Talk:List of countries by government debt/Archive 1

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)

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/library/publications/the-world-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)

is canada in the wrong slot?
.

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)

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 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)

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)

I think the IMF data is good. I think both gross and net debt should be included on the list in separate columns. I think that would cut down on considerable confusion. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Un-sourced Edits
Love it or hate it, the data referenced for this article is the CIA world factbook. As such the data in the article has to match the reference or it undermines the credibility of the article as a whole. Until such time as alternate source is added please stop adding un-sourced or, worse yet, original research into the article. --Nicklinn (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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) Why do not publish public debt in dollars and GDP ? 69.207.184.165 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Map
Removed the 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 --Astrokey 44 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alaska painted a different color than the Lower 48? Pretty sure that Alaska is still one of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.31.75 (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly coloured exclaves on map
I found at least four examples where national exclaves or islands are coloured differently from the countries to which they belong: Mtford (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alaska is pale green, while the Continental United States are pink.
 * French Guiana is grey, while Metropolitan France is pink.
 * Svalbard is pale green, while mainland Norway is pink.
 * The Kaliningrad Oblast is pale green, while the rest of Russia is dark green.

USA RANKING

Usa ranking is very very old .Now Usa have overtaken also Italy and Egypt.Wouldn't it time to change this old rankings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for removal of neutrality dispute
I want to get some feedback as to what should be added or changed to this chart to satisfy the neutrality of the article. I have added OECD data to the chart for balance though I would really like to find IMF data (for beyond just the G8). Please let me know your thoughts. --Nicklinn (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Update suggestions
Instead of keeping the table up to date whenever a cited source (CIA, IMF or OECD) changes its estimates, I suggest keeping the existing 2007 CIA-sourced column static, and adding a 2008 column when the CIA publishes new estimates. The "source date" column could be removed to make space and the dates that are not 2007 mentioned in a footnote (only Aruba, Bhutan, and Montenegro). The 2007-CIA column would be cited from the webcitation archive, and new columns would be likewise cited by fresh webcitation archives. (In case it changes I made a webcitation archive of the OECD xls file here: )

Figures from other sources such as the IMF and OECD could then be added to show there are often small (in the case of Norway, very large) differences. Using such figures should fit within the fair-use provision allowed by wikipedia, I hope.

I am unsure whether implementing these suggestions makes this list article useful or immune to deletion attempts, but it has to be better than different sources for each country.

We could then add an agreed-on update policy as a html comment to the article. Thoughts? 84user (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article now looks very good and the suggestion of adding a new column for 2008 stats instead of just replacing figures as they come in is a great idea and makes the article far more useful. Well done BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The date data was pretty redundant is IMO kind of useless, however throwing the exceptions into the source is almost certainly going to lead to confusion as it is so far from the data points.  I have added a notes column and denoted the date difference there. -- nicklinn (talk / contribs) 14:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't really like how a notes column looked to went with footnotes instead. I think it draws enough attention to the difference while not messing up the data.  Thoughts? -- nicklinn (talk / contribs)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

If, by "original background information", you mean The World Factbook, you can see it here: CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html Webgrunt (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See the following link for the Norwegian Central Banks explanation on why Norway has a government debt. http://www.norges-bank.no/templates/article____12330.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.154.116 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article you are referreing to says that Norway have net zero debt. But off course, the Norwegian gouvernment and central bank do have some loans for practical purposes. Josi en en (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

These CIA data are just plain wrong! Why is the CIA factbook used as much on english wikipedia anyways? You should use more reliable and neutral sources. Anyway, in this case, one could just aswell used a random bureaucrat from North Korea as source. Or maybe ask a cat? Would be just as reliable... Josi en en (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd ask my cat, but I don't speak Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions
✅

I added several cleanup, fact and when tags and explanatory html comments when I noticed the table figures no longer match the CIA factbook. Now that I've just read the above Talk, I see there's a worse problem (other than the fact that the factbook page changes and is not archived), and that is the inconsistencies in the factbook itself and that I could not easily determine its own sources or methods of calculation.

If the table is to include both CIA and other sources, maybe it should be formatted like this?

Table of GDP and public debt according to CIA and other sources.

-84user (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it 92.232.36.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC).


 * I think the idea is good though I am not sure I like the idea of other. Too much of the information on the chart prior to my reverting the table to CIA's data was people adding figures that were National, and not just public debt.  I feel that may encourage that greater.  I suggest we find another 1-2 more sources.  I have added another source and I am looking for IMF data for another. --Nicklinn (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 'Other' area. I'm looking for the totals, not GDP relative info.  Others may be looking for the same.  Also, the CIA factbook is notoriously un-updated, if you look at when the data is from, you'll see a discrepency that some counties are last year's info, while others may have info 5 years old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok the formatting now matches your proposal. -- nicklinn 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Nicklinn, that made a large improvement. And sorry, Wondergirls, but I reverted your revert because Nicklinn's edits brought the article closer to Wikipedia standards.

