debt. Paul Beardsell 08:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"public debt" is not collectable from the public? If that were true, nobody would lend to government. It is government's power of taxation of the public which guarantees repayment. That power of course is limited by both capacity and willingness to pay, which is why we do sometimes see government debt crises and defaults - which resemble bankruptcy, though without the formal legal protection from creditors that implies. Rd232 17:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, the article begins "public debt is money owed by government". It doesn't make any sense to call it public debt then. It should say "public debt is money owed by the public" then. I'll move it to government debt for now. - Jerryseinfeld 17:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It IS owed by the public. No-one's paying the US government debt but you or your children. The fact that a US government creditor can't approach US citizens individually is irrelevant, because his lending in the first place is predicated on trust that the government will recover the debt from citizens. Rd232 17:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is NOT owed by the public. Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. Then federal government creates money by spending. Federal debt involves the creation of Treasury securities out of thin air, then exchanging these securities for dollars previously created. The public is not involved in the original creation, nor is it necessarily involved in the exchange. The notion that your children and grandchildren owe the debt is a myth unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The author clearly does not understand Monetary Sovereignty, the basis for all modern economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.146.17 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerryseinfeld, moving a page from the most common term (public ownership) to one you think appropriate (government ownership), against disagreement by others (see Talk:public ownership, which for some reason you didn't move) is very rude. You also managed to garble the perfectly adequate intro, and add vague, confusing and POV stuff. I'm on the verge of conidering this a dispute - please explain yourself. Rd232 11:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I did explain myself in the talk page. You can probably move it to public ownership if you want to, it could be either one. - Jerryseinfeld 17:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Public debt isn't government debt? Now come on. - Jerryseinfeld 17:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I said nothing of the kind. I remarked that you were being inconsistent in your renaming of articles. But, as it happens, I do NOT think that public debt and government debt are entirely the same. Two different flavours are given with the two different terms. There is a certain political positioning happening when one refers to govt debt as public debt. But my main objection is that government debt is unambiguous, whereas "public debt" requires one to be aware of and accept the use of public in that sense - there is an ambiguity: "Public" debt could be misunderstood as, say, the aggregated credit card debts of the individuals forming the public. You have been introducing ambiguity and inconsistency. Without always the PRIOR consultation which would avoid you annoying people. Paul Beardsell 20:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Which I tried to move back (but can't), because "public debt" beats "government debt" 2:1 in Google and rather more in conventional usage, and Wikipedia convention is to use the most common term. As for Paul Beardsell's argument - the correct term would be consumer debt. If there is any serious risk of confusion then the public debt page can include a For debts owed by individuals, see consumer debt at the top. Rd232 12:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Public" debt could be misunderstood as, say, the aggregated credit card debts of the individuals forming the public. Many things COULD be misunderstood by the ignorant; Wikipedia's job is to enlighten them, not to correct common usage. Rd232 17:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said: they would be mistaken to use "public debt" like that in my example but the mistake is likely to be made. I disagree about conventional usage. I think most people would say "hey, what?" to "public debt" whereas "government debt" would be instantly understood. The Google statistic you quote I find unimpressive: There are twice as many pages returned for public than for government. So twice as many pages for "public debt" (note the quotes) as for "government debt" says little or nothing. The Wikipedia conventions say a little more than you let on: ambiguity is to be avoided and understandability is to be promoted. Paul Beardsell 14:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misinterpret the Google statistic, which was based on the "public debt" and "government debt" as phrases, not public+debt. Given that, the former clearly dominates. Not only is it the standard, but the term is also perfectly understandable, if people read the actual article. Rd232 17:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just give up will you? - Jerryseinfeld 17:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The astuteness of your arguments never ceases to amaze. Rd232 17:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I said "note the quotes": My search was for the exact phrases not for the individual words appearing unconnected in the Google results. I repeat: I think most people would say "hey, what?" to "public debt" whereas "government debt" would be instantly understood. The Google statistic you quote I find unimpressive: There are twice as many pages returned for public than for government. So twice as many pages for "public debt" (note the quotes) as for "government debt" says little or nothing. The Wikipedia conventions say a little more than you let on: ambiguity is to be avoided and understandability is to be promoted. Paul Beardsell 21:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rewrite / deletion of section: Denominated in U.S. dollars[edit]

