The World's Biggest Debtor Nations

silverharp

and the winner is

CNBC slideshow

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=16


http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/externaldebt.pdf

Edit - I'm sure the IFSC etc has distorted the numbers , if anyone has a comparable "net" figure to get an idea how much debt it is attached to Irish industry ,gov and people , feel free to add or put in context

Belfast

Perhaps the Irish nation needs to start listen to Dave Ramsey

"where debt is dumb, cash is king, and the paid off home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the
status symbol of choice."

Dave Ramsey has a cool radio show that help people get out of Debt and get control of there lives.

Dave Ramsey offers life-changing financial advice as host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Dave Ramsey Show, heard by nearly 4 million listeners each week on more than 400 radio stations throughout the United States.

The three-hour live radio talk show focuses on life, love, and relationships, and how they happen to revolve around money.
http://www.daveramsey.com/radio/home/

ednwireland

surely the US tops that list, their balance of payments deficit topped 1 trillion dollars last year, or am i missing something here - probably because its mickey mouse numbers to me

Alcatel

ednwireland wrote: »

surely the US tops that list, their balance of payments deficit topped 1 trillion dollars last year, or am i missing something here - probably because its mickey mouse numbers to me

It's per capita?

ejmaztec

As the US is a combination of states, it would be interesting to see where the EU itself, treated in the same way, would be placed on the list.

turgon

For those who dont want to have to go to an external site simply to understand a thread, the worst debtor nation was Ireland.

silverharp

turgon wrote: »

For those who dont want to have to go to an external site simply to understand a thread, the worst debtor nation was Ireland.

Thanks , Hope this helps

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daithinski

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good christ. That's frightening. We're doomed, doomed I tells ya!:eek:

Saabdub

Is there an up to date source for the Irish national debt?

greendom

ednwireland wrote: »

surely the US tops that list, their balance of payments deficit topped 1 trillion dollars last year, or am i missing something here - probably because its mickey mouse numbers to me

Absolutely, I was always under the impression that the US was by far the highest debtor nation - these numbers don't ring true to me...

lukasbasic

greendom wrote: »

Absolutely, I was always under the impression that the US was by far the highest debtor nation - these numbers don't ring true to me...

then google first then try to ring again
per capita means that each citizen has to pay off $549,819

professore

This is not the same as the national debt. Our national debt is a relatively healthy 41% of GDP at present.

http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php

http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/debtGDP.php


External debt (or foreign debt) is that part of the total debt in a country that is owed to creditors outside the country. The debtors can be the government, corporations or private households. The debt includes money owed to private commercial banks, other governments, or international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

So probably this is debt owed by companies resident in Ireland. Since a lot of companies are resident in Ireland purely for tax reasons this is a completely misleading statistic IMHO. Things are bad but not that bad.

greendom

professore wrote: »

This is not the same as the national debt. Our national debt is a relatively healthy 41% of GDP at present.

http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php

http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/debtGDP.php


External debt (or foreign debt) is that part of the total debt in a country that is owed to creditors outside the country. The debtors can be the government, corporations or private households. The debt includes money owed to private commercial banks, other governments, or international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

So probably this is debt owed by companies resident in Ireland. Since a lot of companies are resident in Ireland purely for tax reasons this is a completely misleading statistic IMHO. Things are bad but not that bad.

that makes a lot more sense

greendom

lukasbasic wrote: »

then google first then try to ring again
per capita means that each citizen has to pay off $549,819

Thanks for the lesson and the condescension - much appreciated

Saabdub

So if the national debt was €50,400,000,000 in December and the CSO states the population was 4,239,848 in July 2006 this gives a figure of €11,887 ($15,459) national debt per capita. That's less than 3% of the figure quoted above. So where does the other 97% of the debt come from?

Alcatel

Saabdub wrote: »

So if the national debt was €50,400,000,000 in December and the CSO states the population was 4,239,848 in July 2006 this gives a figure of €11,887 ($15,459) national debt per capita. That's less than 3% of the figure quoted above. So where does the other 97% of the debt come from?

