Bitcoin Forum

Below is a list of 10 Countries With the Biggest Debt Burdens¹

1. Japan $10.1 trillion
2. Greece $415.35 billion
3. Italy $2.94 trillion
4. United States $36.8 trillion
5. Spain $1.74 trillion
6. France $3.478 trillion
7. Portugal $305.45 billion
8. Canada $2.52 trillion
9. Brazil
10. Belgium $640.3 billion

I am not an economist so my question would be directed to those who understand economics and government administration. If a country is capable of paying off her debts, why don't they? Obviously , these developed countries I believe are capable of offsetting their debts because they even render aids to other developing nations.
Secondly, are there any benefits, economic or otherwise of a country being in debt?

---

1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/top-10-countries-with-the-heaviest-burden-of-debt?onepage

well, i am only going to point to the opportunity Cost, Governments and often have competing priorities, such as investing in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social programs. Paying off debt immediately would require diverting funds from these essential areas.

Countries struggle to pay off their debts due to many reasons. Economic problems such as recessions or high unemployment rates can hinder a countries ability to generate sufficient revenue. Mismanagement of funds, corruption or inefficient tax systems can further exacerbate the problem. External factors such as global economic crises or unfavourable exchange rates can impede a countries debt repayment capacity. Every countries situation is unique& finding sustainable solutions requires a careful examination of their specific circumstances.

For the developed countries, I don't think debt or no debt has any negative influence on them since they still maintain good standard of living by all the progressive indicators to show the economy is growing despite the debt. They could offset that but may not have been worried about it as they also have there reserves and their economy thriving well. But I think the reason they may not be eager to repay is when there is no pressure for them to repay so they would prefer to use the money for other needs and if they have not shown sign of bankruptcy.

It's because they can't just pay it in full as there's always a budget allotted for most of the department depending on how the country distributes that. Our country also has a lot of debt but the government does pay it a little by little and what's sad is that it keeps on ballooning. The payment that's being done is just going through the interest and not with the principal amount. Maybe this is the same for the other countries that instead of paying the principal amount and they're capable of it, they're just paying the interest of it.

Base from this website, this is what it said about even being capable of paying, they keep on borrowing as well;


Aside from the connections and funding public projects:

It is the old concept of economic used by the citizen in their  country to scam their government to pay their tax.Let me explain with the citizen model,then you can understand in the way of the government.The citizen will start the company and get the salary from their company and ask their clients to pay their owing in terms of buying their stocks in the stock market.So their won’t be high economic flow in their company,it reduce half of the tax to the company owners.The second way is the company owners will buy all their luxuries thing by loan using their stocks into the bank with low interest.By this they no need to pay tax for the luxury properties.Like this Developed countries get loan by their government bond.

All things being equal, those debts were taken for an investment. The debts were taken to produce something, so the debt will be paid from that investment over a given period.
Some countries that are badly run take loans for consumption like paying salaries etc. which is bad. Loans are taken for investment, then you pay the loan back from the proceeds of that investment.

Let's use Japan and Greece as a case study.
According to your post, Japan's debt is just over $10 trillion. Japan's annual budget is about $771 billion. So you see the damage that paying off a loan of over $10 trillion will do to that economy?

The same goes for Greece with an annual budget of $111 billion.
They also just can't print money to pay off the loans because you know what happens if they do that.

Have you ever wondered why a big multinational company still has debts and asks for funding from banks and other financial institutions?
It's because it's financially unwise to use all the money you have for an investment.
For example, if a company has 30 million in liquidity, and they want to go into an investment where the capital is worth 10 million, it would be wrong of them to use the money they have for that investment.
There are many different ways to fund that project, one of them is taking a loan despite having enough money to fund the project.

The loan is based on their repayment capacity,if one person getting loan for 1 million dollars,he had a capacity to multiple their money to 2 million with a short period of time.So the developed countries had huge capacity to repay the loan at any point.So they getting the loan just for the funds rotation.The developed countries also use the loan money to multiple to double or triple money.This will help their country to increase their economic activities.By this techniques most of the developed countries still multiple their earnings.

I so much feel less humiliated as I had to scan the least in search of my nation and it’s a good thing they didn’t make this list.

Now would you look at that! It becomes a thing of wonder on how they got to the point they are now, sinking in debts and the worst is, you still find many of these nations borrowing more. Every government regime seems to be doing this and you still find the nation wallowing on poverty.

Another thing you wonder is,
If they aren’t meeting down the payments; just why are they being handed down more loans? Yeah, it’s a business and case of interest where you have these institutions have some control over the prices and supply of some of the rich in natural resources supplies but, these nations has to look towards a more productive aspect especially the developing once.

Here is the debt amount of each country, you think each country is very strong economically then why are they not paying the debt. If a country thinks that if they pay the amount of financial debt they have, they will face financial crisis again, then those countries refrain from paying the financial debt. But there are some countries in this list who can repay their financial debt if they want but I think financial debt is a cycle of business, no matter how developed a country is there will be lending or borrowing. Some countries may have borrowed for a long time so they are not paying their debts at the moment even if they can afford it.

They are paying their annual dues but it is that If I am not mistaken, the World Bank or the financer approves another loan even though the country has an existing loan that balloons their existing debt, making them look like not paying their debt.  These debts are to fuel innovations and development of a country.  I bet the financer won't stand idle if the debtor doesn't pay.  

In order to pay off a debt, you first must of course, give something in equivalent that would pay off such debt, countries could go for an exchange of resources, countries could mine or yield whatever they can collect from their territory that would be of value and preferably something that the country they would pay off is lacking. In the case of Japan they could literally pay off their debts with their vast amounts of resources, maybe even products that the lending country could rebrand as theirs although that would seriously hurt their economy.

The fact of the matter is that a country couldn't just pay their debts in one go even if they want to, paying off a debt will cause issues to their economy which may lead them to take out an even bigger loan.

everything is within calculation like these debts, the countries you mentioned that have debts also gives loan to the other country, i'm pretty sure that the money from these debts are being used to finance sectors that could helps them earning more therefore not wasted money then the debts gonna get paid annually by taking advantage of the rise of earning of such countries.
therefore even with such massive debts they are still fine and not gonna get any economic crises that could make them fail to pay off the debts.
this is the thing with government in general, but sometime there might be really corrupt government that takes on loan and don't have any plan to pay off the debt and instead just leave the burden for the next elected president.

There are many areas of interest where a country invests their money, due to which they cannot simply come and say 'take the money and write off our debts'. The government of such countries may keep these debts as safety parachute once their economy falls to a new low and their GDP growth ratio gets destabilized. Some countries don't repay their debts because they get comparatively cheap interest rates to be paid, and these countries keep delaying their repayments to use the debt in various schemes through which they manage to gain more to add to their reserves.

With some benefits that come handy to these countries, it should not be forgotten that these debts can be highly dangerous if recession takes place and that country becomes economically unstable.

I guess I will include here my country and observe the things they made reason why they keep increase the debt. Some of them really need to seek a money into other large country just to make infrastructure to make help to the community it self and growth of the country but again we cannot deny that there's a chance of mishandling of the money like corruption in the government they seek debt, get some portion of it and spread out into other people who handles the project and the outcome project didn't proceed or lack of funds.
If they keep focus to the people sure those people in the government really care with their people and just not only with their money sake. Reason why generation over generation still the country has a large amount of debts.

But another big question is who are these big nations owning such big amounts of money from? Or are we to say those are the money borrowed from the World Bank, which is a fund gathered from all of it's united nations, that is, in other to help balance/fund the global economy and aid the export, import and distribution of basic items in and out of each of these nations, because to me, I'm still surprised knowing the fact that nations such as "United States" and "Japan" still in debt.

Yes, they all have large debts, but they also have strong economies and good credit ratings. This means that they can afford to service their debt and continue borrowing to finance essential public services and investments.

There are several reasons why countries might choose not to pay off their debts, even if they are capable of doing so. For instance, debt can be a useful tool for promoting economic growth, paying off debt can be a challenging and painful process, and countries may not be required to pay off their debts immediately.

Furthermore, there are potential benefits to countries being in debt. Debt can help countries finance essential public services, respond to crises, and invest in the future.