After I verified all the figures (and fixed a few) against the cites I removed all Fact and dispute tags. The image of the world map is slightly out of date, even when looking at CIA 2007 estimates. I guessed it was made from a CIA page before the current "2007 est" one because Sudan is shown in the less than 100% slot. Someone else can deal with problem.

The IMF and OECD databases could be good second sources, it is a shame that both have restrictive copyrights in their terms of use as derivatives such as these lists get close to becoming copyright-infringements. Even limited fair-use for commercial purposes appears to be heavily discouraged. Meanwhile I will start a section on how we might update this list over time. 84user (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing those mistakes. I have no idea how to fix the image (or even how to create them for that matter) so I will see if I can get ahold of the last editor for changes unless someone else knows how to do this.-- nicklinn (talk / contribs) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated factbook
What the CIA factbook updated? I was looking over the public debt chart @ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us&regionCode=na&rank=61#us [THIS GOES RIGHT TO THE US AS A COMPARISON) and numbers have apeared to have changed quite drastically. Hard to believe and country would be falling this much considering the state of the world economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.223.119 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

recent changes and suggestions
This edit replaced data from 2008 with a single column for 2009.

No discussion on this change appeared here, which goes against the suggestion above about maintaining historical data. Instead of reverting, here are possible alternatives: My preference is for the either of the quick options: first or third. What do others think? In any case we need to manually archive the source CIA factbook because it changes in situ each year and the internet archive does not archive it. -84user (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * create List of countries by 2008 public debt and keep List of countries by public debt annually updated from the CIA factbook
 * try to maintain one column per year as suggested above
 * rename this List of countries by public debt as List of countries by 2009 public debt and restore List of countries by 2008 public debt from a checked revision (before )
 * some other set of list pages that keeps historical data
 * do nothing and lose the previously checked 2008 data

I do believe these are net debt
From the 2010 USA source: ''Net debt is calculated as gross debt minus financial assets corresponding to debt instruments. These financial assets are: monetary gold and SDRs, currency and deposits, debt securities, loans, insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee schemes, and other accounts receivable.receivable.''

From CIA we're using for everything else: ''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.''

--Louiedog (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

is this regularly updated?
cnbc has compeletly different amounts listed, for example usa is at 98.4 http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/The_World_s_Biggest_Debtor_Nations (76.120.39.39 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC))
 * The website you listed gives external debt, which is different from public debt. Taken from the article:
 * "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. The figures here are represented as a percentage of annual gross domestic product."


 * See List of countries by external debt for the type of debt the CNBC page gave statistics for. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP's article on the USA's Public Debt also gives public debt as 94% of GDP. Pretty much every source I can find gives US Public debt as over 13 trillion, which is certainly over 90% of GDP. I think those figures from the CIA must be referring to something other than public debt.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Must combined debt be zero?
There's something I don't get about this. 129 countries seem to owe money. But in any loan, the amount should come to zero, surely? I mean, if country A owes country B 'X' USD, it's a net zero, as country B is 'X' in profit as it were. So how can 129 countries be in debt? By definition, mustn't at least one country therefore be in profit? Presumably it's not so simple? Who's hoarding the money? Is it Swiss gnomes, secret bank accounts, or some seriously rich individuals? Is there a simple answer, anyone? Trafford09 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a list of debts of state governments, not the aggregate net value of all individuals within the states. Most governments (particularly first-world ones) owe money not to other governments, but to individuals - even citizens the state itself - in the form of bonds or unfunded pension obligations. Geoff NoNick (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

United States figure way out of date
Debt is $13.5 trillion while GDP is $14 trillion  for a new figure of around 96%. Wikipedia needs to catch up to the "hope and change" policies of the last 22 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.63.226 (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article uses the CIA Factbook for a reference, and the statistics are from 2009. They will be updated when 2010 is over. Also, not all countries have a "debt clock" website like the US. In any event, the debt clock might not be a reliable source. Wikipedia will "catch up" when it source updates. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the CIA factbook number for the US simply excludes implicit government debt - at social security etc. - see the note in the factbook table: data cover only what the United States Treasury denotes as "Debt Held by the Public," which includes all debt instruments issued by the Treasury that are owned by non-US Government entities; the data include Treasury debt held by foreign entities; the data exclude debt issued by individual US states, as well as intra-governmental debt; intra-governmental debt consists of Treasury borrowings from surpluses in the trusts for Federal Social Security, Federal Employees, Hospital Insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), Disability and Unemployment, and several other smaller trusts; if data for intra-government debt were added, "Gross Debt" would increase by about 30% of GDP