That's just what we've already borrowed against the state. It doesn't count mortgages, credit cards, what we're out on by for the bank insurance.

silverharp

this might give a bit of context to the private sector element, still very high if you add the gov element to it

http://www.ntma.ie/Publications/2009/std_poors_ireland_rating_march09.pdf

The medium-term prospects for the Irish economy are constrained by three
interrelated factors: first, the impact on domestic demand as the private
sector reduces its high debt burden, which stood at 280% of GDP in 2008;
second, the scale of the deterioration of asset quality in the banking sector
and possible need for additional capital; and, third, the support from
external demand Ireland can expect as global economic conditions improve.

donvito99

We're doooooooomed!

Saabdub

I found the figures on the CSO website from last December Eur 1.66 trillion http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/externaldebt.pdf

af_thefragile

Atleast we made it to the top in something! :rolleyes:

Saabdub wrote: »

So if the national debt was €50,400,000,000 in December and the CSO states the population was 4,239,848 in July 2006 this gives a figure of €11,887 ($15,459) national debt per capita. That's less than 3% of the figure quoted above. So where does the other 97% of the debt come from?

If oscarBravo wouldn't have had closed my thread people would have had a better understanding of how the monetary system and debt works. But guess true hard facts aren't allowed here.
Anyway if you wanna take a look, its still here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055543982

Once you watch that you'll understand why most of the west is in a state of perpetual debt. The more money a country makes, the more in debt it gets because thats how the whole monetary system is designed to be!



Btw, here's another good list of the external debt of all the countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

and here's another list of the public debt of all the countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

stevedublin

af_thefragile wrote: »

Atleast we made it to the top in something! :rolleyes:

we also win Eurovision Song contests btw.

af_thefragile

^oh yeah, we also won the six nations championship.
Wohoo, we're making progress!! =/

asdasd

If oscarBravo wouldn't have had closed my thread people would have had a better understanding of how the monetary system and debt works.

Money is debt, real wealth is created when people create goods and services to pay the bank back. The potentical flaw in the system is finite resources, and - well - what we are seeing now.

the solutions are worse. From that video' solution, goverment creates money, pays it's employees, and private enterprise exists at the margins supplying to government. The government would have to run most of the econoomy and only large projects would inject cash into the economy. Eventually when all the roads are built there is a lot of infrastructure but nothing left to do.

oscarBravo

af_thefragile wrote: »

If oscarBravo wouldn't have had closed my thread people would have had a better understanding of how the monetary system and debt works.

More accurately, people who are in a position to watch Internet video would have the opportunity to see one explanation of how the monetary system is perceived to work.

But guess true hard facts aren't allowed here.

If you want to share "true hard facts", feel free to do so, in text form: this is a text-based discussion forum.

Anyway if you wanna take a look, its still here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055543982

Wow, look: it's still there. I guess that means I failed in my attempt to suppress your "true hard facts", doesn't it?

af_thefragile

^Well, before you gave me a chance to write it down in text form, which i did mail you and tell you it was quite a complicated system to be explained properly in text form, you closed it down...

Just cuz you don't share the same opinion about the modern banking monetary system as me (or the one described in video, which is as accurate as it could get) doesn't mean you reject it completely and prevent others from reflecting on it. What is this, socialism?!

oscarBravo

I closed the thread because it didn't comply with the forum rules. You might want to consider reading those rules now, particularly the one about discussion of moderation.

mac_iomhair

i watched a video on "google video" last night entitled "FIAT EMPIRE" which I have to say opened my eyes.
We are suppressed by debt for a reason, that is to make money for the rich and keep us "poor" and in our place. Working man always gets fecked in the rectum! The american dream is a facade,

I would like to ask the question, are our Euro's backed by gold or are they as worthless as the dollar in reality?

oscarBravo

mac_iomhair wrote: »

i watched a video on "google video" last night entitled "FIAT EMPIRE" which I have to say opened my eyes.
We are suppressed by debt for a reason, that is to make money for the rich and keep us "poor" and in our place. Working man always gets fecked in the rectum! The american dream is a facade,

There's a dedicated Conspiracy Theories forum.

