Talk:Public debt

"Implicit" debt
Should there perhapse be some mention of "implicit" debt in this article?

For example, while Canada is set to pass the US in terms of "explicit" debt soon (if it hasn't already), its "implicit" debt (which includes the projected future costs of things like pensions and healthcare) is still much higher.

I think the reason this is sometimes overlooked is because it's hard to make 1:1 comparisons like you can with simple "paper debt" outstanding (e.g. there are signifigant structure differences been the US and Canadian healthcare systems), but I'm pretty sure it's still an important issue.

Hopefully someone with some knowledge on the issue can enlighten us. -- stewacide 19:04, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem is it all depends on what "maturity", timeframe, or "net present value" you want to put on the social security claims, since it's not regular debt papers. Here's an article with some different calculations from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:, and here's a graph from a 2002 The Economist article: , unfortunately I don't have the article from which it came, so I have no idea what assumptions it's based on. There's been some discussion about the US government going cash flow negative in ~2015 because of increasing "Government social benefits", which was 1.3 trillion during 2003. - Jerryseinfeld 14:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List
I think we should have a comparison of various countries debts as percentages of the GDP, as, for example, in. It seems to be a good way of comparing things.. but it also seems governments can skew the numbers.. for example, i'm skeptical of this graph since it shows the UK having the least debt, and it's from a UK webpage.. it may be true, of course, but it would have to be verified somehow. 131.111.8.97 11:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * See List of public debt for a list of debt/GDP for all countries (Source CIA world fact book). Feel free to make a graph from it. Donar Reiskoffer 12:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public?
Why is the "public debt" "government bonds"? It must be public debt and public bonds, or government debt and government bonds. It can't be a combination. - Jerryseinfeld 05:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many things with two names so that you have identified two names for what you think are the same thing I do not, in itself, find problematic. But the problem arises because some of these things you want to lump together here are not the same. The term "public bonds" I have never heard and the term "public debt" means more than "sovereign bonds". "Sovereign bonds" is a subset of "sovereign debt" and which is itself a subset of "government debt". "Government bonds" is a subset of "government debt". Paul Beardsell 08:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Short term government debt
General management of short term cash flow issues is done by mechanisms other than bonds and these require treatment in an article on government debt. Paul Beardsell 08:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)