SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Global debt levels rose to more than 325 percent of the world's gross domestic product last year as government debt rose sharply, a report from the Institute for International Finance showed on Wednesday.
The IIF's report found that global debt had risen more than $11 trillion in the first nine months of 2016 to more than $217 trillion. The report also found that general government debt accounted for nearly half of the total increase.
Emerging market debt rose substantially, as government bond and syndicated loan issuance in 2016 grew to almost three times its 2015 level.
Source: Reuters
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Global Debt Hits 325% Of World GDP, Rises To Record $217 Trillion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Special engagement; no discounts, passes or coupons accepted.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday January 06 2017, @02:28PM
"given that most of that 217 trillion in debt is probably owed to a handful of megarich organisations"
Speaking of needing to show your math...you need to, because that's nonsense.
Governmental debt is owed to whoever has bought national bonds, which are in turn owned not only by the very rich, but also by lots of ordinary people (either directly, or through their retirement funds). I don't know if the report is including "unfunded liabilities", but that is the rest of the iceberg. This is where governments have future debts for which they have failed to set any money aside. Governments normally don't count these liabilities as debts, because they haven't had to borrow the money yet. This kind of debt is massive, and will also affect ordinary people. Just as an example: the US has a current debt of about $20 trillion, but unfunded liabilities of at least $100 trillion.
THe other naive part of your post is the assumption that taking capital out of private hands and spending it on infrastructure will provide some higher return on that capital. You need to go take a couple of economics courses. More importantly, you need to go work for the government, and see just how effectively governments can waste and mis-spend money. The purpose of a government bureaucracy is to propagate itself and grow. The incentives are all wrong: you want to grow your headcount and increase your budget - there is essentially zero incentive to be productive or efficient in the performance of your supposed duties.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday January 06 2017, @03:20PM
Governmental debt is owed to whoever has bought national bonds,
Maybe... whatever. That's why I put a "probably" in there, because I wasn't certain - although I suppose if I was feeling argumentative I could pedantically assert that the kind of governments who are issuing these bonds by the trillion qualify as "megarich organisations". Either way, it's kind of beside the point.
n that taking capital out of private hands and spending it on infrastructure will provide some higher return on that capital. You need to go take a couple of economics courses.
The return is there, but as I clearly stated in my original post, it isn't a DIRECT return back to the people who invested it. It's a shared return that makes everybody a little better off, and so raises the societal platform upon which business depends. A rising tide lifts all ships, isn't that what the trickle-down people like to say? Well, if you want to really rise the tide, you don't pump all the water into a bunch of giant tankers and leave it there - you have to splash some water about a bit.
More importantly, you need to go work for the government, and see just how effectively governments can waste and mis-spend money... you want to grow your headcount and increase your budget ..
Oh yeah, because nobody here who has worked in a private business has ever seen vanity projects that cost millions but produce nothing of value, bad management that turns time and money and hard work into crap results, procurement staff on the make, salesmen pushing products they can't deliver, petty middle managers building personal empires, senior management willing to push their colleagues or even the company under the bus for their own personal gain, companies that abuse the commons or their own customers, bribery, theft,corruption ... yeah, the business world is a perfectly oiled machine in which everybody works in the most optimal way possible and always delivers on time, on budget and to spec. Don't make me laugh.
This idea that governments are bumbling halfwits, stumbling around in the shadow of The Mighty Free Market is nothing more than a randian myth. Governments are no less effective than any other large-scale endeavour that has to contend with human weakness. Don't get me wrong, a healthy society needs business too, but capitalism isn't the One Great Solution to all problems.
there is essentially zero incentive to be productive or efficient in the performance of your supposed duties.
You're the one who needs to go out and get some experience of the subject you are talking about. I have been surrounded by civil servants my entire life. The overwhelming majority are hard-working, dedicated, professional and conscientious people going above and beyond to provide a decent service in the face of all kinds of adversity. Your post is an insult to them, and to be honest it's hard not to take it personally.
Government might not be perfect, but like democracy, it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @06:34PM
Shabam!!
I love your well thought out posts, you seem to always manage a courteous air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:06AM
> Government might not be perfect, but like democracy, it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
You forgot to state your assumptions.
Some people would rather not be governed by others. And in small communities, that approach does indeed work. It fails with more people, almost never succeeding beyond the 10,000 people mark, because new organisms (groups of people) self-organize and vie for dominance 'one level up' from humans.
But look at the Inuit for a great example of a population that succeeded extremely well considering the environment, historically without being governed.