I would like to ask the question, are our Euro's backed by gold or are they as worthless as the dollar in reality?

Last time I brought a bunch of Euros to a shop, I was able to exchange them for goods. That sort of gives the lie to the idea of them being worthless.

asdasd

Wow, look: it's still there. I guess that means I failed in my attempt to suppress your "true hard facts", doesn't it?

Ha! That's because Oscar Bravo's attempt to control the entire InterWeb and hide the TRUTH about DEBT AND MONEY has been thwarted!! For now.

We are suppressed by debt for a reason, that is to make money for the rich and keep us "poor" and in our place. Working man always gets fecked in the rectum! The american dream is a facade,

I have no debt. I am merely "suppressed" by The Man, my employer. Damn him! he's keeping me down. Now he is in debt!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

That said, he is very rich though. He used the debt to start a company and is on the way to paying it back, gaining himself a large equity.

Still. He's suppressed, and I'm free!!

mac_iomhair

oscarBravo wrote: »

Last time I brought a bunch of Euros to a shop, I was able to exchange them for goods. That sort of gives the lie to the idea of them being worthless.

your being very close minded here, also this is not a conspiracy theory.

af_thefragile

oscarBravo wrote: »

I closed the thread because it didn't comply with the forum rules. You might want to consider reading those rules now, particularly the one about discussion of moderation.

You told me to PM you and i PMed you explaining to you what the video was about.
Also i think the thread title was clear enough to give people and idea of what it was all about.

Last time I brought a bunch of Euros to a shop, I was able to exchange them for goods. That sort of gives the lie to the idea of them being worthless.

Next time save up those Euros and see what you can buy with it after 5 years and then don't tell me you were disappointed!

oscarBravo

mac_iomhair wrote: »

your being very close minded here, also this is not a conspiracy theory.

It never is...

af_thefragile wrote: »

You told me to PM you and i PMed you explaining to you what the video was about.
Also i think the thread title was clear enough to give people and idea of what it was all about.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You might want to consider reading those rules now, particularly the one about discussion of moderation.

...

af_thefragile wrote: »

Next time save up those Euros and see what you can buy with it after 5 years and then don't tell me you were disappointed!

If I can buy anything with them, by definition they are not worthless.

asdasd

by definition they are not worthless.

Just worth less.

hahahahahaaha


see what I did there?

mac_iomhair

Paper money has to have worth something, if the paper is not backed by the same value in gold or silver then you are exchanging paper for goods and services. This is the principle on which the creation of money is based and if it is not being adhered to then were asking for trouble. I suggest you watch "fiat empire" without being cynical. Im not into conpiracy theories but when its right there staring you in the face you have to recognise that men who profit from your debt and ultimately a countries debt control the country, whether you want to realise that or not, its plain to see.

asdasd

why does money have to be backed by anything? As long as people believe it has value, as a medium of exchange, it works.

af_thefragile

mac_iomhair wrote: »

Paper money has to have worth something, if the paper is not backed by the same value in gold or silver then you are exchanging paper for goods and services. This is the principle on which the creation of money is based and if it is not being adhered to then were asking for trouble. I suggest you watch "fiat empire" without being cynical. Im not into conpiracy theories but when its right there staring you in the face you have to recognise that men who profit from your debt and ultimately a countries debt control the country, whether you want to realise that or not, its plain to see.

Exactly what the "money as debt" film shows too. How the monetary system was manipulated over time and was still controlled until sound money was abolished with the abolition of Bretton Woods system and then everything went haywire. The banks were now free to create as much money as they liked spiraling people and countries into perpetual debt.

I think the fact that our money is backed by word of a greedy banker has a little more significance than our ability to still use the money to buy commodities.

Its because we live in the "west" where the bankers live, we can still buy things with our money although what we can buy is becoming more and more limited by the day and we don't complain much. But you'ld really be contemplating the modern monetary system if you lived in Zimbabwe (and very soon even in America) where you can barely even buy a loaf of bread with all of your life savings!

asdasd

It would take far too long to explain why all of that is rubbish.

mac_iomhair

asdasd wrote: »

It would take far too long to explain why all of that is rubbish.

why do you think it is rubbish? ive only seen one side of the argument and would like to know why not backing money by gold would be a good thing?