Think of individual financial management, if you have habit of using leverage for your investment, you will not stop it. It is true for company owners so is government.

They need boosters for their economies and nothing are better than leverage, national debt and money printing. It is also supported by political conflicts in those nations but at the end opposite parties in a same nation have to reach to a consensus to lift their national debt ceiling because they don't want to see a national collapse financially and economically.

There are always risks but big and rich nations are like rich countries. They can create wealth which is basement for taking new and more loans, increasing their national debt. Like the USA. that is too big to be failed, at least many people think so. However, let me repeat, there are always big risks and future is unpredictable, nothing lasts forever and something happen since today.

To other nations.
Which are indebted to other nations.
Which are indebted to the first nations.

Here is how the European crisis that was supposed to destroy Europe back in 2013  looked really like when Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all going to go bankrupt. Funny though, no such happened!

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/09/21/6bm52.jpeg

You can have one quadrillion in debt, if the others also owe you one quadrillion it means you have a zero balance, but still your debt is one quadrillion. But god forbid doomsayers look at this detail!

The countries are capable of paying off their debts and they're paying for them, albeit in installment basis. They can't just use their entire budget for debt-paying. That would mean the entire government operation can't anymore function. That would mean the economy would crash. Of what use is being debt-free when you cannot anymore provide for the needs of your schools, hospitals, airports, and other government offices and infrastructures, and the people themselves?

But so much of what's happening in principle. Here's the real thing, government administrations don't care much about debt servicing. It won't make them look handsome to the public. What they need, aside from accumulating so much money while in power, is to look good. They need that especially for the next elections. So they will have to implement all kinds of programs, build projects all over the country, subsidize various public needs, conduct all kinds of public activities, and so on and so forth.

The funds available are, of course, insufficient so they will borrow money. They don't care about it. They don't pay for it, anyway. And they won't be in the position forever. Who cares if the next administration will inherit a larger debt? A senator here once told the public not to worry about debts, adding, "they're just debts."

To make it clear and easy for understanding you can check with top and bigger company around the world, they have bigger debt and their income every years increasing up more than with how much debt having. But why they don't pay of their debt in once time? its called with balance financial system and company have keep working and take debt for making more profitable in the future and all their debt allocating for productive not as consumptive.
Many countries take debt to build up their infrastructure and will paying debt later after consistency earning with infrastructure build. They can take all state budget spending for building infrastructure because have many urgent needed to pay from healthy insurance for their citizen until to make balance with their economic country condition.

Wow so let put it this way. It is never in the best interest of a country to completely pay off their debt and that's because they have other duties and needs in the country to attend to with money. So they can service an entire debt at ones while the nation be in penury.

It's like with an individual for example, having $1k as the only money in his name while owing a friend a debt of $800, in economics you're not supposed to pay the $800 debt at one payment just because you have $1k with you.

 For the fact that you have other responsibilities and demands to meet you need to pay in instalments so you don't put yourself at a disadvantage to running into a new debt immediately, it makes no sense at all. So for the avoidance of such you need to consider the impact economically in paying your debt of $800 at ones with only $1k in your purse.

For me the question is the opposite. If you are a politician who loves to keep spending like there is no tomorrow money that you are not going to have to pay back, why are you going to do it? More so since increasing public spending on the basis of debt serves as a covert vote-buying scheme.

Here it must also be understood that as outrageous as the debt figures are, part of them are also due to the fact that money is worth less and less. As states keep printing, also as a strategy to keep paying debts in an easy way, money becomes more and more devalued, so the constant increase in debt that we see is due to two factors: the increase in spending and the devaluation of the currency.

In my opinion, debt is not a top priority for developed countries to pay off because they prioritize economic growth. So if they pay it off, their economic growth will stagnate, because their debt is greater than state income. but because there is a period of time that can be negotiated between allied countries so it's not that urgent to pay off. It's different with countries that do not have cooperation with the debtor country, they will be pressured to pay immediately on the period.

I agree.

Corruption is the biggest reason why they don't pay their debt instantly, and that is called "default debts". They always prioritize their greed and to make their power more big than before, ignoring the other needs to boost their economic growth to generate revenue that could help them to pay their debts in a short period of time. Not only mismanagement of funds but a corrupt government also messed up when it comes to helping it's own country and people.

Maybe others would say "why don't just print out more money to pay their debt?" Well, it will just make the inflation worse.

The first thing you have to understand is what the concept of debt is and its uses, because by knowing the basics you will better understand why a country has debt.

Please note, as long as the country's debt and income are balanced then it can be said to be fine. Meanwhile, in countries such as Japan, US or Singapore, the debt ratio is 2x the country's income. However, the economic growth of these countries is much faster than the amount of their debt, so their debt status can still be said to be safe. National debt is not always bad, in essence, national debt is used as a reference as a source of economic growth for the country for the development of building facilities, housing, roads, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure. In this way, the economic turnaround which was previously slow can now be accelerated with the existence of debt options, economic growth can be accelerated and profits can be obtained from the facilities that have been built. On the other hand, debt can also have a negative impact on a country, for example countries such as Venezuela, Greece and Ecuador whose management of state loan money is not used properly for the welfare of infrastructure development.

BTW, I'm not someone who really understands economics so is my opinion not accepted? :(

Its a business mindset a business man prefer to buy that stuff on an installment basis instead of cashing it out because the money that should be used to pay it on cash that stuff will be used as capital to other businesses, which if it is a success then that business will pay that installment payment or even fully pay it. That's the mindset of businessmen they diversify their assets even if they can pay for them once but they can't gain anything from them.
 
Countries also aren't able to pay it in full because all of their resources would be gone as they are more focused on paying that debt, so instead of paying it all, they will do it in installments, and the other money will be used to improve the country.

Positive mind: The country are making more money by using their debts, they use the debts to invest in order generate more money.

Negative mind: There's a lot corruption and they don't mind to see their country going to bankrupt as long as they're become rich, so they can travel to other country if the worst thing would happen.

This is why don't trust your funds with centralized sites/entity including banks.

They can’t actually. There are two ways of paying debts.

1- Produce more, sell (export) more, then pay your debts.
2- Print money, pay

I am not sure about Japan but every other country in your list is printing money instead of producing more. Japan is (or used to be) the only country there which export more than what they import.

The truth is, They are losing their jobs to China. China produces, they print and buy China’s stuff. China is making money, they are making debt.

Although this is macro, I think that in this case we could make an analogy with the microeconomic cases of many households and extremely simplify the reasons. With all the differences, if we can think about a family with 150k in savings or investments and a credit of 100k, why is it so hard to understand when the subjects are countries instead?

As others said, paying means a cost of opportunity: would it be a good idea if that family liquidated their investments (a house in rental, for example) to pay the debt? or losing their savings when we all should know that fungibility is valuable? Nobody wants to be rescued if they can avoid it.

There are a lot of differences between both cases (particular debt vs national debt), but the example above can help to easily understand what at first sight seems counterintuitive.

Just because a country is wealthy does not mean they are capable of paying off their debts without resorting to measures that would harm their economy. Most of these countries' debts are in foreign currencies, mostly US dollars, so they can't just print their way out of it and even if they could it would lead to high inflation. When countries don't want to take measures like cutting spending or increasing taxes they will take on new debt to repay the old debt. Often these loans given to them will come with stringent conditions designed to advance the lending country's geopolitical interests. This cycle of debt can be difficult to overcome but it is possible to manage it without having to default.

I believe that countries have other priorities in their management, which is why they don't pay off their debt in one go, even if they have the capacity to do so. The most significant immediate impact would likely be on the country's economic stability, as liquidity would diminish. There are indeed effective ways for borrowers to settle their debts while taking advantage of circumstances like inflation.

"Does Inflation Favor Lenders or Borrowers?" (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/does-inflation-favor-lenders-or-borrowers.asp)

By capitalizing on specific conditions, borrowing countries can actually repay their debts at a lower rate than when they initially borrowed. This approach also allows countries to avoid excessive expenditure on interest payments.

In the end, the government likely has a deeper understanding of their strategy and reasons behind their decisions.

