Talk:List of countries by public debt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I went to the CIA World Fact Book and found that this list is completely wrong: See for youself: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

According to their website, Canada is 38% Debt to GDP ration, and here its 70?? Which Canada has not experienced since the 1980's? This list and the coresponding map are completely inacurate, and think this page needs to be updated or deleted.

~Archos, Canada




Contents

[edit] just plain wrong

The world fact book is wrong. It is just a bad source. I think the standard for comparison used by most the governments of industrialized nations is from the "Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development." They have net financial liabilities as percent GDP:

Canada 26.5 Normay -141.1 United States 43.9 Slovak Republic 4

Those are just highlights.

The rest can be found here

Check out: http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,de_2649_201185_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html

--129.100.230.171 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


public debt is 32.5%.... Cia factbook need to update database!


Read the definition of Public debt before assuming incorrectness. --RealGrouchy 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Canada not listed here? --RealGrouchy 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norway

I don't get get. Norway has approximately 248 billion US dollars (1650 mrd NOK) in their oil fund. Why the **** would they have a debt to anyone? 130.243.248.239 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we have future welfare obligations who are larger than the amount of money in the petroleum fund. It means that the retirment money that the Norwegian Government are obligated to pay in the future, are larger then the amount of money on the petroleum fund. Understand? --85.164.205.145 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite? According to CIA itself:
This entry records the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country's home currency. Public debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange earnings.
Compare this to the ingress of the Wikipedia article:
This is a list of countries by public debt as percentage of gross domestic product, based on The World Factbook.
Where can I find the original background information? Secondly, why the estimates? Norway being an open democracy I would have thought such figures would have been publicly available rather than having to estimate them. Clarifications would be welcome. --22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I say that this page has only 2004 estimates while the other page has 2005's. The names of List of countries and territories by public debt is ambiguous, however, so I say the content in List of countries and territories by public debt should be moved to this page, and a redirect should be made. If no one says anything in a few days, I will do it myself as it is not a big problem. --J@red [T]/[+] 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with J@red -- 212.102.225.147 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Kinda weird that we met up on a non-Olympic page. lol. King nothing 2 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha. I just thought the same thing when I saw your name in my watchlist under this article. I don't even remember how I got here anyway...haha. So I think three is enough consensus for this article atleast. I'll "do the merger". --J@red [T]/[+] 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

I actually came to this article looking for absolute figures, not relative to GDP. -- Beland 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What of public surplus? -cant find a wiki page for it Bob schmiel77 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Removed the Map of countries by public debt when I updated the figures on April 16, 2006. Removed it because it contained too many errors now. If someone feels like making a new/correct/updated one that would be good. Martin Ulfvik 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

its been updated now --Astrokey44 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada again

This article states that:

"he federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is now at its lowest level in 24 years, he said. The ratio is 35.1 pct, down sharply from its peak of 68.4 pct in 1995-1996."

which is very different than the one quoted by the CIA. Should a note be added? -- Jeff3000 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be confusion between federal debt vs. public debt. Public debt includes not only the federal debt but the provincial and territorial debts as well.

According to Statistics Canada the consolidated net financial debt (as they call it) is $791 billion as of March 31, 2005 which is 59.4% of GDP.

The federal debt is now near 30% of GDP which seems to be what you are referring to above.

Ddamours (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated values

Anyone know where we can get updated values? For example Australias value has gone from 14% debt to 1% credit, as they are no in debt anymore, in just 1 year and I am sure others have moved significantly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] map does not match listed figures

ok, which is in error? the listing says Canada has a debt-to-GDP of 35.1%, but the map codes us in the 60-70% range. (or is that 50-60%? i can't tell. it doesn't match either way)

i'm pretty sure the map is in error here. should it be removed from the article until one that matches the data is available? as i'm quite sure that there are likely other errors/old values in the map that i'm not noticing. 142.165.95.83 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - Canada's colour is wrong. It should be in the 30-40% range. Map needs to be removed/changed. Pageblank 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Canada's debt is 68%. This can be seen in the 2006 edition of the cia world fact book. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Our government website says 38%. http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/brief/briefe.htm

This discreprency is due to the federal government only posting FEDERAL DEBT. I believe that when you add in provincial debt, you get 68%. The map is right, the chart is wrong.

Mister Ninja 12:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is this 35.2% GDP provincial debt figure even coming from? chart A.5 in the citation link for the figure seems to directly contradict this, unless i'm reading this completely wrong. and i would really like to know if this "fair comparison" means that all the states debt is included in the US number, as if it isn't, someone is putting their thumb on the scales. 208.114.180.220 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense to put in the provinces, as the Feds have no control over provincial deficits. Anung Mwka 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that other nations - such as the United States - may not account for their provinces/states either. Let's have a fair comparison one way or the other, here. Suigi 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The CIA WFB counted Canada's provincial debt along with it's federal debt, so I think it is safe to assume that they counted all levels of government debt when calculating debt for the countries. So I think we should continue to rank Canada based on total debt just like every other country on the list and ignore the canadian federal gov figures.

Mister Ninja 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not safe to assume they count all levels of government when calculating debt for countries. First off, note that the CIA World Fact Book %age for Canada has varied widely (wildly?). The number they used for 2004-2005 appears to have been 38.7% (http://soc.enotes.com/world-fact-book/canada-ca) and for 2003, 77% (http://www.answers.com/topic/cia-world-fact-book-2004-canada). It's safe to say, Canada's actual debt/GDP ratio has not really been varying that much. Rather it appears CIA World Fact Book editting decisions are the cause (it would be interesting to look at the Fact Book's reporting of other country's ratios looking for other wild movements). Next, it is stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt that the US debt of ~$8.7 trillion does not include state, corporation or individual debt. Just in case you think that the US state and local government debts are insignificant, see http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate05.html which gives 2004-2005 state and local debt of ~$2 trillion. If that was included, US debt/GDP ratio would be ~85%.