I'm not an expert but it sounds to me the number discussed in the media includes these ~30%. I also believe the amount including these 30% is more correct significant for comparisions between countries. Kruemelmo (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have data from different years in this list?
Almost all the countries on this list have 2009 data. The US alone has 2010, and a handful of others have 2005 or 2006. I don't think we should have different years, this makes it an invalid comparison on the list, especially since the data has changed so fast in the last year or two.Harksaw (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you (or anyone reading this) think the first suggestion in the section above would be feasible? Source this list article only from the CIA factbook and annually update it whenever the factbook has a certain threshold of debt figures for a single year? As of now lists mostly 2009 estimates. There will never be a definitive list because estimates become revised to firmer figures over a period of years sometimes. I would implement that suggestion if I saw any consensus among editors. Otherwise the list will not be manageable against good-faith editors that will update the figures of individual nation states at any moment. Bear in mind that the CIA factbook changes at intervals and does not appear in the internet archive (check for yourself) so each update will need manual archiving by us. -84user (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion you wrote here. We should strive to use same-year data, and only move to newer data when the vast majority of the countries on the list have the newer year's data. Perhaps set the threshold at 90%. Harksaw (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources
This page keeps being reverted to a direct copy of a single source by bots. If additional sources are not added, maybe it should be nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.7.37 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. The article is essentially useless if it's a combination of numbers from different sources and different years, and if they are from one source and one year, then it's a direct copy. Anyone needing this information should just go to the original source, which is not hard to find. Perhaps it should be deleted.Harksaw (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are these new numbers from?
Someone made some changes, I noticed the US jumped from 36 to 12, but the CIA World Factbook citation still has the figures where the US is #36 with debt at 58.9% of GDP. Where did the new figures come from? Harksaw (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I haven't heard any explanation for the new USA value, I have returned the value from the cited source, the CIA World Factbook. Even if there is a new source, I don't think we should update the list until the vast majority of the countries listed have updated figures. The main purpose of this page, imo, is comparison of the countries debt ratios, and comparing them over different years is meaningless as many of them have changed rapidly. Harksaw (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to verify the new numbers, just go to the wikipage United States public debt and there the first three footnotes link to official government pages that verify that claim.--Larzan (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Why not just use IMF data for all countries? Seems like a pretty reliable source. 24.77.220.93 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Colin http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php?db=DEBT

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

Disputed
It is obvious that this article is useless, because not all figures are comparable (for instance, do they include only federal debt, or all public debt). As a courtesy to readers, I've added the factual accuracy dispute tag, and intend that it should remain until it is made comparable, for instance by deriving from a similar source. (I can make no claims as to which party is right.) —Felix the Cassowary 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The figures are from CIA, I thought they calculated public debt using the same method for each country. Which countries do you consider not comparable? --RoadTrain (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the disputed part is when people bring in data from different sources other than the CIA World Factbook, which may or may not be comparable in the same year, much less in different years. Harksaw (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So then the article should use only CIA figures and it should be stated in the introduction section.--RoadTrain (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Such is the subject of much recent controversy. Many keep putting in newer data for the USA, which jumps it up to near the top of the list, while other countries have no such updated data. Also there have been concerns about whether it's appropriate to only use one single source, as this is essentially direct copying from a primary source, and thus conflicts with Do_not_include_the_full_text_of_lengthy_primary_sources Harksaw (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what you propose? Neither collecting data from different sources nor using only CIA is good according to you. In such case we should delete many of the articles starting "List of countries by..." --RoadTrain (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a tough call, but I think the article should be deleted. Information seekers would be better served just going to the CIA World Factbook website. Other Wikipedia lists may be different: For the list of countries by population, I don't think population varies between sources and years to quite the extent that public debt estimates do, so those pages may be more appropriate than this one. Harksaw (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this list should be kept. There are featured lists which use only one source, I think the importance of the list is obvious even if it uses a single source. Maybe if we found additional source, it could be put into table. I'm not against putting official government estimates for public debt, but it should meet some requirements: it should be gross public debt (some countries report net debt), it should de debt issued and guaranteed by central government (i.e. it shouldn't include municipal debt). Also it'd rather be calculated using similar methodology (e.g. IMF methodology). So I've found IMF Data, I suggest including it into article. --RoadTrain (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the page because it only uses one source?!? That is simply just wrong. Few sources somewhere is a reason for making the page better, finding more info, diversify the sources etc. but never a reason for deleting it! "Information seekers would be better served just going to the CIA World Factbook". No, I don't want to go to the CIA-world fact book, I have wikipedia which has something CIA world factbook has not: a good, clean, easy readable layout. Also the very idea of an online encyclopedia is that it masses all info in one place. With this type of argumentation we would not need a wiki at all, we can all just go to cia world factbook! LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.112.27 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I'm going to add IMF data to the table, maybe then anyone will be satisfied.--RoadTrain (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding IMF data would be very nice. Further i think it should be indicated if the debt is 'incomplete' (with color or with a * ). For example the US debt is not 58% as that is only the federal debt.Nico (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such cases also could be noted using references.--RoadTrain (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of debt?
Does that table covers central government debt only, or all public debt within a country, that is, central government debt plus local administrations' debt? Guinsberg (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Germanys debt
Germanys debt is only about 78.80% of GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.171.117 (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Was changed by a vandal, is repaired now.Nico (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Worldbank data and notes about the CIA data
I have put some things on my todo list.
 * Adding the data from the world bank. There are quit some countries missing in this source, but then at least we have another source to balance the CIA and a more country neutral one.
 * To allow comparison between the data I will add some notes to the CIA data. The source for this notes is the country page on the CAI website.