Japan's a highly developed country, but its GDP in 2022 was around 40% of that debt. And, of course, you can't just literally stop everything and pay the foreign debt because everyone will die without having any money, the country will collapse, etc. What can be done is a plan to gradually repay the debt, say, over 10–15 years. But the thing is that you don't really need to not be in debt. What you need to do is pay debt obligations, some sums of money, by some deadlines.
As for the rest, debt can be a way of interdependencies that show trust and alliances between countries. If you're willing to borrow from a country or give to a country, it shows that there's some level of trust there, and if you're hostile, you wouldn't do any of that. So if you repay all your debt, not only will your economy suffer greatly short-term, you'll also become isolationist in the long run, being all independent of others. So it's not just an economic matter, it's also very much a political matter.

This is continuous with each other and also the debtor or creditor countries have cooperation agreements/agreements. Apart from that, debts are not paid even though they are able to for reasons of maintaining the financial stability of the country and even countries that are indebted to other countries also have giving debt to other countries too, this is a little confusing but that is how countries work together and maintain the economic stability of their country.

Secondly, are there any benefits, economic or otherwise of a country being in debt?

---

1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/top-10-countries-with-the-heaviest-burden-of-debt?onepage
[/quote] personally, I think being in dept isn't totally wrong as long as you use the money for the right thing that would yield profit in the long run. Most of the developed country that are still in dept are using this fund for there countries infrastructural development which will be of benefit to the m in the long run

Countries would always be indebted to each others they always want to develop their country and invest on some area of their countries such infrastructure and many more, i think they pays gradually not to affects their economy growth. Let say for example like Africa particularly Nigeria they are indebted to China and yet they kept borrowing not because they can't pay off those debts but I doubt if there could be a stable economy in country if those debts are being cleared because currently there are lot of inflation and economic crisis where they all depends on each others to survived and sustained their nation.

“They are just debts” you can imagine! How they’ve made common the lending services and there stands on payment.
The issue with the government of our time and even in the time past because, these are accumulated debts that continues to accumulate with all succeeding government is that, they don’t have a definite plan to pay off these debts.
The government of our time don’t believe in continuation especially where am from, the relevance of a government is measured in the projects your able to start down to completion and we all know, no government can deliver on that. This results in an unending of initiative which brings about taking more and more loans and the nation ends up in more debts than the previous administration. It’s a huge problem and that’s as huge as the debt figures itself.

So, just how is the government making the payments in a way that it breeds any significance to the accumulated debt when you could still find them taking loans to run projects. The debt idea is just bad!

Paying off debt as a country means producing a budget surplus: generate more revenue in taxes than are spent by the government. With how much debt has been generated among these countries, the repayment plans would take some number of decades, with many years requiring large budget surpluses.

Because these countries can print their own money, there isn't an incentive to produce budget surpluses, rather just borrow money and leave it to another generation to pay it back in 30 years.



There can be, yes. If you believe the debt taken on at any given time will lead to future prosperity, then the debt is an investment. For example, if you're the government and you issue 50M USD out in federal loans for young people to go to college and receive specialized education in engineering and medical science -- that 50M of debt could theoretically pay for itself over the lifetime of these young people given that they contribute to the economy with their specialized education and repay the government for these loans.

But the many trillions of dollars that are tied in debt with the countries you mention are far from investments with a positive return. Point being, not all debt is bad debt.

If almost all the big countries of the world are indebted, then who are the creditors and how does the creditor make the money they borrowed to the countries? Naturally, being indebted is a very depressing situation to be but seeing that countries willingly choose to be indebted, as it is looking like, makes me wonder what the motivations are.

It is known that external debt also affect the strength of the currency, could it be that the reason some exporting countries, like Japan, keep this debts is a way of keeping their currency low?

You are very much correct on this. I have a little knowledge about international debts based on countries, but I do not understand it deeply I was going through all the comments in order to see the one that aligns with what I have learnt already and luckily I have seen this your comment. When you are indepted in the international standard either borrowing from another country or from the IMF. You have to pay back by producing more and exporting or by printing more money from your local currency and printing more money will have to devalue the currency in the international standard, and that is the option many countries are using, including my own country, Nigeria.

Totally on point and i should say that this is really the main reason on why they do really take some loan but its really that impossible that they wont really be reconsidering on borrowing an amount on which they cant really be able to pay but of course it would really be applied into those places or countries which does really have that kind of capability unlike into those third world or other countries which borrowing out but the capacity on  giving it out again or paying is really that hard but as long those loaned amounts is being used on building up something that would really be generating that kind of development on towards their economy then it is really that worth. Basing up on the list then those countries are indeed top ranking in terms of economic status and its not an issue no matter how big those numbers are as long they are really that capable on repaying if they wanted to but its dumb to make out such action considering that you would really be tending to make use of those other amounts for further developments on which they do know that it could bring out more money that circulates
or simply that they could really be able to benefit more.

A lot of those countries cannot keep ahead of the debt... because their expenditure are way more than their income. They might pay off some debt and then they have to borrow again to fund whatever government project or crisis that happens.  ::)

The first world countries are eager to give them loans, because it gives them leverage to get the things that they need for their country. They will then take control over things that generate income or profit for them.  ::)

Countries like the US are paying record interest on their debt, and I really don't think they're capable of shelling out $36.8 trillion!!! just like that. I doubt that this debt will ever be paid off in full or even partially. A debt-to-GDP ratio up to 77% is considered "normal" but US debt has reached a whopping 125% debt-to-GDP in 2021 (now probably even higher).

I am sure that the countries you mentioned above are able to pay off all their debts because this is a responsibility and obligation, but they also look first at several aspects that must be prioritized and paid attention to rather than paying off all their receivables. but here I will also convey things that can cause a country to fail to pay its debts, including the absence of economic improvement in that country so that the country does not have more budget to be able to pay its debts, and then this can also be caused by political instability in the country This is because a policy issued by the government can have a big impact on improving the economy in that country.

And if you still remember what happened in the last year there was an incident where Russia failed to pay its debt, this was not because Russia did not have enough money to pay the bill, but rather the political conditions and international cooperation with other countries were not going well. . where Russia received several economic and other sanctions due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So these sanctions make it impossible for Russia to make payments to international creditors.

OP, Well, you don't need to be a Harvard Graduate Economist to understand it, in fact those who ask for credit the most are the ones who have the most money, as someone who once had a lot of money told me, in lost conversations in an afternoon with a friend, but which stays with you forever, and I'm here remembering her, "why use my money if I can use someone else's money..."

Obviously it is a double-edged sword for entrepreneurs and ordinary people, but they are based on assets and liabilities, one can go into debt as much as one has the ability to pay... that is the brutal amount of money in that top 10.

---

Essentially it is ... it!

I think a country might needed those loans for infrastructure because they need it immediately not that their expenditure way more than their income but because allocation of money for that certain infrastructure is minus therefore they need to take a loan even though honestly they could easily build the infrastructure with the income of the country itself.
there's reason why country like japan and the other developed country despite the fact that their income level is as higher as it can get still taking loan is i'm sure because something else.
not entirely because their expenditure is more than their income. but i could be mistaken.

Imagine you have 100 million USD debt and now you have collected money to pay that debt. But here is the thing, what about to invest this 100 million USD into something that will bring ten times more profit in near future? For example, in tech? In medicine? Imagine country invested in hairloss treatment and invented a medication that cures it, can you imagine how much money can be made? When you pay loan, you are stepping yourself down and have to wait for decades to collect money to invest in something.
That's just what I think. To be completely honest, my specialty is finances but I still don't understand how this debt between nations work. It's complicated shitshow, it is illogical that everyone is debt. Whose debt do these countries have? A debt of each-other is a paid and not a debt but it's complicated.

Why don't we just reduce it to zero? I owe you one billion, you owe me one billion, this means that debt doesn't exist and is already paid but it doesn't work that way between nations. They say the safest loan is when country borrows money from another country but once I saw that the whole world is in debt, then I started to think, since no one pays their debt, how is this the safest loan?

Because when you take a loan as a country you have a repayment plan and you do this based on 5-10 years in advance budgets, everyone rushing in exchanging debt maturing over 6 years at x% with one over 7 and a half at z% interest would be a complete nightmare which wouldn't serve as much as you think other that stoping a bunch of guys screaming all day about the size of the debt.

