Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak debt


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. L Faraone  06:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Peak debt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged with neologism and COI tags, but I would add that it's utter nonsense. 'peak debt' is a variant on the meme that we're heading to disaster because of government debt, most famously pushed by the now debunked paper Growth in a Time of Debt. While that is a famous or infamous result I see nothing here that's independently notable. This might have seem an important result three years ago but it's been thoroughly discredited since. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The US government recently shut down when it reached its borrowing limit. And sovereign default is not utter nonsense because it has happened repeatedly.  The title is not a neologism as the words are quite standard and their meaning seems clear.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy.  Also, FWIW, see this article which I read just this morning.  It seems clear that economics currently a laughing-stock and the entire field seems to have been discredited.  We still ought to say something about it though, even if that it's bunk. Warden (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The government shutdown for political reasons, not because of any debt ceiling but because they were unable to pass a spending bill. That borrowing limit, i.e. United States debt ceiling is an entirely artificial political construction that all other governments manage without. And as that link shows there is already an article for it. Sovereign default happens for all sorts of reasons, but there's no hard limit on how much countries can borrow, unless they artificially impose one on themselves, as in the US or as in Europe where eurozone countries have limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact and by bailout agreements. Countries without such constraints can borrow as much as they like.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree with much of what JohnBlackburne is saying, but unfortunately fears concerning peak debt are still politically potent, acting as one of the factors constraining public spending all across the world, to a great an unnecessary extent in U.S., G.B. and Europe. Yes the idea has been discredited, but not widely so, from what I've been able to ascertain some of the German / North European elite are sincerely in thrall to the idea. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a political viewpoint that tries to reduce debt, but I've not stated in terms of "peak debt". Either people claim debt will reduce growth, i.e. per Growth in a Time of Debt, though that has now been largely discredited. Or they claim debt will impact future growth, but this ignores both history and disregards normal cyclical spending patterns (where debt is borrowed in recessions to be repaid in booms). Or deficit reduction may even be used to justify spending reduction so taxes can be reduced. That was many people's interpretation of Paul Ryan's budget, and of Republican fiscal policy in general. But there's already an article on people with such fears: deficit hawk. I've never seen it discussed in terms of "peak debt" as the idea of a hard limit is easily debunkable.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we're doing this wrong arguing about the correctness of this. The problem, which I should have identified earlier, is that there are no good reliable sources, either to establish it as a proper theory, or to establish it as a notable fringe theory. The only academic source,, is talking about something else, the point when debt peaked, not a borrowing limit. There is nothing of similar quality that describes it as in this article, and a search finds nothing better. There is certainly nothing that describes it as a notable fringe theory. I wrote that it's easily debunkable but I can't actually find sources on this as it's not something anyone's bothered to do, at least not with regards to 'peak debt'. Though here's Krugman, pointing out that UK debt hit 2.5× GDP only 60 years ago, suggesting that there's no limit under that for debt to GDP ratio.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I recall quite often seeing "peak debt" mentioned in the FT, but not much has came up from a search - the hits were mostly using the term in a different context, or they were just passing mentions. The FT did link to this interesting article on the relationship with peak oil, though I guess many wouldnt consider the oildrum reliable. I've downgraded my vote to weak keep, though I still think the coverage in sources already in the article are sufficient. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * delete This appears to be a bit of OR in that it's not even clear that the various cited authors are talking about same thing. The notion that there is some upper limit to indebtedness is intuitive but there doesn't seem to be a formalization of the idea; all we really have is that several different people used the phrase, not all in the same context. Meaningful book and scholarly hits were distinctly lacking beyond the couple of cited works. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.