This section needs drastic improvement. There is some truth but there is mostly disinformation. I am not suggesting that the text has been contributed in bad faith, just that it is wrong

Main article: U.S. government debt
This section is largely incorrect and should not be relied upon.
Today, public debt is often denominated in U.S. dollars. The U.S. Federal Reserve sells its long bond, a 30-year instrument (though in recent years only a 10 year bond has been sold), directly to central banks of other countries, who then often find it convenient to lend in U.S. dollars to others, or buy their bonds using those U.S. dollars.
This standard of deferred payment effectively insulates the U.S. from foreign exchange risk. Seeking similar advantages, the EU issues the Euro's bonds and competes as what is called a reserve currency — that currency which is most acceptable to pay off public debts, taxes, or purchase what can be sold quickly.
Countries that borrow in denominations of their own currency will gain very similar advantages, however, since purchasing power of the money repaid (as measured in U.S. dollars or Euros) may vary considerably from that which was expected at the commencement of the loan, a higher interest rate is always charged for such instruments. Some countries, like China, do not allow their currency (the renminbi) to trade outside the country or on currency markets. These must always use one of the global reserve currencies.
During the gold standard period, which began in the 19th century and ended as an international system in 1933, public debt was most often repaid strictly in gold bullion.
The Bank for International Settlements is an entity that sets rules to define what loans qualify as "risk free" or not. It is a very powerful institution, which has had a pivotal position in central banking since its opening in 1947. It was formed by the Bretton Woods agreements of 1944, which in the context of World War II, specified the U.S. dollar as the universal global reserve currency, and pegged the dollar to a fixed amount in gold. While this ability to redeem dollars in gold legally ceased in 1970, it was effectively a fiction for decades.

Paul Beardsell 08:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elaborate on 'burden of the government...' paragraph[edit]

Could you please elaborate, via another link or any other means, as to how inflation / change in monetary base helps government to pay the bills? or please kindly point me in the right direction. Many thanks. Fabrice Berge, Tokyo, 25 march 2006

Quote: "Remember that the "burden" of the government is what it spends, since it can only pay its bills through taxes, debt, and inflation of the currency (government spending = tax revenues + change in government debt held by public + change in monetary base held by the public). "


I have a question: how do you make your own post? what i been doing was pressing the edit button but that didnt make my own post?

Implicit debt section[edit]

-I rewrote the line that said "This insurance system is called PAYGO as opposed to save and invest". I think that sentence was pretty non-controversially politically loaded. It presents a false dilemma as if the only two alternatives were a PAYGO system (which is bad given the tone of this section) and the "save and invest" system (which is good, again, given the tone of the article). I rephrased the section so that it said that the American system is a PAYGO system and that one alternative system could have been a 'save and invest' system. While I still think this section is poorly written, politically loaded, and probably should be fact checked, this particular sentence is, at the very least, no longer presenting a false dilemma, so there's no obvious logical fallacy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.222.187 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- The US Social Security System has always (80 years) been funded by the Social Security Trust Fund. That is fully described in the Wikipedia article by that name, so we should simply point the reader to that article. I have not made that edit, but I reserve the right to do so if this is not addressed in some fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.132.80 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article really needs to be rewritten. The tone is completely out of place with the rest of the article --142.242.2.248 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section should also include how Central banks use government debt to create fiat national debt money like the Federal Reserve Note. This section should describe how governments cannot get out of debt b/c it is the backing of their nations money. IOW, if the government debt was eliminated there would be no money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.148.98 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I came to this page from a link in the following sentence "When the idea and reality of the National Debt came about during the 18th century this was also managed by the bank." on the page Bank of England. If anyone with the relevant knowledge could add something here about the history of National debts - in particular in the sense mentioned in the quote - I think that it woould be very interesting and relevant here. Regards. Thehalfone (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