But I don't understand why you say "no one pays their debt", everyone pays their debt right now except for some 3rd world countries, it's not like the US or any other country has a fixed debt and they are just adding money on top of that, the US is paying previous debts, Germany is paying previous debts and they are both taking new ones if the market is good enough for them.

If you're able to do a thing like this one:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/german-government-makes-billions-debt-thanks-negative-rates-2021-12-22/
why would you rush to pay them back at all? Right? It's not the size of the debt you are in and the amount you own from others but how much that costs you each year. If the numbers are positive, why would you even bother?


https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-are-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt
The US pays now 2% of their GDP towards servicing debt, it was 3.2% in 1993, but at that time we didn't have widepsread internet and tiktok and wanna be an economist claiming that everything will end!

 just because a country has a large nominal debt figure doesn't mean it's drowning or unable to function economically. These countries, particularly the developed ones you've listed, possess substantial assets and financial instruments. Now, why don't they just pay off their debts if they're so wealthy? Think about it. If you could borrow money at a low-interest rate and then invest it somewhere with higher returns, wouldn't you? That's basically what nations do.

Also, here's a little nugget of truth: some countries strategically maintain debt because it's advantageous. Having debt instruments like bonds means foreign investors have a stake in your country's success. If they're invested, they're less likely to engage in actions that could harm your economy.

Now, your second point about rendering aids is something many people misconceive. Providing foreign aid isn't merely charity. It's often a strategic move, whether for gaining political allies or for ensuring resources and trade deals.  :P :P :P

My answer is not going to cover all country's indebts and certainly not all countries you added above but only for the truly developed and rich ones amongst them.

The loan is a very good saver for countries whether rich or poor and the conditions they get these loans are not burdensome which is a plus to them. By accepting loans, government fulfils obligations ahead of when the financial readiness would be feasible. This is a plus to them as they get to use the loan to fast-track their plans instead of having to wait more. And since they are rich, paying it back is not a burden. It's also worth noting that many of these loans are from somewhat cooperative arrangements as they are members of the system itself.

Yes, there is and I've stated some above. In addition, there are economic and political gains too as rich countries have large shares in the bodies that issue these loans. If there is no gain, there won't be a serious and rich country that would collect loans, they would rather wait.

I'm sure most of these listed countries are paying their debts but on an installment basis as they cannot do it in one go and it is pretty much unrealistic. If they do such a thing then there will be nothing left to allocate for the different departments that need their own budget to run properly and cater to the needs of the people. Moreover, it wouldn't be smart to just pay the debt in one go when they can do it in installments and only pay a good percentage while using the remaining budget to invest and make the money grow. As far as I am aware that is what most countries do, as here in my country the government does that as well.

They are, but also they are not. Debt is a way to grow, so when you make a debt, you grow and you pay it off in the future. Let me give you an example and you will understand, lets assume that you have a factory, this factory makes 1000 basketballs every single day, and the whole business worths 1 million dollars, and you sell each basketball for 1 dollars.

Let's assume that you take 1 million dollars more debt, and you need to pay make 1.3 million dollars in 10 years, meaning 130k dollars a year correct? So, you went from making 1000 balls a day, meaning 1k dollars per day, and 30k dollars a month, and 365k dollars a year right? With that new 1 million dollar loan, you buy as many equipment as you had, so now you make 2k balls a day, 2k dollars a day, 60k a month, 730k dollars a year. So you see, you have went up 365k more dollars a year, but only have to pay 130k dollars a year back to your loan. That is exactly what nations are doing.

If measured by annual state income, these countries have no difficulty paying off debts. The government has several programs to improve the welfare of the people, such as a subsidy program for community needs and building infrastructure to make it easier for people in an area to run the economy. The government must take policies behind its responsibility in paying debts, State revenues must be managed wisely in order to maintain the prosperity of society.

Debts must be paid, but the government also cannot fight the problems of an economy that is collapsing due to recession. Large countries such as the United States, France, Italy and Portugal are not free from debt problems, so what about small countries whose annual income is very limited. They will continue to increase the burden on the state every year in order to build several infrastructures to support the community's economy.

There are several things that need to be addressed before using money that has been already planned to be used for other purposes. Such as the annual budget. There's a limited amount that gets passed by the government every year to help prevent inflation and price spikes of certain things. And that amount is not small. Also, they reserve some extra for emergency purposes. When they do that, they are left with so little that they can't fully repay the debts. Even if they have the ability to pay off all the debt at once, imagine this. It's not only about money, it's also about keeping a good relationship with each other.

It could be a forced relationship too. That way, those who lend that money will ask for different kinds of favors. They are already in debt so they are obliged somehow to agree. This is politics and not the economy. Well, this is what I think.

Answer is simple, they need their fund to run the economy. Just like with normal loans; the one who borrowed would make use of the money to other things perhaps in their business. Even if they happened to earn on their first month, they won’t do it ‘coz they would want to make that money bigger through revolving it for another month until it atleast double up and That would be the time they would pay only a portion of their debt, then do the cycle until whole amount is paid. Unfortunately there are times the one who is in debt has no plans of paying the amount he/she borrowed. With economies, agreement is prior before releasing the money and during the debt, negotiations could still be done and also, debt could be paid thru other ways possible which won’t cause any conflict to both parties.

Normally it is often said that, he who goes borrowing goes sorrowing.
Most of this countries you see with huge debt burden,  even if they are among the first world countries. Upon borrowing the money, they find it hard to pay it at the stipulated time for repayment, so what they do is to service the loan interest pending when they will pay the capital they borrowed. What you see at the surface level as debt is just secondary, most of the lenders put stringent repayment system that the borrower will just end up servicing the loan interest. So for some countries this is their reality, so basically I feel it all depends on the agreement on the loan, that makes those suppose rich countries still have huge debt burden.

They pay interest, but none of these countries are able to pay their debt in full, unless they'd do something crazy like dedicate most of their yearly budget to this.

In most cases the countries don't do it because it would be a suicide for the party that decides to do it. The voters don't want it to happen at the expense of other things like healthcare, wages and all that. If any government decided that they'll freeze wages, pensions, stop building new roads and houses, stop social benefits and so on, nobody would vote for them.

In other words, governments repay as little as possible because people want to see progress at any cost.

Usually debtors are taken care of. Maybe that's why rich countries try to remain permanently indebted? In principle, repaying government debt is not such a big problem. But they are in no hurry to solve it. So, having an outstanding debt suits everyone.

They would really be allocating on every sector on which they could really be able to see that they will really be able to have that money flowing continuously and this is why its true that they wont really be paying up

their debts fully but rather be paying up with the interest. There's so much things that needs to be done and its not really that necessary that they would really be tending to clear up those debts just to have that kind of record on having no debt which it is really unlikely for these countries government would really be doing so. We arent that so dumb not to know on whats the purpose of those loans which it would really be totally some expansion and further development into their economy on which building up more infrastructures which would really be having that creating more jobs or in overall it would be affecting out positively.

Government condition in speaking about economy then it would really be that totally depending on how well they do handle out those overall budget and allocation
and getting some loans or debts isnt bad as long it is really that been applied and for the benefit of the nation or country.

First of all, you need to understand the concept of National Debt, This isn't the money that Japan/US has borrowed from some other country or some international community, infact just 5% of this might be external debt, most of it is the national debt, this has come from Fiscal deficits in the budgets each year, these keep on mounting because countries always keep a fiscal deficit to instigate economic growth. Most of this debt is the debt taken from Central Bank to print money, State Governments & public by issuing bonds, Countries keep on paying the old debts but in turn, keep on issuing new debts as well. Also as soon as the fiscal deficit is in control for these countries and obviously sovereignty is not under threat, high debt doesn't mean a bad thing.

Why would they? Many people make it their dream in life to borrow as much money as possible without having to pay it back and face any consequences, which is effectively what these countries are doing. They are walking the tightrope act of borrowing money while still being able to pay interest payments on those demands, which effectively allows them to get much richer and if they were to use that borrowed money effectively it could be extremely advantageous to them (but they rarely do). Take Greece for example, a lot of credit was extended to them but they are a fairly small economy that is largely dependent on tourism, most of the populace live a relatively easy life and aim to keep it that way, which is part of what caused the Eurozone crisis a while back when they were inclined to default on that debt and undermine the Euro in return.