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

It would take far too long to explain why all of that is rubbish.

Please have a quick pop at it? It seems the system can just make up money on top of a fraction of money that exists and then lend it out and charge interest. Leaving aside the apparent immorality of usury the system still seems basically crazy.

oscarBravo

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Leaving aside the apparent immorality of usury...

Just so we're clear: you're opposed to the idea of charging interest on lent money?

If lenders can't charge interest, what incentive is there to lend? Are you suggesting that lending shouldn't happen at all?

mac_iomhair

i would think that the state should control the creation of money and therefore not have to pay interest on it at all. therefore not creating debt straight from the word go.

when it comes to banks lending money privately they of course should be charging interest as its a business.

asdasd

Please have a quick pop at it?

Ok, but later.

Nody

mac_iomhair wrote: »

why do you think it is rubbish? ive only seen one side of the argument and would like to know why not backing money by gold would be a good thing?

Because money is worth nothing. Gold is worth nothing. Nothing has a value except what people are willing to pay for it. Hence backing up papers with gold is the same as backing it up with coal or thin air.

There is no value in gold except that people now think it is valuable because it is rare but say we find a new planet tomorrow which gives us access to unlimited amounts of gold; suddenly gold now has no value and the back up of money is meaningless. You might also remember the same thing happening with Tulip speculation as well a few centuaries ago.

Now say that Europe had exactly 100 ton of gold which was worth 1 million Euro; this also represents the total circulation. Now gold drops in value to only be worth half of that; do you expect the state to withdraw half the cash in rotation? Of course not. But you will say that money had a fixed amount in gold and that is very true but this goes back to the original point; gold only has a value as long as gold equals or exceeds that value in what people are willing to pay. If suddenly gold doubled in value everyone would run to the state and exchange in their money for gold, sell the gold and be twice as rich!

Hence the whole idea that gold backed currency some how is a magical fix is a utopia at best and ignorance at worst.

mac_iomhair

Nody wrote: »

Because money is worth nothing. Gold is worth nothing. Nothing has a value except what people are willing to pay for it. Hence backing up papers with gold is the same as backing it up with coal or thin air.

There is no value in gold except that people now think it is valuable because it is rare but say we find a new planet tomorrow which gives us access to unlimited amounts of gold; suddenly gold now has no value and the back up of money is meaningless. You might also remember the same thing happening with Tulip speculation as well a few centuaries ago.

Now say that Europe had exactly 100 ton of gold which was worth 1 million Euro; this also represents the total circulation. Now gold drops in value to only be worth half of that; do you expect the state to withdraw half the cash in rotation? Of course not. But you will say that money had a fixed amount in gold and that is very true but this goes back to the original point; gold only has a value as long as gold equals or exceeds that value in what people are willing to pay. If suddenly gold doubled in value everyone would run to the state and exchange in their money for gold, sell the gold and be twice as rich!

Hence the whole idea that gold backed currency some how is a magical fix is a utopia at best and ignorance at worst.

good points. so its all down to peoples willingness to accept this paper in exchange for goods and services. what about private banks lending to the government at interest, why doesnt the government do this itself? its one complicated and twisted system this banking game, wish I hadnt started looking into it! ignorance is bliss.

O'Coonassa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear: you're opposed to the idea of charging interest on lent money?

If lenders can't charge interest, what incentive is there to lend? Are you suggesting that lending shouldn't happen at all?

Well I kind of see the economic system as an abstraction of the food supply and the environment. When agriculture and pastoralism created the first surpluses tokens of representative value were agreed as money. There seems therefore to be something basically wrong with the notion that this abstraction can create more of itself. Seems like that is just asking for trouble.

All the major religions of the world, or rather their ancient scriptures are opposed to usury. I can't help but think that it is somewhat wrong but recognise that lending is necessary for development. Perhaps people could lend in return for a cut of the capital that is subsequently generated from what they have lent once it becomes a concrete reality.