For example for the USA there is this note on the country page:

"note: data cover only what the United States Treasury denotes as "Debt Held by the Public," which includes all debt instruments issued by the Treasury that are owned by non-US Government entities; the data include Treasury debt held by foreign entities; the data exclude debt issued by individual US states, as well as intra-governmental debt; intra-governmental debt consists of Treasury borrowings from surpluses in the trusts for Federal Social Security, Federal Employees, Hospital Insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), Disability and Unemployment, and several other smaller trusts; if data for intra-government debt were added, "Gross Debt" would increase by about 30% of GDP"

It would look like this:

Does not include the state debt issued by individual US states and intra-government debt.

Comments on this proposal are very welcome.Nico (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good idea, I planned something like that. Also look at the previous messages, I suggested there including IMF data.--RoadTrain (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added IMF date and a note about the US debt. I think it would be better to base the ranking on the IMF data but that is too much work to change, so I leave it for now.Nico (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's much better now, thanks.--RoadTrain (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the table I suggest removing "Date" column since it contains the same values (especially for IMF; date's always 2010) and put it in the table top only once istead.--RoadTrain (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

-Canada has all of the natural resources and low debt. Fix your page!

http://www.oecd.org is NOT a reliable source. They are politicaly motivated by the European Union. CIA fact. 99.254.216.48 (talk)

They have a well laid out methodology. I think having both sets of data would improve things --69.176.59.217 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC) This comment was mine but I wasn't signed in at the time in case anyone cares. --Nicklinn (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Both sets of data are nice. But if you're going to include IMF and Eurostat figures, the article needs to explain what the difference is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

CANADA
Something is wrong with Canada. 178.59.220.95 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the map colour coding needs to be corrected. The list agrees with other sources, indicating that the public debt is about 34% of GDP, but the colour coding in the map appear to be "larger than 70% or 80%", which is patently absurd. Please correct the figure.Nordisk varg (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the CIA and IMF numbers in the table differ greatly. The map is probably using the latter number.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.64.176 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

United States update.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/04/us-debt-reaches-100-percent-countrys-gdp/

sigh.

174.101.49.64 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems
I went to the CIA World Fact Book and found that this list is completely wrong: See for youself: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-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
 * Look here instead:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html Zebulin (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the link given just here and it looks the same as the data on the page to me (without checking every row). Perhaps it has been updated since this comment? Davidljung (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Debt covers both National, Provincial and municipal debt. The Canadian government likely only issue figures about National debt, which is likely why you are suing such a discrepancy. --Nicklinn (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

-

This is out of date, or based on faulty data (perhaps PPP ?). Hong Kong's debt at the end of fiscal 2007/08 (March 31, 2008) was HK$20,064.4 million (http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200804/30/P200804300161.htm). Nominal GDP, in the four quarters to end-FY2008 = HK$1,651,903 mn (http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=031) That's a debt:GDP ratio of 1.21%. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the data is preliminary and as such only an estimate. Secondly public debt is all debt owed by the citizens of the country not just debt owed on the federal level. Only relying on National figures will not give you and accurate figure of public debt. --Nicklinn (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * IF:
 * "public debt is all debt owed by the citizens of the country not just debt owed on the federal level."
 * Then the US Debt level is entirely wrong see Global_debt; the 60% referenced on this page is Government Debt only. If this number is supposed to be "all debt owed by the citizens of the country", the US should be ~658%, meaning that the US should be at the top of this list.  Not including all debt for some countries, but including it for others create a false set of data.68.148.123.76 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Public debt does not cover debts owed by citizens, nor does it cover the debts owed by state, municipal, or provincial governments. According to Wikipedia's own definition: Government debt (also known as public debt, national debt, sovereign debt) is money owed by a central government. A central government (or national or federal government) would be the only one's debt that would be covered. The whole list seems completely wrong.Qwertzy (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