-Risk Free- Government bonds are NOT risk free. One can argue that they carry zero default risk, however they undeniably carry interest rate risk. It is a fixed income instrument, however the price, or value of the bond does in fact change. This is empirically true through change in prices of government issued bonds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.51.163 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if held to maturity they are in effect risk free, unless the government concerned defaults on its debts (a rare event in recent years). On the other hand, if the bond is in dollars (or whatever) the real value of the dollars you get back may be reduced by inflation, or currency movements. Exile (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debt as a % of GDP in the Americas[edit]

That graphic is completely outdated; anyone got anything newer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbunt05 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's debt as a % of GDP is lower than the United States'. The graphic needs to be changed to reflect this reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the graphic is completely off, according to United States public debt article the US debt "was approximately 96.5% of 2010's fiscal year-end annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.5 trillion, with the "Debt held by the Public" at approximately 64.5% of GDP ($9.39 Trillion) and "Intragovernmental holdings" standing at 32.0% of GDP ($4.63 Trillion).". So the graphic is accurate if you are talking about only the "Debt held by the public" but why should the graphic show only that and ignore the government debt? Frederickhoyles (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)For accuracy in comparisons. The "U. S. national debt held by the public" is the same as the "national debt" in probably all other countries, which do not count borrowings from such funds as Social Security. 70.233.132.234 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I just went and chopped out more than half of the external links, per WP:NOT and WP:EL. We want only the best, highest quality, most pertinent links in our articles. I cut out some duplicate articles, and some articles that gave the same information in different formats. I tried to get only 1 per country, with a few extra for the U.S. If someone else wants to cut more of the U.S., feel free--the U.S. does have it's own article (United States public debt), so that would be a better place for more U.S. links. By the same logic, I combined the U.S. section with the rest of the world. When I had the choice, I preferred government sources of non-governmental sources. I removed all news articles, as those should be either used as references or not included (so feel free to cite them somewhere in the text and include them, assuming they meet the rules for reliable sources. Finally, I removed the tag, as I think the current list meets policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this intentionally visible?[edit]

The first line of this article:

"< / no include > Government debt (also known as public debt, national debt)..."

Is the bolded text (above) intentionally visible?69.225.121.96 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scale[edit]

The debt-to-GDP ratios in the graphic in the Scale section show US, Japanese and German public debt as a percentage of GDP. The US debt shown in this figure, at 180% in 2008, is inconsistent with the graphic shown in the Wikipedia page on US Debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_debt) which looks to be ~50% in 2008 and is only ~60% in 2010. Even if you actually meant gross debt rather than public debt, by 2010 that's almost 100% on the US debt graphic so the numbers are in apparent disagreement.

Also this graphic seems inconsistent with the 2010 figures listed in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt), where US debt is listed at 62% or 92% using CIA or IMF stats respectively. US debt has been going up not down so implausible that 2008 stats shown in this graph are accurate as they indicate a 2-3-fold decrease in debt in 2 years. This graphic seems incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinevere12345 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear definition - "Government debt" - "Sovereign debt"[edit]

Currently it reads:

"Government debt" is money owed by a central government.

"Sovereign debt" is debt owed by a government that is issued in bonds with a foreign currency.

I think it is hard for the reader to understand this classification. I am also not sure if this is true as the definition does not seem to be consistent. What about debt in national currency that is not owed by central government? What about debt of central government that is owed in a foreign currency? --Sustainlogic (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What source says that "sovereign debt" = debt owed by a government that is issued in bonds with a foreign currency? I'd argue that "sovereign debt" is any debt owed by a sovereign regardless of currency denomination. For example, the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign_debt_crisis) is a "sovereign debt" crisis even though the bulk of the debt owed by the distressed member states is denominated in their domestic currency, the euro. --TuukkaS (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't believe this 'foreign currency' text either so, after having found a reliable source that says that GD and SD are synonymous, I am about to delete that nonsense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with section subtitled "Structure"[edit]

This section is poorly written and reads biased against Keynesianism (the second paragraph especially, there is no point in the uncited discussion about war spending). It would be nice if there were different sections detailing different economic schools opinions. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge or credentials to correct it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.61 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

colored plots for public debt/gdp contradicting each other[edit]

