Talk:Government debt

Rename?

"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)

• 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)

• This also seems inconsistent with Jerry's redirecting of sovereign bond and government debt to public debt. What's going on? Paul Beardsell 12:42, 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)

• • I absolutely agree, that's why I moved it to government debt. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 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

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

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

-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)

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)

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)

History

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)

-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)

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)

Debt as a % of GDP in the Americas

That graphic is completely outdated; anyone got anything newer?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

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)

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)

External Links

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)

Is this intentionally visible?

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)

Scale

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)

Unclear definition - "Government debt" - "Sovereign debt"

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)

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)

Issues with section subtitled "Structure"

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)

colored plots for public debt/gdp contradicting each other

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).