-

the percentage number with Croatia doesn't match with its position in rank


 * Hey guys. Since the CIA figures come up a lot, I was wondering what you thought of this.  http://housingdoom.com/2010/07/20/oso-serious-data-problems-with-government-debt-comparison/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.160.106 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really spiffy that the article gives debt calculations for both Eurostat and the IMF. It's too bad the article doesn't discuss, in any way, what the differences are between the two calculations, and why they come to such radically different figures. That would be really useful to me as a reader.

Or, to put it another way for the dense: the article should really explain why there are two different debt figures given for each country. What is the difference between the Eurostat calculation and the IMF calculation? I'd modify the article myself in order to explain it. Unfortunately, I don't know, nor can I tell by clicking on the source links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

typo
Canada's debt to GDP ratio is 34 not 84. The chart shows the correct ranking but not the correct ratio. Looks like a simple typo. I don't have an account, ability or desire to correct the error. Can someone who can correct the mistake please do so? typer
 * The Canadian Debt is between 80 and 85% both according to the IMF and the CIA. Where this 34% comes from? I updated the ranking.Nico (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see where it comes from. 34% is the federal debt. Both IMF and CIA give the public debt of the whole country not of the federal government only (though the CIA makes an exception here for the USA, probably to make them look better).Nico (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

CIA figures / Not relevant to international comparisons
Aug 9, 2011

The CIA factbook figures used for comparing debt levels are wrong. They are not actual figures or true debt levels.

CIA factbook delivers the true GDP figure (using EUR as local currency = 2 583 bn USD) then transform it into US dollars using "purchasing power parity". That last figure is used to make international comparison. Thus it entails systematic errors. True debt is in EURO not in "purchasing power".

Eg : French public debt level is currently around 1 600 bn EUR (see COUR DES COMPTES). If you use CIA factbook data that debt level translates into 1 800 bn USD because people are computing debt level as 83.5% of 2 145 bn USD (GDP based upon purchasing power parity. The true value of French public debt is 1 600 bn EUR x 1.4 (USD/EUR parity) equal to 2 240 bn USD.

1. First proof See : http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/Allocutions/Discours_situation_perspectives_des_finances_publiques_2010_assemblee_nationale.pdf

"En 2010, la dette publique a continué à croître pour frôler les 1 600 Md€ en fin d’année (soit 82,3 % du PIB ou 62 000 € par personne ayant un emploi). La charge d’intérêt a dépassé les 50 Md€, soit autant que les crédits cumulés des missions « défense » et « travail et emploi »." (page 5).

2. Second proof Using purchasing power parity in the case of France and Germany and the CIA factbook figures, one finds :

Germany : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.94 trillion (2010 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): $3.316 trillion (2010 est.)

GDP purchasing power parity/ GDP official exchange rate = 0.8866

France : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.145 trillion (2010 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): $2.583 trillion (2010 est.)

GDP purchasing power parity/ GDP official exchange rate = 0.8304

Difference between the two ratios illustrates only the relative cost of puchasing power of the euro in each country compared to the US. So using the purchasing power parity for international comparison of debt level is irrelevant as France or Germany will have to repay that debt in EUROS and not in some adjusted currency level. 88.141.160.177 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, but it is ultimately irrelevant to this article, since both the debt level and the GDP are measured using the same currency. The ratio between France's debt and its GDP will remain the same whether we use a Euro value of US$1.4 or a Euro value of ten US cents. This ratio is a dimensionless number, which is why, despite the vastly different measurement methods used by CIA and IMF, both reach almost exactly the same final figure. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China
The debt figures for the PRC are incomplete. What has been placed onto the list only incorporates national government debt, while excluding local and provincial government debts. This has the inadvertent consequence of giving a significantly lower ratio than other states who do merge all levels of governments. In January, 2011 the Beijing-based research firm Dragonomics issued a statement stating that the actual debt of PRC was 89% of GDP. This is hardly the only finance that said such, Joe Weisenthal from the business insider in early 2010 placed the figure at 10.7 trillion yuan in local government debt. This is roughly 30% of China's GDP and has been a number that has continued to grow at a staggering rate.

In late August of 2011 Fitch warned China that it may face a credit downgrade from it's position of 'AA-' if it continues to spend at such rates. Fitch estimated that unless spending was railed under control, the Chinese debt was increase by 18 trillion yuan by the end of 2011. This spending deficit is equivalent to 55% of China's GDP and has remained unchecked for the past three years at similar levels. If one would tally these numbers, you would find that the final number would be between 94% and 170% of GDP depending on the source of the information. However the bottom line is that 17.5% to 19.1% is incorrect.