A big chunk of this debt is from their own people and banks. Actually, they pay off these debts with interest, but it's not like they pay everything at once. These funds circulate from one sector to another, and the government and banks earn profits by investing a lot of them in developing infrastructure, healthcare, education, and foreign trade. External debt is also included in these figures, but that is not that big.

Seem a good reason not to pay after all even the countries with bigger economy is not even paying their own. The rest of the world is doing the same so why can't they do it too?
It's easy if their currency is the reserve currency though just like the US. But even the US does have a huge debt as well which to this day the FED is trying to solve in order to have a soft landing.

Governments can do what they want and Not paying is among them. They won't pay.
That's just it and most of the time, they tell to their citizen that each of them has a share of debt to pay.

Well, the US probably can pay off their debt by printing some extra $40 trillion (money printer go brrr) but what will be the aftermath? That would kill the US economy and potentially drag the Global economy into the abyss too. 

Maybe there are only a few countries whose foreign debt is not large, but this is not always the same for every country. Because some countries that are not yet developed or developing countries have debts that are larger and almost comparable to the debts that people have in their own banks. And there is something that makes sense from what you say, namely that the government can benefit from the development of infrastructure, health services and education.

Because it was built with existing funds in the country obtained from several sectors for development, while I think the people who are in debt are only burdened with the amount of interest determined by their own banks with written provisions. So the relationship with the government is not that close or much because they are only related to the bank.

I am not an expert in economics but when I look at the performance of a government I think they must also be aware that when they pay off the debt they have immediately it will disrupt the financial system they have because after all stability is important and rather than doing something risky by immediately paying off large debts they must have a basic budget that is used as a benchmark and they have other priorities such as in infrastructure or other things that they think so surely they will prioritise the agenda they set up rather than immediately paying off large debts in cash.

You know why they can't pay debts in full? You and me will be affected by it.

Where the government is getting their funds and budgets? From us, from our taxes, from any other services that's put on top of the price so it becomes more expensive.

That means, higher tax might happen, higher price will certainly occur and that's not something good for most of their citizens. Although it is doable, they can't just do it on an instant.

I want to speak from the perspective of the lenders. We lend because we want to really help and indirectly gain a control of the country or organization we lend to, because when they fail to pay back as at when due, interests will increase, our influence and products will be easily flooded in their markets and we will be mostly able to dominant their business, lands, and own a greater part of their GDP annually until we consider the debt fully settled.

The truth is most debts cannot be repaid because it was used for development of humanity and preservation of  civilization.

I don’t understand why it is assumed that government can pay their debts. In the case of the US, even if they could make money magically appear without any added debt, inflation would cause prices to go up by like 175% overnight given the increased cash in circulation. We have reached the point where governments paying off debt is not possible.

The subject of national debt is very interesting topic of discussion among prominent economists, reflecting different viewpoints and opinions. The complexity arises from challenging choices that governments make between allocating resources towards ongoing infrastructure development projects, funded by their revenues or start reducing their national debt. The leading economies of the world like USA and Japan often prefer to continue with their national debt as due to lower interest rates in these counties the cost of servicing debt is low, therefore it makes financial sense to continue borrowing rather than paying off their debt.

Why don't you understand? Let's say I took $100 loan from you, paid $20 back, then I took $100 again, paid $30 back, then I took $200 again, then $300 again and paid $50 back. Am I paying my debt or am I increasing debt? When my debt increases all the time, that means that I am not paying debt back but instead I am taking even more. That's what America is doing, check how much they paid recently and how much they took afterwards, you'll be amazed.

That's a really good point! I admit!

I also see it this way, surely a country's budget has been planned long ago and surely they will prioritize it more than paying off their debts first. One of the country's income is from taxes paid by each citizen and maybe they have other considerations. I think it's understandable why that happens, because I'm trying to make a problem on a personal scale. For example, I'm in debt, my income is not enough to pay the debt in full every month, and the option is to pay it in installments. It's possible that I could pay off my debt in a month, but of course I can't do anything including basic needs that might not be met.

One of the problems is that not everyone understands exactly what a country's INTERNAL DEBT is. And they don't understand what is the internal debt of a DEVELOPED country, and others.
If we talk about the external debt - also do not be one-sided, because the external debt is not a BALANCE, it is ONE indicator, but you forget about the second - it is debt obligations to this country, other countries of the world. And there the picture will be much more unpleasant, for those who like to shout "look at their debt" :)

Owing debt is never an issue, even the most powerful country is owing debt too and there is nothing wrong with that.
A country would always look for a way to better it country economy and by doing that, they will keep demanding for natural resources from other neighboring countries around to make sure that they keep up with demand of the citizens.
If you are owning your neighbors and also there are people that are owing you too, I think that can be balance if you debt is equal to the ones others are owing you or what they are owing you is beigger that what you are owing. The concept of debt can never stop because there will also be cross country trades.

Because it's not like this!
You don't just go to the same bank and ask for money and more money and more money, every single time the USA (well not the country itself but let's skip the details) goes to the markets to issue debt they offer a new contract, a new interest rate a new sum, the USA has closed thousands of engagements of it's former debt, it's not like the first guy that lent them money still has money owned.

If I get $200 from you, then $300 from another guy then I take $400 but I pay your $200 as we agreed, does that mean I'm not paying my debt?
I just did! The USA has always paid its debt, and that's why people are still lending them money because they know they're getting paid back, unlike the ..what do they call it, the new world bankruptcy team?


And it doesn't have to be that extreme example
Let's say you have just lent someone at 8% interest rate, and you can lend to somebody else at 6%, doesn't it make sense to take a loan at 3% and give that guy his loan at 6%? You're still in debt but servicing it is lowe than what you get paid in your turn.
Debt is bad only if you don't have a clue on how to manage it, my family spent nearly 25 years with our business in debt, we still have a few loans mainly for machinery but if we hadn't done so we would have probably never had a business in the first place at all.


As I told Synchronice, things are not that simple.
There is not a single debt there is no single contract, and there are not just two entities here.
The bonds mature every year and sometimes even every month, those have been serviced for as long as the country is, the country pais its debt issue new bonds at different interest, pays those as it issues others and so on, it's not your average bank credit line that you try to pay a bit each month, borrow again and so on!
They are paying the debt, if the USA missed any single of it you would have known, if anybody had their bonds payment at the 5, 10 years maturity mmissed we would already know it as the whole economy would be in the drain, but they have to date serviced every single one of them.

Again, stop seeing this as a single debt, it's made out of millions with different interests and different periods, and yes, all that have reached maturity have been paid to date!

I actually thought of this as well. If the government decided to pay for the international debt the country owns, wouldn't the effect fall on us? Additionally, just because a country's economy looks good and on top of the other countries this does not mean they have the capacity to full pay their international debt in one go.

I understand this in such a way that each country has a budget that they form for a certain period, and accordingly they see how much money they need for normal functioning and development. Obviously, this does not allow them to pay off the entire debt in full, since they will not have funds left for normal functioning, so they pay off this debt in parts. For some countries this debt is decreasing, for some it will increase if their budget is not enough, it depends on many factors, and everything is much more complicated.

You should not puzzling these things. Debt is essential for a country's development because it is not sufficient for a country to survive only with its income from taxes and other sources. That is the reason government banks take loans from private banks, and private banks take loans from their users and pay interest. Make loans for importing goods, which I don't think is good for long-term sustainability. There should be a balance between the imports and exports of two countries. If imports are higher than exports, then that country should take the necessary steps to maintain balance between them. Loaned money should be spent on country development, which can generate more income for that country.

The impact of paying international debts all at once will be felt by the people or us as ordinary people if this is done by the state all at once. Usually international debt issues also have a more detailed agreement regarding payment and this is agreed upon before the debt occurs in a country, so the country in debt only has to comply with the rules in accordance with the initial agreement. Because the government cannot make decisions according to its own wishes regarding anything related to the state.

True that but there is no need for that because the contract of debt is not a one-time payment but rather it can be paid in installments.  This is the reason why the debt of a country last of decades.  Since the interest is minimal, a country can take advantage of it and pay the debt without greatly affecting its annual national budget. 

It is true, if the US decided to print more dollars, the value of their currency will deflate due to inflation and their economy will suffer.