I think that there are contradictions in the 3 figures "Public debt as a percent of GDP, evolution for USA, Japan and the main EU economies." "Public debt as a percent of GDP (2010)" "Public debt as a percent of GDP (2011)" The color/value presented vor the US varies between 60% and 100% and I cant imagine that this has happened within one year. I guess they are using differnt "sources", definitions or interpretations. This should be clarified (e.g. that CIA thinks US has less debts than others think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.211.61 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can a soveiregn nation be in debt to a bank?[edit]

If a nation gave the bank the right to operate under fractional reserve rules first then how can that bank then turn around and claim the nation owes it anything? If it had nothing to lend in the first place it is owed nothing in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.100.90 (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical treatment of the debt/GDP[edit]

I suspect that this section is incomprehensible to 99% of Wikipedia readers and that placing it as section 1 will probably discourage most of them from reading past the introduction. A pity because this topic is of such crucial importance.

In my judgement it would be more appropriate as a separate page referred to in the “See also section”. But at the very least it should be moved to the end – between “Implicit Debt” and “See also”, and probably renamed “Mathematical Appendix”.

At the same time, I would make the section “Public debt and economic growth” into a sub-section.

If there is agreement I would be happy to do the edit.

If you agree would you please indicate whether you think it should be a separate page.

Golux (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not encyclopedically written or integrated into the other material, so of obscure relevance and reads like a possible copyvio. So I removed it.John Z (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Detected[edit]

On 5 September 2013, 199.242.0.29 vandalized the "By Country" numbers for India. 11:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.196.253 (talk)

Government debt - by country[edit]

In the section "by country", national gross debts and national net debts are mixed together, this leads to an incoherent presentation of data. Even though it is specified that the US debt figure showed in the table excludes intra-governmental debt etc., the table is not clear as for other countries the debt shown is the gross debt (e.g. Japan, Italy, Germany, France) and not the lower net debt. The section should make this distinction clear in the introduction, and also it should be specified that the 60% debt to GDP ratio required for entering the EU refers to the gross debt. BRG~itwiki (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cecchetti's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Cecchetti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


1) Governments obtain revenue from taxation. This should be mentioned at the beginning.

2) The Bank of England is not the first central bank, the Riksbank is. The motivation of the Swedes was somewhat different, but it is worth being more accurate here. 3) Greek debt is not “held” by Greece. It is “issued” by Greece. The statement that the return to the drachma is a solution to the Greek debt crisis is not accurate. The only solution is some form of default. 4) Data in the table appears to be for gross public debt. It includes debt held by the central bank, as well as debt issued by one government agency and held by another. I find these very misleading. For the US, for example, the number should be reduced by the $2.5 trillion holdings of the Federal Reserve. For Japan, net debt is closer to 150% of GDP than 215%. 5) I have no idea what is meant by the term “public debt clearing standards”. 6) Are local government debts really “usually guaranteed by regional or national level governments” ? I don’t know of evidence to this effect. 7) The question of whether public debt is private wealth is not as clear-cut as the piece suggests. This part of the entry if focused on the thinking of Keynes from the 1920s and 1930s. By ignoring the literature on what is known as “Ricardian equivalence” that began with Barro in the 1970s, this part of the entry quite misleading.

8) The piece misses the fact that government debt creates intergenerational transfers.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cecchetti has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Stephen Cecchetti & Madhusudan Mohanty & Fabrizio Zampolli, 2011. "The real effects of debt," BIS Working Papers 352, Bank for International Settlements.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Government debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Government debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Canegrati's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Canegrati has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


There are many mistakes in the definitions. For example, the government debt is the "amount of total liabilities of the central government,...". Monetization of the debt is not an alternative to the debt financing but a way to monetize the debt. A government bond is not a bond (taugology) but a financial security. This page completely neglets to explain the Ricardian equivalence and Barro's "Are Government bonds net wealth?" paper. Furthermore, something about the Domar's model (1944) with the distinction between the steady deficit case and the steady primary deficit case, the sustainibility rule of public debt and recent papers by Reinhart and Rogoff could complete the theoretical background this page still needs.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Canegrati has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Canegrati, Emanuele, 2007. "On redistribution effects of public debt amongst single-minded generations," MPRA Paper 2254, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kempf's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Kempf has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article is imprecise and inaccurate. The Bank of England is not the first central bank, it is the bank of Sweden. The History section is too much centered on the B of England. The theoretical treatment is insufficient. There are repetitions (eg. on default and risk). The developments on Bretton Woods are unnecessary, or at least too long. The relation with monetary policy is missing.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kempf has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Cooper, R. & Kempf, H. & Peled, D., 2010. "Insulation impossible: monetary policy and regional fiscal spillovers in a federation," Working papers 293, Banque de France.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is government debt and national debt the same thing?[edit]