Estimates of Chinese local government debt-http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/07/chinas-debt-problem-worse-than-portugal-1014895568/ Fitch's downgrade warning -http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-fitch-idUSTRE7870WI20110908 Joe Weisenthal comments -http://chinesepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/looming-problem-of-local-debt-in-china.html

76.181.103.83 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Jade Rat

Greece
Edits by Bluenik on 21:46, 21:37, and 21:37 of 27 October 2011 reduce the Greek debt citing "the greek public debt new profile decided in the european leaders (with the participation of banks and IMF's representatives) summit in Brussels the 26th of October 2011. Following this decision the greek bonds being held by private creditors have to be reduced by 50% in its nominal value."

This summit agreement is not binding for the private creditors that it's supposed to affect. All its details remain to be worked out and participation by the creditors remains to be seen. The relevant anouncement of the IIF website reads as follows:


 * We welcome the announcement by the leaders of the Euro Area of a comprehensive package of measures to stabilize Europe, to strengthen the European banking system and to support Greece’s reform effort. On behalf of the private investor community, the IIF agrees to work with Greece, Euro Area authorities and the IMF to develop a concrete voluntary agreement on the firm basis of a nominal discount of 50% on notional Greek debt held by private investors with the support of a 30 billion Euro official PSI package. This should set the basis for the decline of the Greek debt to GDP ratio with an objective of reaching 120% by 2020.


 * The specific terms and conditions of the voluntary PSI will be agreed by all relevant parties in the coming period and implemented with immediacy and force. The structure of the new Greek claims will need to be based on terms and conditions that ensure an NPV loss for investors fully consistent with a voluntary agreement.

Note in particular "agrees to work with Greece ... to develop a concrete voluntary agreement". In plain English this means that there is no agreement, that by 27 October they hadn't even started working on one. Also note the long-term objective of reaching a "debt to GDP ratio ... of ... 120% by 2020" together with the 30 bn euro PSI package. That's a far cry from placing the debt at 116 bn already now.

To sum it up, the edits mentioned above need to be reverted. I didn't actually do that, thinking that it's better to talk before acting, rather than the other way around.

See also the full text of the summit announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.143.121 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, even the previous figure of 142 bn US dollars is wildly wrong. Greece's current debt is around the 350 bn euro mark, see for example de Volkskrant. The Greek government itself puts it at 353 bn euro per June 2011. With today's ECB rate, that corresponds to 496,5 bn US dollars. 83.163.143.121 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PRC/ROC
Why there are two entries for both People's Republic of China and Republic of China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.150.45 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because ROC and PRC are two separate states? Besides, did you notice Hong Kong has it's own entry, too? -- megA (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

article name
Article's name is "List of sovereign states by public debt" but it should be List of sovereign states by public debt ratio or something like that. I would like to see the actual figures, not precentages of GDP. 85.217.35.235 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Gross debt vs. net debt
Is this information gross debt or net debt? Does gross government debt really matter that much if (as I understand it) the difference (gross debt minus net debt) is largely money that one government agency owes another government agency? MMMMM742 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The table shows gross debt. Hypothetical example: if government A owes 1 billion dollars to government B, but government C owes 500 million dollars to government A, then the "net debt" of country A is the difference between the two amounts (i.e. 500 million in this example). "Gross debt" is the 1 billion dollars A owes to other countries, and what others may owe to A is not counted. Some politicians will like to tell you that only "net debt" matters, which is convenient for them, because such amounts are often much smaller than the gross debt. Gross debt does matter, however, say if country X on paper has a small net debt, that might be caused by X both owing a large debt to other countries and having debts owed to itself. That would often be the case if a country is a center of trade. If suddenly one or more of X's debtors collapse economically, country X might suddenly find itself with a much heavier burden of debt simply because country Y has defaulted on its loans, so country X cannot get access to the money Y owes it. To sum up: "Gross debt" is the amount country X has to pay to its creditors no matter what. "Net debt" is the effective amount of money country X will have to pay from its accounts, provided that its own debtors actually pay the amounts they owe to X. 80.167.179.233 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)The difference between gross and net national debt has nothing to do with what one government owes another but rather whether "national debt" is defined as only what a government has borrowed from outside sources or also includes what it has transferred from its own accounts that have a surplus designated for future use, as with Social Security in the case of the United States.70.233.132.234 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

A lot has happened financially in the past year - credit crunch, bailouts and all. These figures are already largely irrelevant. Have any reliable sources published updated figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.201.106 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2011 budget outcome by Treasury Australia (http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/fbo/html/part_1.htm) Australia net public debt is 6.1 % of GDP. I suggest that this article include an extra column where the countries Treasury figures can be shown. Surely this is a much more accurate way of showing net public debt?--Pete from Oz (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HIGHLY UNRELIABLE Article
In terms of global significance, this article ranks very highly in importance: as far as Wikipedia's own public service remit is concerned, surely there should be a priority to improve it. A number of "Talk" subjects on this page refer to the fundamental unreliability of the data. Is there a way to mark the article itself with an "UNRELIABLE" warning banner?