Because in the end running a country can also be said to be the same as running a business so they cannot drain your cash to pay off debts at once because in the end this will make several projects that are already running will be abandoned and this could actually be a potential for us to add new debts.

Everything has its own plan and the government that does the planning knows what steps they will take.
For example, in this case the largest debt at the moment is Japan with a total debt of $10.1 trillion (as op said in the thread) if Japan pays off directly it is certain that their financial condition is destroyed at that time but if they do it periodically as is currently happening, of course the results are different and the proof is that Japan is currently one of the most advanced economies in the world.

Every country on the list of the largest debts in the world will not be able to pay it off with one payment but they will pay periodically on the condition that they will not add to other debts. I am surprised that Japan is in first position on the list of the largest debts in the world even though it is said to be the country with the most advanced economy in the world.

However, apart from the countries on the list above, there are several other countries that have high amounts of debt, but the government has the worst history because the government wants to improve the country's economy from debt sources for development needs and some of it is used for community assistance so that they do not stage demonstrations against the government, many corruption cases from the main source of debt funds from other countries but they are very arrogant and anti-criticism so that many corruption cases are not tried or many corrupt convicts are free to leave prison.

Facilities such as health, education and some infrastructure improvements sometimes depend on taxes paid by the public so in this case, when looking at the debt for each country, it is actually not too scary if in the end the country knows what to use the money borrowed and they (the government) know that by borrowing apart from having relationships from ties they are also aware that this can help them improve conditions in their country without worrying about finances even though they have to pay the installments but it doesn't matter because by borrowing money before they get some projects whose progress can be very good for them in the future.

As long as the government knows what the debt is for and some of the planned projects go well, it is not too wrong to go into debt and there is when the instalment option why do we force to pay the whole amount because it can actually interfere with their electability in the economy.

Exactly, that is how this is. The government borrows money from another country for a project they know will do good for the country and will surely help with the economy and then settle the payment through installment so it wouldn't be as big of a loss as it is compared to fully paying it. Moreover, there are also having ties with more powerful and established countries that bring good relationships. However, we cannot of course turn our backs from some instances wherein the debt of a country keeps pilling up and no projects are being made and seen by the public, in such instances we cannot blame the rise of concern and questions thrown by the people to their government as it can truly be questionable as to where the money is going.

Those are crazy debts. However one thing I know, the income which is GDP for every country is definitely progressive as compared their debts. But I see it similar to individual case. Let’s say I’m having House loan and I have X salary. The thing is though my salary is progressional every year I would not put lum sum amount in my loan account to clear it quickly. If I do that then I will miss many opportunities such as investing my money, maintaining my house, bringing new things in my house to make it better, personal care stuff and much more. I would need money to develop those things.

In similar way country needs to look after thousands of ongoing affairs. I’m sure they would also not clear it just like that if they got tenure for it.

Easy to analyze it that way when no one is interfering with your policy. Those countries have some responsibilities and there are geopolitical blocs that will interfere when a country invests their money somewhere and not on their own. The majority of the countries around the world are already dumping US treasury bonds and Dollar reserves including those that are listed by OP so damn sure they won't pay.

For bigger and more powerful countries, it's more convenient to just make war and occupy other countries that can't fight back and exploit their resources. 

Debt is caused by many things and this is done because there is no choice that a country can take or it could be that it is pursuing a infrastructure development and others but along the way it experiences obstacles because it is unable to pay. There are several countries that are currently experiencing bankruptcy because they owe too much to other countries and debt problems are becoming a big problem for several countries at the moment, especially if the country does not have a steady source of income from various existing sectors. Countries that do not have income from natural resources, industry or other sectors will actually have difficulty borrowing money from other countries because they cannot afford to pay high interest rates.

If the question is why countries are capable of paying off debts but don't do it, perhaps it is because the form of government is corrupt and creates a much worse system for the country. A good government will make efforts to settle debts with other countries and if they are able to pay it is unlikely they will not do so.

Very accurate. The USA was fine with budgets until Nixon changed gold standards and lowered taxes on the rich.

The move to subsidize the rich was expanded by Reagan.

Now a rich american enjoys a very low tax rate in comparison to many other countries.

USA will soon do a major move as 22 straight off balance years will need to end . I can’t see me writing that the off balance will be at 30 years in a row.

The thing about debt is that it's not as easy as just taking it up or paying it off. There's a lot at play when it comes to these things. For instance, paying it off isn't as easy as just sending them money via bank transfer or whatnot, and most often due to the nature of money the ones who were paying it off will always going to be at a disadvantage, which may lead them into taking up another loan anyway, so instead of actually just paying the loan off and then taking up another loan in the process what they do instead is just rack it up with a collateral in exchange should they default, and when things go sour they can take what's set as the collateral and go from there. It's a pretty convoluted process and there's a lot of stuff that goes on with paying loans when you're a large scale entity like a country.

Debt is not a bad thing, poor countries are still poor even without debts. Debt is what the world is built on. And these dents can never be repaid. What these countries do is that they keep paying off their interests on these debts while leaving the debt.

-https://www.globalissues.org/article/31/the-heavily-in-debt-poor-countries-initiative-is-not-working

The U.S. has one undeniable advantage. It is the power of the economy, politics and the dollar. And the latter will feel fine even if the U.S. starts printing money. Although ... let's add wisdom to the mix. They will not start printing money, thoughtlessly and for some miserable purpose - to pay off their domestic debt :))

I will ask the simplest question: below is the list of 30 countries with the LOWEST domestic debt. you have a choice - you can go to live / develop business in any of these "successful countries" or in the USA "with a wild domestic debt". And so - your choice :
USA or
Brunei
Macau
Palau
Haiti
Uganda
Malawi
Eritrea
Nigeria
Afghanistan   
Algeria
DPRK
Myanmar
Ethiopia
Burkina Faso   
Benin   
Equatorial Guinea
Cameroon
Fiji   
Nepal   
Democratic Republic of the Congo   
Burundi   
Chad   
Niger
Bangladesh   
Iran   
Niue   
Mozambique   
Senegal   
Lesotho
Mali   

 ;D

There can actually be plenty of value in not paying off your debts in many situations. Debt for the individual consumer can be bad except for when you're paying off a mortgage. However if you use that "good debt" mortgage as an example, it can actually provide a lot of leverage to the homeowner - if they've got an interest rate on their mortgage of 5% but the value of their house is raising by 7% per year due to demand, then in theory they are benefiting by paying down the asset but also having the underlying value increase above their loan cost. If you imagine that on the scale of countries, if China were to buy a lot of US debt but the US printed a lot more money, then essentially they can deflate their debts away as they have ultimate control of the money printing side.

I used to think that a country owes money to finance important infrastructure which will later become a country's basic needs which will bring progress and economic growth. However, the problem is that most countries that are in debt only generate debt interest that must be paid every year. I mean, as a citizen of a developing country, I see that most debt ends up being wasted with much of it being spent to finance the needs of government employees. I can't say about the ten countries that OP mentioned, but when discussing a country's debt, I think that in the end the greed of politicians will result in a country that continues to be in debt and continues to be in debt.


Did OP forget to provide data on Brazil's national debt burden?

The list is in the wrong order.


1. Japan $10.1 trillion
2. Greece $415.35 billion
3. Italy $2.94 trillion
4. United States $36.8 trillion
5. Spain $1.74 trillion
6. France $3.478 trillion
7. Portugal $305.45 billion
8. Canada $2.52 trillion
9. Brazil
10. Belgium $640.3 billion


correct is

1) United States $36.8 trillion
2) China             $13.75 Trillion
3)Japan             $10.1 trillion
4) France           $  3.478 trillion
5) Italy              $  2.94 trillion
6) England/ U.K. 6) Canada          $  2.52 Trillion
7) Spain             $ 1.74 Trillion
8 ) Brazil            $ 833.6 Billion
9) Belgium         $  640.3 Billion
10 ) Greece          $  415.35 Billion
11)  Portugal        $   305.45 Billion


Not sure how to count U.K. debt or Great Britain Or common wealth as I get about six countries mentioned.

So take my correction with a grain of salt.