According to some sources, it seems that national debt is government plus private debt. --JamesPoulson (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a very good question. Private debt is certainly real debt, but 'government debt' is often a misnomer. A lot needs to be untangled. When the term 'government debt' is commonly used it is based upon the idea that government has borrowed money; something which only holds if the government isn't the issuer of the primary currency it uses. It is also used to describe the mechanism of treasury bond sales (or repurchases in reverse), though for sovereign issuer governments this has nothing to do with borrowing. The sale of 'debt' in that latter way is merely the removal of excess reserves (created by normal deficits) in the reserve accounts the commercial banks have with the central bank. Shifting them instead to an interest-earning asset (a bond). In some countries the central bank/government pays interest on excess reserves, but some don't and even when it is paid it is often less than what can be be gained with a bond asset.
The 'debt' in this sense is the small interest liability government pays on these bond assets. The amount of money totalling the bonds themselves is not 'debt'. This interest payment is not something a currency issuing government will 'default' on, it is always met. Compare this with a country which isn't in a position of currency sovereignty: Greece for example after joining the Euro. We saw that it not only couldn't meet those interest payments, but also had to issue bonds with massive interest rates because they carried a default risk.
'National debt' is a sort of bogeyman idea. All the debt of the private sector (businesses and households) is real debt. Any government spending and 'debt sale' operations where we assume the government is a sovereign currency issuer, is not 'debt'. It is the flow of financial wealth from the government to the private sector. These can't be packaged together as some notion of 'national debt'. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By country section needs update badly[edit]

It relies on sources from 2012 that are no longer accurate. Almost all the numbers are wrong, I don't know how to edit wikipedia but if someone who does could update that that would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettwardo (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wrong[edit]

"The debt is a stock variable, measured at a specific point in time, and it is the accumulation of all prior deficits."

Well, of course, accumulation of deficits DO contribute to, and is a major cause of, debt. But... no. deficits are not needed to run a debt.

For instance, Norway as a public debt (36% according to CIA factbook), despite having no deficit and a massive accumulation of SURPLUSES; that is because those surpluses were trusted to Government Pension Fund of Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8A:FEA0:B981:66D4:8C30:33E6 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public debt is not "the total of all borrowing of a government, minus repayments denominated in a country's home currency."[edit]

IF that were the case then the US public debt would be about 0% of GDP … the US issues very little debt denominated in pesos! Someone copied this definition from the CIA worldfactbook… which is also wrong.

In fact, public debt is gross debt minus debt held within the government (such as social security debt). brianevans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.147.170.143 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on "risks" and "problems" with government debt[edit]

This article violates NPOV with this undue focus. Also, content on the risks and problems of public debt should be incorporated in an "impact" section or a section that outlines the tradeoffs and dilemmas of public debt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of topics would be helpful[edit]

The History section covers the topic sporadically. It begins with the establishment of the Bank of England, although government debt predates it. A different title than "History" might be appropriate.

The mathematical model of sovereign debt which is used to illustrate the Ricardian Equivalence proposition is not likely to be understood by most readers. Perhaps the model could be included in a Wikibook on economics (see https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Economics). However, it could be useful to explain the Ricardian Equivalence theorem in words on the Government debt page.

The Tables with debt listed by countries probably does not need to appear on this page, as the debt data is available at the Wikipedia article: List of countries by public debt.

The discussion of debt duration relates to bonds, but not specifically to government bonds. That discussion might be better placed in the article on bonds. Lukebayy (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public debt Malayalam videos[edit]

പൊതു കടം 2402:3A80:192D:8469:0:0:0:2 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_debt&oldid=1174697409"