In fact it even mis-represents its own reliability! There are just three sources referenced in the page for "% of GDP" figures. The article says these are figures relating predominantly to 2011. But that can't possibly be consistent with the references being accessed (as quoted) on 26-Jan-2011, 26-Apr-2011 and Sep-2011: How can 2011 figures be available before the end of 2011???

I don't know how this kind of Wikipedia page is kept up-to-date, but I would have thought Wikipedia could negotiate an automatic mechanism for keeping such tables up-to-date to a particular source. Otherwise... Wikipedia sacrifices its own quality, reliability, and hence relevance as a global service. 88.96.159.86 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In the edit section of the main table there is the following statement - "NOTE! Please do not update this table using sources other than CIA. For consistency, this article uses only CIA numbers to keep them comparable." I think that this is very subjective and should be over-ruled. Firstly, CIA is simply one source of information. There is no explanation of how they verify their figures and, quite frankly, seem quite out of date and suspect. Secondly, the other figures used are Eurostat and IMF. Again, there seems to be no transparency. My suggestion is that, where available, the countries own budgetary figures be shown in a third column. As mentioned further down this discussion page this would, for example, move Australia down from over 30% of GDP to just 6.1% of GDP. I am absolutely certain that other countries would be in the same position - and this is using transparent, audited, figures, not those of the CIA etc. --Pete from Oz (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Huge Errors
If the article is citing the CIA Factbook, then it should use those numbers. It puts U.S debt at 69% of GDP. Remember that other sources are likely to have their own bias. Furthermore, the way debt is counted should be defined a little better so thet we can see the differences. Also, this is public, not private debt so the 100% plus figure for the U.S. is bogus, or at the very least, needs to be applied internationally to all countries with a similar method for comparability.

Also, the IMF source is using gross rather than public debt making the whole second column completely wrong for this article on public debt.

US
i don't quite understand, i know that all, or most of this is inaccurate, but where is the CIA getting 65%? the US treasury released as of March 31, 08 that the Gross External Debt of the United states had reached 13.773 trillion about equal of the total GDP if i'm not mistakenUnimaginable (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)unimaginable

– Because the external debt is not the public debt.69.207.184.165 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly, how should Wikipedia handle the increasingly explicit support of Freddie and Fannie. It merits at least a footnote as it is over $5 trillion between the two agencies. Deet (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On December 11 2008, the US public debt was USD 10'656 billions (source: ).

The estimated US GDP for 2008 is USD 14'500 billions (source: ).

So, as mentioned in United States GDP, end of December, the US public debt will represent 73% of GDP.

--207.138.76.13 (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CIA world book public debt as a percentage of gdp

After compiling a list of largest debtor nations, I checked items against the indicated source: CIA Fact Book at link cited. Most seemed within the margin of error EXCEPT the United States which seemed significantly at variance. This is just to inform whomever of that observation. I withdrew my original posted listing and resorted to a direct extract of the debts/gdp percentages derived directly from the CIA Fact Book. National GDP figures are notorious for revisions and a percentage with them in the denominator will change over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.100.248 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sortable columns on the table?
Please can someone add this feature?

A note should be added clarifying that the included debt is different for different countries
The US' debt doesn't include state and city debt (see CIA notes), but it does for other countries (i.e. Canada). It's fine that the CIA treats the two differently (different countries have different constitutional make up), but it should be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.69.75 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
This article has several issues. 1. It is extremely inaccurate for many countries. 2. It fails to provide data on how these numbers are counted and has an unacceptable amount of variance between the CIA and IMF. 3. The data on Australia is wrong, according to Australian national debt, and there are almost certainly more errors on this page, but I'm not going to check all 196 nations.