I think Canada is separate from G.B

the number I get for G.B. is  2.62 trillion

the number I get for Canada is 1.134 CAD not USD

I did bing and google searches .

I am sure there are multiple numbers.

But the high debt countries all have a lot of really rich people that under pay tax. Making both the middle class and the poor shoulder the debt.

Many reasons could be influencing the country to not pay off its debt. When a country announces its budget, the majority portion of the budget is allocated to domestic needs. For example, infrastructure development, education, research, health, transportation, industry, etc. And very limited resources are allocated to debt repayment (to avoid default). If they want to pay off their debts, they have to allocate a huge chunk of their development budget, which means cutting funds from important areas.
Every loan agreement has some fixed due amount that a country has to pay after a year, so they are actually paying their debt but in a small amount. That is how capitalism works.

Not all debt is bad debt. Surprising, huh? Debt is frequently used by nations as a means of funding construction, upkeep, and other forms of development. Even if they have the resources to make the payments, that doesn't mean they're in over their heads if they choose not to

Giving aid while also being in debt is a standard diplomatic practice. Countries give help to boost diplomatic ties, the recipient country's economy and government, and the donor nation's international standing. So, certainly, even countries with massive debts can and do offer help, putting international development priorities ahead of domestic budgets

Because they are in developing mode at this moment and they are paying in installments. At the same time, they are taking more loans as well. They can pay their debts at once if they want. But that will have a big impact on their economy, like the stock market. If you sell big numbers of your shares, and if it's a significant amount, it will affect the market.

Those countries are doing development with these loans, and they are expecting a good return from their investment. No one is forcing them to pay all their debts at this moment. This is the reason why they are not paying their debts.

Hey mate, I really didn't notice that and like you said I was fooled by the list because of the random order.
But in this case we can draw a conclusion in this case where when big countries that have debts that are crazy to imagine they are the most advanced countries in the economy and this proves that they run their countries very well because they know when they want to be a very advanced country then they also need to take all the resources to be used as strength and they also realise that debt is not that scary if they know how to manage money properly.


IMO it depends on where you live because indeed when talking about taxes it depends on the country's own policies and also depends on the human being because even though he is a rich person but if he is obedient and disciplined he will definitely pay taxes correctly but indeed your words cannot be denied because the problem of rich people avoiding taxes always happens.

The government has to bear so many burdens that it has to prioritize other social needs rather than paying off all the debts that are a burden on the state. The government has large expenditures every year to pay the salaries of all civil servants from various departments. Apart from that, the government also needs to allocate a number of funds for the prosperity of society by building several public facilities.

The poor, homeless and unemployed are also a burden on the state. In a series of other needs that must be resolved, the government also cannot ignore their presence. Assistance such as decent housing, opening employment opportunities and health facilities need to be sought to maintain their survival. The state debt will continue to be paid every year depending on the size of the state's income, but the government cannot prevent borrowing when the state's financial stock is getting smaller.

I'm not an economist – but I don't completely agree with your assumption that poor countries would remain poor without debt. Abundant natural products can increase a country's income, as can its natural resources. Do you remember Qatar - yes, they are a good example to break your assumption that poor countries will remain poor without debt.

I believe Qatar may have had debts before they became a rich country due to natural gas and oil – but the natural resources they have have changed the country's economic status at the world. Of course, natural resources are a factor that will change the fate of a poor country ^{[have debt or have no debt].}

Plenty of countries in Africa are poor yet filled with tremendous amounts of resources.

South Africa was pillaged fiscally for over 100 years.

from google:
"In 1871 the English entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes bought a claim to the De Beers mine and, with this as a financial base, eventually bought up most of the diamond mines in southern Africa. In 1888 he incorporated De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd."

They used Apartheid to rule the black people until 1994. so

1994
1871
 123 years of ripping off South Africa  and 1994 to 2023 is 29 more years and one could argue the people do not get their fair share of diamonds or gold.

This is one of many African countries that still get ripped off.


Also the debt is 262.60 billion

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/south-africa/national-government-debt

As far as I know, when borrowing debt, they also take GDP (gross domestic gross) into account. when the debt is still below the GDP owned by a country, the debt is safe. If you look at the list, many large countries have debt, because they of course have a development agenda that must be carried out immediately so that in the long term it can be useful for their society. However, if income does not match debt then a crisis could occur in that country. I am also not an economist, but in general, debt is needed to encourage the acceleration of policies to improve the welfare of the people.

While true this does not explain why government do not pay their debts, and in some cases the most simple answer is the correct one, with someone countries being unable to pay their debt as it only keep growing and spiraling out of control, and at some point the debt will get so high that governments are not going to be able to even pay the interest rates, and that is when the fiat system could suffer a setback if not a total collapse as the confidence in it finally evaporates.

Hint - South Africa has been an independent country since 1966. As of 2023 it is 57 years old. Who owns the natural resources, who runs the economy, who rules the country ?
I agree DeBeers was a tricky ass. ..... But who prevents the inhabitants of this country for almost 60 years, having such natural resources, to change nothing in their lives. For the better? Or maybe the population itself is not ready and does not want to live and WORK for the good of the country and themselves ?

That's usually a bit bad planning if they are getting to bankruptcy levels, look at USA, they are a huge country with a huge deficit and they are still fine about it. I understand that it is not going to be that easy to print more money right away for them, but they did and I am sure they will again so that means if you can plan according to your own nations power and affordability, then you are going to be fine.

Not everyone will be as big as USA, but it is possible for ALL nations to be as big as them overtime, would require decades, but a right ruler would get debt that would be payable enough to use that debt for something that can make them more profit, which allows them to grow, and then get bigger debt, and grow even more and so forth and be like USA eventually.

The concept of a state is very complicated if the resources it has are inadequate. The United States is a large country that controls many things and perhaps the comparison of the United States with a country that is experiencing bankruptcy is not balanced. Sri Lanka, which is located on the Asian continent, for example, is in huge debt with China and is almost unable to pay now, there are many factors that have brought this country into big problems after being in debt. The concept of a state is not easy, especially if they rely on debt to build infrastructure.

Printing more money is also not a solution because it will suppress inflation and if the reason for printing more money was a solution for all countries, then it would be quite easy for countries to get out of debt. In reality, it is not as easy as imagined and countries that do not have a clear vision with the support of certain sectors will actually make them more problematic. It is difficult to reach the stage that the United States has done because not many countries are able to do what they have done.

I think it's a little strange that a superpower country like the United States is included in the list of countries that have debt. The United States has everything and is one of the developing countries, very different compared to Sri Lanka and other small countries. America's income per year is very large, many of their products are imported abroad, they should be free from debt if you look at their annual income from various sources.

Printing more money will further increase the problem, the amount of money printed exceeding market needs will cause very high inflation, the prices of goods and services will increase, resulting in people's lives becoming increasingly squeezed. The government needs to reorganize the way finances are managed, in fact they can reduce the amount of debt if annual spending is on target. State officials must also be honest and free from corruption to save the country from the threat of increasing debt.

It's really difficult, when most people hear the name "debt" they think negatively. We have long been taught that "debt" or borrowing money is a bad thing, even though "debt" to a country is not that narrow.

State debt is always measured by results called ICOR. the extent of the benefits/results from the debt. If there is a loss, there must be a mistake in targeting development or there has been corruption.
This means that state debt is not always negative, if the debt is used appropriately and carefully and there is supervision.

If the state is corrupt, weak and the debt is used for political costs, subsidies and is used only to cover shortfalls in state spending or to cover shortfalls in the state budget, let alone debts abroad in the form of foreign currency.
This kind of debt is very dangerous and deserves to be discussed by the people.

Since the total income and expenditure of a country's economy is calculated and the loan is accepted, if ever there is a discrepancy with the income and expenditure, then an economic crisis can definitely occur. Many people may wonder why many countries are taking loans even though they have good economic support, if a country has enough opportunities to take loans then why would that country refrain from taking loans. The amount of money that a country can take a loan, that amount of money can be spent on any developmental work of the country by taking a loan, as a result of which the country's economic condition can change greatly if the country develops, basically big countries take loans by thinking about all this.

Here's some similar question and this would be the most realistic approach or response to that.