However this is kind of a side issue to me really what stands out as obviously wrong is the fractional reserve system. How can they lend money that does not exist?

af_thefragile

@Nody: You're missing the point.

You can't create gold out of thin air. You have to work hard to mine and refine gold into its pure bullion form. That is the worth of gold. Not what someone decided to give it for the sake of giving it some worth.

But in the case of fiat money, if say the government wants to build a few nuke, it needs 10billion dollars, it asks the federal/central reserve for 10 billion dollars. The Fed just prints up 10 billion dollars worth of paper money and viola! the government has 10 billion dollars to build a nuke or whatever it wants!

Don't you think this is giving the Fed some unfair advantage? It first created money out of thin air with zero effort (as opposed to working hard to obtain the gold, silver etc.) and then further more it charges interest on that money it created out of thin air. The "actual/absolute wealth" of the country hasn't gone up in any way as it hasn't worked any harder to increase its wealth. Instead it now owes the money it has borrowed + the interest on it to the Fed and there is no way the country can pay the interest cuz all the wealth the country has in the first place is the principle sum it borrowed. It doesn't have the wealth to pay back the interest. So what does the country do? It takes another loan on interest again to pay off the previous loan and the cycle perpetually continues, while the ratio of the circulating money in the country to the "imaginary" interest it owes to the reserve bank keeps decreasing all the time spiraling the country into perpetual debt. Or in the case of a country like China, exploit its natural resources and sell it to other countries to earn the additional money to pay off the interest.

Your money keeps getting more and more worthless. While your pays remain the same (or in cases even they get reduced) and now you've got to work harder to make a living as your actual wealth is going down. You might be a millionaire but that money will barely get you though the year.

And according to the law of nature, whenever someone is losing, someone else is gaining.

Over here the people are clearly losing (but they never notice it cuz its a slow process and they just accept it as a part of life). Although they're making more and more money, their wealth is decreasing cuz everything is getting more and more expensive. There is a lag between inflation and pay rise (or it could even get worse like now we've got inflation + pay cuts!) and during that lad the person loses his wealth cuz he's making the same amount of money but he's gotta pay more for the things he had to before so he's spending more now.

And so who's winning here?
Yes, the ones who created this whole system. The bankers!
First they're getting paid an interest on money they created out of nothing with zero effort. Then as everything is getting more and more expensive, people are taking more and more loans now. Everytime a person takes a loan, the money for the loan is created out of thin air which the person works hard to repay and also then work hard to pay off the interest on it. The people are doing all the hard work here while all the bankers are doing is creating the money to lend the people and also getting paid for lending that money they created out of thin air.


Brings me to this story Peter Schiff said of an american, a chinese, an african and a jamaican who once got stranded on an island.
Everyone was assigned a particular job. The african was assigned the job to hunt for the food. The jamaican was assigned the job to prepare for the fire. The chinese was assigned the job to cook the food. While the american was assigned the job to eat the food. The american would rest all day and then just eat enough for himself to leave for everyone else to get a decent meal.
Now an economist would say, the american is doing a great job in there, he's giving everyone employment, without him the others wouldn't have a job and all.
But any other person would say kick out the american off the island as without him the others would be much better off as they wouldn't have to work as hard to feed the american and could take some time to rest too.

asdasd

af_thefragile wrote: »

@Nody: You're missing the point.

You can't create gold out of thin air. You have to work hard to mine and refine gold into its pure bullion form. That is the worth of gold. Not what someone decided to give it for the sake of giving it some worth.

Is that the labour theory of gold? If gold merely represented it's labour it wouldn't ever change value.

But in the case of fiat money, if say the government wants to build a few nuke, it needs 10billion dollars, it asks the federal/central reserve for 10 billion dollars. The Fed just prints up 10 billion dollars worth of paper money and viola! the government has 10 billion dollars to build a nuke or whatever it wants!

No it doesn't. In fact it borrows it, or receives it in revenue. Wasn't that the problem people in this thread have already. Banks borrow from the Fed, but governments borrow from the bond market.