The solution is to delete this article and forward the title to List of countries by external debt which is transparent in how the numbers have been calculated. This will give us transparency and accuracy. Stidmatt (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

50% of U.S. Public Debt owed to U.S. Government
Is it true that 50% of the U.S. Public Debt is owed to its own Government by its own Government agencies? And also that a considerable amount is also owed by citizens of the U.S. to U.S. companies, and not to countries abroad. --Vitilsky (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it true that 50% of the U.S. Public Debt is owed to its own Government by its own Government agencies? - this is sort of true. Sometimes, but not always, when you see numbers reported they exclude intragovernmental debt (and I believe it's less than 50% of ALL debt, more like 30%). On the other hand since intragovernmental debt usually does represent legally binding government borrowing, in the form of things like the Social Security trust funds, it will have to be paid back just like other kinds of debt so the numbers are included.


 * a considerable amount is also owed by citizens of the U.S. to U.S. companies, and not to countries abroad - that's not public debt that's private debt, and it's actually the other way around (US companies owing US citizens). If you mean that a considerable part of public debt is owed to US citizens, rather than foreign citizens, then yes that's true, although that % has been going up since the beginning of the 2000's. Volunteer Marek 01:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Average of IMF and CIA data
This is pure, and somewhat misleading, original research and synthesis. Is there a reliable source out there that actually does this? Volunteer Marek 01:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are IMF debt numbers cooked this year?
Every year, except this year, Wikipedia published IMF "General government gross debt" numbers on debt/GDP.

These are the debt numbers that economists use. These are the debt numbers the IMF uses itself.

Take, for example, an article from Forbes: IMF Warns China On Rising Government Debt Here the IMF itself cites the "general government gross debt" numbers for government debt.

It also makes no sense to average the CIA and IMF numbers (even if the correct numbers were used.)

Just put in the right IMF numbers and removed the average column. I can do this myself. It's very important when discussing political issues to have a reliable link to debt/GDP. This year Wikpedia's debt/GDP link is worthless.

The link to the real numbers is here: IMF General government gross debt (World Economic Outlook Database, April 2013)

Countzero1942 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this does not make sense. It is better to just show the IMF data. Nico (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Norway's debt
Norway 	-67.604 	30.3 	2012 est. -165.508 	2012 est. 	Europe

Norway has a surplus twice their GDP according to the IMF?

Also, there's a 200% discrepancy for Norway?

Could someone please doublecheck this?!

128.210.92.37 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Finland update
General government debt relative to GDP rose to 59.3 per cent at the end of 2014 in Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/jyev/2014/04/jyev_2014_04_2015-03-02_tie_001_en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.191.49 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo
CIA factbook has an estimate for Kosovo, but it's a disputed territory.. should I include it in the table? Jahelistbro (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Formatting
Would someone fix the formatting of the chart? Thanks, Jahelistbro (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed the CIA-IMF averages
As they were outdated. Jahelistbro (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by public 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613005546/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Misleading map/graphic
Map is misleading because Yemen is in dark green (-10%) where in real it has 92% public debt according to IMF. Same amount of false data can be found about Jordan, Belarus, Syria, Colombia, Vietnam and many others. Sudan has wrong map. I had removed this map before too and it stayed for months until it was inserted back recently and I had to remove again. We are better without a map, see List of countries by external debt. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Capitals00, thank you for notice about picture, I have largely updated it from the newest IMF report - source is here: 1, and corrected Sudan. Let me know if you find other errors, preferably on image talk. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Нежная музыка для души и ЖИЗНИ,а Пение птиц Успокаивает нервную систему. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.215.238.51 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia
Funny that Armenia is in Europe but the Caucasus state Azerbaijan not. Turkey is called as Asia/Europe but Armenia is behind Turkey. 95.114.51.206 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TRUE that is anti-turkish fasisim.. 2003:6:63AD:F142:1055:98BC:D09:4D7A (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, Armiena is in Asia. 1. Region was changed.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Outdated data
Debt to GDP ratio outdated. Akedia1 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Government debt gdp.png

Expansion request
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)


 * I was also looking for government debt in cash terms — converted to common currency at a recent market exchange rate. So fourteen years later this request is seconded. JDAWiseman (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Table alignment not working
The table starts with no country, and it seems some countries are missing

Some data issues
A footnote to the list said the data was from the CIA World Factbook, but the link did not work. A google search finds the CIA World Factbook has no government debt data past 2017. So it is not clear where the data is from.

The table listing the lowest national public debt by year provides no explanation for why this data is useful. Also, the table has not been updated since 2012.

The "flagg" feature (which links to an individual country's government debt Wikipedia page) might not be very useful because very few countries have such a page (maybe five or ten of around 200 countries). Links for five countries are already provided in the "See also" section. Further, the second choice with the flagg feature, the economy, is not likely to provide information on government debt. (A link to the government of the country might be more appropriate.) Also, the the flagg feature can be expensive. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Flagg ) Lukebayy (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was a bunch of data deleted?
Why was a bunch of pertinent data deleted?

See this edit. 108.20.242.69 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_public_debt&oldid=1070441699