Note that I'm typing this in July 2007. Numbers will change over time.

I propose that a section is added to the page including my above "original research".

-- (break here, as previous comment was unsigned) -- The reference cited (http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/ec/eca1e.html) is fairly clear that the 30.2% figure includes provincial/local figures.. I'm not sure where the confusion is.--209.68.185.230 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The canadian government source mentioned above also says japan has a debt to gdp ratio of only 90% whereas almost every other source puts it anove 150%. Why cant any of these big government agencies get there act together? all of these contradiction sources make this listing horribly complicated.

Mister Ninja 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is canada in the wrong slot?

.

[edit] Deletion or serious revision? Please give your opinion.

I'm not going to AfD this but some countries on the list's public debt is only federal like the United-States while other countries like Canada include both federal and provincial and it's been like this for a while. If this article should continue to exist (and I think it should), we have to agree which levels of government will be represented. Otherwise, the list is misleading and the countries are in more or less arbitrary positions. I also think that the article shouldn't wholly depend on the World FactBook as that source can sometimes be shoddy or out of date.

The two best options is that we either just count the federal debt and rename the article to reflect this (the easier route) or add the federal, provinicial/departmental/state/prefecture/canton/etc and municipal debt, basically all government debt (the longer but more accurate route) to make this article reflect the economic reality.

Obviously before we start with any revision or whether we go on the way to deletion or whether we stay with the status quo, it would be better to have some kind of concensus. So please, share your thoughts.

--172.164.35.42 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Only including federal debt makes the list meaningless, since different countries organise things differently. Just because a certain thing is paid for at national level in one country and local level in another shouldn't affect it's position in the list. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Updated list

There is now an updated list: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html (as of 17/01/2008). It seems like a lot of work to update, not sure if anyone has a quick way and I don't want to spend ages on it if the source is going to be changed or the article is removed. (BigTurnip (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Can we find a more reliable list? According to last year the US was at 64.7% but 2007 is estimated to be 36.8% despite average GDP growth and debt which is spiralling out of control. The variables being used are obviously not being applied consistently, whether by error or by tinkering to increase one's own rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.234.221 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
64.7% is the figure for gross debt; public debt is defined differently. See United States public debt for a discussion of the terms. --Delirium (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with terms; it has to do with the source we are relying on for this article using different variables from one year to the next which boosts its own country's rank significantly. If this is only a 'terms' problem then in which year was the source using the wrong term - this year or last? 24.222.54.66 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just checked and the CIA web site and it's being CIA-ish. They use a special formula for the US as opposed to other coutrnies and only count public federal debt which gives off a much lower percentage. By the way, the wikipedia article on the US public debt also only measures the federal public debt. Who knows, maybe the CIA got their information off of that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the data source for this page is not consistent, and not neutral. To present this list as "factual" seems irresponsible, when the CIA continues to change their formulas for calculation from year to year and also also uses different formulas for different countries within the same publication year. Personally, I regard portions of the CIA World Factbook as political propaganda. I vote for DELETION of this article. --Prairiewest —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly irresponsible for WP to present this as a factual article. If we are to create a list like tis, we will have to use multiple sources and draw up sensible criteria for wjhat qualifies as public debt. It is blatantly obvious tht these figures have been massaged in several ways, the most obvious being the USA's figure - selectve statistics to an extent just sufficient to place it below Cuba. Coincidence anyone? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, this article should probably deleted as there is no hope of making it factually accurate and non-POV. According to the OECD "Net debt measures are not always comparable across countries due to different definitions or treatment of debt (and asset) components". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.18.55 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree for a deletion because the principal advantage of the list was the country comparison. By the way, the official (non CIA) figure for the USA is as following: US public debt was 9.007 billions in 2007 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm) and GDP was 14084.1 billions (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDP.txt. GDP number is updated regularly and final figure may be slightly different but will not dramatically change the percentage which is close to 64% (may sound a repetition of was written above but data sources are included). --Profitip —Preceding (talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to IMF data?

Given the fact that the CIA appears to be hopelessly inconsistent, I suggest that we move to IMF data. The IMF provides data on "general government gross debt" (as a percentage of GDP) and this data is roughly similar to that from the CIA (excluding the United States, of course), suggesting the calculations are similar (but actually consistent). Here's an example list with the G7 nations.

Thoughts? --Colonel Cow (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also the OECD data to look at, lost the link though. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No supporting documentation

Government debt is not the same as balancing a checkbook. As noted in one of the OECD documents linked from this discussion: Net debt measures are not always comparable across countries due to different definitions or treatment of debt (and asset) components. Without at least a link to an explanation of the sources and methods used, any list of this kind is about as useful as Rolling Stone's list of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time -- interesting, but not what you would call factual.

The World Factbook page referenced in this article does not have any explanation of sources or methods. While it might be interesting to have this data alongside data from other sources for comparison, as a primary source it sucks donkey. According to the policies on Wikipedia:Verifiability, the Factbook would seem to qualify as a self-published source rather than a reliable, third-party source.

Note the argument here: It has nothing to do with the ranking of the United States on the CIA's list. It has everything to do with the lack of peer review on a complicated set of data. --squirrel (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)