Your money keeps getting more and more worthless. While your pays remain the same (or in cases even they get reduced) and now you've got to work harder to make a living as your actual wealth is going down. You might be a millionaire but that money will barely get you though the year.

The evidence of this is that we are all poorer than, say, a feudalistic system.

And according to the law of nature, whenever someone is losing, someone else is gaining.

That's also a fallacy. Creation of wealth is a non-zero sum game. When someone is winning, someone is winning.

Over here the people are clearly losing (but they never notice it cuz its a slow process and they just accept it as a part of life). Although they're making more and more money, their wealth is decreasing cuz everything is getting more and more expensive. There is a lag between inflation and pay rise (or it could even get worse like now we've got inflation + pay cuts!) and during that lad the person loses his wealth cuz he's making the same amount of money but he's gotta pay more for the things he had to before so he's spending more now.

We have deflation and pay cuts. Wages generally outstip inflation, in fact the only proper measure of personal income growth is real wages.

silverharp

Nody wrote: »

Because money is worth nothing. Gold is worth nothing. Nothing has a value except what people are willing to pay for it. Hence backing up papers with gold is the same as backing it up with coal or thin air.

There is no value in gold except that people now think it is valuable because it is rare but say we find a new planet tomorrow which gives us access to unlimited amounts of gold; suddenly gold now has no value and the back up of money is meaningless. You might also remember the same thing happening with Tulip speculation as well a few centuaries ago.

Now say that Europe had exactly 100 ton of gold which was worth 1 million Euro; this also represents the total circulation. Now gold drops in value to only be worth half of that; do you expect the state to withdraw half the cash in rotation? Of course not. But you will say that money had a fixed amount in gold and that is very true but this goes back to the original point; gold only has a value as long as gold equals or exceeds that value in what people are willing to pay. If suddenly gold doubled in value everyone would run to the state and exchange in their money for gold, sell the gold and be twice as rich!

Hence the whole idea that gold backed currency some how is a magical fix is a utopia at best and ignorance at worst.

To be fair there is nothing magical about gold, we live in an electronic age where an algorithm could replicate the qualities of gold, the point is money is just there to make barter of surpluses more efficient and as a store of value, nothing more nothing less. The problem seems to occur when gov. and central banks decide that they want to print or borrow more money into the system then there are goods to back it up, this creates inflation , destroys savings and encourages speculation.

af_thefragile

asdasd wrote: »

Is that the labour theory of gold? If gold merely represented it's labour it wouldn't ever change value.

It is the fact of gold. And gold hasn't changed it value. 500 years ago with one gold coin you could buy a certain amount of things. Today if you have a gold coin and convert it into paper money, you'll still be able to buy the same amount of things with the paper money you were able to exchange for the coin.
Only thing that has changed over the years is how much paper you can exchange for the gold and how much that paper is supposedly worth.

No it doesn't. In fact it borrows it, or receives it in revenue. Wasn't that the problem people in this thread have already. Banks borrow from the Fed, but governments borrow from the bond market.

I think i explained how it works and you decided to skip it completely. The only money available is the principle sum that the Fed has pumped out into the economy. The government has to borrow money to pay off the interest on that principle sum.

The evidence of this is that we are all poorer than, say, a feudalistic system.

I don't know about you but right now i'm having quite a trouble finding a job and i buy as many things as i used to with my money anymore. I thought this country was making progress... guess it is, just in the wrong direction!

That's also a fallacy. Creation of wealth is a non-zero sum game. When someone is winning, someone is winning.

No, where did you come to that conclusion to? When one is wining, someone is always losing. At first we raped the planet of its natural resources. Now that we're close to exhausting it, we're just going into spirals of debt. Losing jobs, losing pay, losing quality of life.

We have deflation and pay cuts. Wages generally outstip inflation, in fact the only proper measure of personal income growth is real wages.

And what would you define as real wages?
Inflation is not the increasing of prices but its the increase in the amount of money in the system lowering the value of the money which in turn results in increased prices of commodities.
I think the more accurate representation of what we have now is redundancies and pay cuts!

weiss

For those that think gold is worth nothing.

How long would it take you to do some research and see its wide variety of uses apart from in jewelry?