Why do rich nations continue to borrow even if they have the money? An advanced country may obtain debt to give its slowing economy an adrenaline shot. This allows for the continuity of government programs despite the decline in tax revenue due to recession.
https://www.banklesstimes.com/news/2020/04/17/rich-in-debt-why-do-the-wealthiest-countries-owe-the-most-money/

As much as possible on which they would really be making use of those cash reserves to expand more on different industries on which means that if they do have the power on cashing everything or paying up
if they do have the plans but we know that there's no such thing about unlimited funds on which there's always that border line. For them to be able to expand then taking up some loan would be the key
on which country leaders wont really be that so dumb for them not to know about those basic things.

I don't understand economics, but I'm just assuming so if I'm wrong, please forgive me. America does have debt, but America owes it to herself, whether the debt ceiling goes up or down is up to her own liking. Just print his own money even though he says he is "in debt".

Except that many world countries no longer rely on the USD. Then his debt becomes a real "debt".

Unless world countries still depend on the USD, then whatever the amount of American debt, it is only on paper (aka fake). That's the reason why America really forces all countries in the world to use USD in their trade transactions.

If printing lots of money is the best way to pay off debt, then Zimbabwe is the most successful country. The simple version is that the more money that is printed, the cheaper the price of the currency. If we talk about debt, all countries have debt, it is necessary to improve facilities and infrastructure. In this case it includes aspects (infrastructure, education and health).

That's right because in the end if they print money on a large scale and uncontrolled because in the end if the printing of money is done on a large scale it will hamper them in maintaining monetary stability, financial system stability which will actually make this a very large inflation and there are already many examples of this for example for Venezuela and Zimbabwe in 2022 which made their countries destroyed because it was difficult to prevent and force to print as much money as possible.
Things like this will actually become a new problem where when the initial context of paying debts will actually increase the debt they have.

That's just a comparison that I tried to respond to in the previous post and has nothing to do with the United States lending money to other countries. I mean comparing an indebted country to the United States is completely inappropriate because they are one of the countries that provides debt to other countries through agreements involving the purchase of certain products or debt loans specifically. If the country has a big vision for development, then the debt issue may only be taken according to development needs and not pursue debt just to build infrastructure as is done in Sri Lanka.

Printing more money is not a solution to get out of debt problems with other countries and the concept of the state does not fulfill that function, because they know that printing large amounts of money will cause massive inflation, making the country's condition even more chaotic. If a country does not have a balance in income and expenditure, that country will actually cause other problems such as increases in prices of goods that are not controlled by the market.

A country that does this can be said to have no ideas for development. Leaders who try to do something should have a frame of mind for future progress, not instead take opportunities that can actually bring the country into even more trouble. Venezuela and Zimbabwe are references to how they tried to make something different and in the end they were unable to finish what they had started and in the end the debt was not paid off but instead became a burden and monetary stability will have an impact on this

Why I don't see Philippines in the list cause for sure I know my country is one of the largest debt country. I mean that's not something to be proud of, especially your a citizen living in that country. But to answer OP's question, indeed why they can just pay the debt if they have the money right? If the government focus their funds to pay off their debt, there's nothing left money for them to provide for their needs in the country not only that the economy will be affected, but also the resources for the health sector, agriculture, education, poverty and etc. There's a lot of thing government has to take care of first before paying the debt. Plus do you think they could pay it fairly, I'm pointing out that there's actual corruption thing that could hinder them to provide all the things they could give to the people.

It is clear that almost everyone is in debt in either ways, but i still don't understand why the most recognized countries whose economy are running faster still goes on debt, this is obvious that almost every countries are in debt, if this is truly happening, how do we expect these same governments to deliver their best to the people or having their needs in mind as their ultimate priority and goal to help the people and develop the nation, are the past leaders also not found responsible for this indebtedness, this will draw back the attention of the people not to depend on them than they could on theirselves.

And when the value of the currency falls because more money has been printed, debt repayment will also be much more complicated because the amount of debt will never fall as the value of the currency does. In fact, most debts also have interest which must ultimately be paid, so printing more money to pay off the debt is not a wise option because basically it can disrupt the value of the currency itself. Not to mention that each country also has special regulations regarding printing money so that they don't face new problems that could arise as a result of this.

America always benefits more when many countries still use USD for everything, whether through business aspects or through other aspects related to currency. Currently the USD is still quite well known globally and I think most countries need to compete with it so that other currencies can also become more famous as has happened to the USD now.

The issuance of money printing has been regulated by the central banking authorities of each country to maintain economic stability to prevent inflation and other bad things that could result in the collapse of the country's finances. Printing the amount of currency is limited based on several factors depending on the economic conditions of each country, but I am sure that no country prints currency to pay off debts to other countries.

Regulations regarding the printing of currency have been carefully reviewed for economic purposes and regulatory bodies will actively monitor the supply of currency to be issued each year. So anything related to national debt has nothing to do with printing currency, because the government has to increase annual income to cover debts with other countries.

Fiat money is unlimited, whereas physical resources on Earth are limited, so whether you are a nation state or an individual, you should always look to be long assets that are likely to appreciate in value over time, and short assets that will depreciate in value.

Borrowing fiat with low interest is under almost all circumstances an astute financial move. An asset with limitless supply will always tend to depreciate in relative value over time, and since most governments have access to cheap debt, they will take the opportunity to be net borrowers at all times.

To this I will add that governments get to enjoy the best of both worlds, they can print their fiat currency as much as they want and they get to be the first to spend it, this is important because by the time that money gets to your pocket the price of everything has already gone up and it buys way less than in the past, but governments can spend that recently printed fiat before that inflation takes place, which makes it even more efficient for them to print all the fiat they want as they get more products in return than what they could get otherwise.

The countries that you have listed are very strong economically and they are now in debt but they have not only taken loans but maybe they have given loans to many countries. Borrowing or lending is a very normal thing to maintain economic relations. When a country takes a loan from another country there is a fixed deadline for repaying the loan, maybe these countries are still in that deadline due to which they have not paid their loan till now. They may have taken loans to improve economic relations between themselves and we can see them repaying those loans within the specified time frame.

- EIGHT MEN OWN THE SAME AMOUNT OF WEALTH AS WORLD’S POOREST 3.6 BILLION PEOPLE (https://positivemoney.org/2017/01/global-inequality/#:~:text=people%20%2D%20Positive%20Money-,Eight%20men%20own%20the%20same%20amount%20of,world's%20poorest%203.6%20billion%20people&text=The%20world's%20eight%20richest%20individuals,see%20today%20are%20not%20normal.)

Well, there's a reason for that saying "Debt is modern slavery". While we are in debt we can't be free... the lender has the power in his hands and we work for him. That's why this system is so wrong, and that's why we need some big changes if we wish to see the world as a better place for all people, not just rich ones.

I'm not someone who understands much about economics.
Have you ever read that the United States has almost failed to pay its debts, so even though they are a developed country or could be said to be rich, there is still the possibility of defaulting on their debts, and as far as I know, these debts are not entirely debts from the state but also debts from private parties.
Debt is not because they are experiencing financial difficulties but is also a strategy for countries to depend on each other so that no country can exist without another country, except for poor countries which are in debt because they need it or like a trap from rich countries to take their natural resources because they know they will have difficulty paying.

Looking at the problem from this perspective to see that microeconomics is not easy to solve, when the balance that we are maintaining is unstable, I know that large countries are forced to borrow money in return. Other benefits help them maintain and operate their own economy.
The problem needs to be looked at when countries have enough capacity to resolve their debts, I don't think so, when there are many things that are difficult to balance in value, and things are not always peaceful in these solutions. decided.

I agree with you, plus it is best to know that good debt management can help a country's capacity to invest in their economic future for the sake of education, infrastructure, health care, agriculture, and even for the people. The limited revenue countries have sometimes cannot be enough for their proposed projects that are made for the betterment of the country, hence their government chooses to borrow money from other countries.

That's right, because in the end before making a debt there must be an agreement regarding deadlines, guarantees and interest because surely both parties also know better and are unlikely to provide unreasonable debt if the initial agreement is not fulfilled.

So I think a country's debt is actually not something bad and should be avoided if the country that has debt knows what to do with the money they get but sometimes things like this can happen for those who have the qualifications as "developed countries" because usually for developing countries sometimes they are even difficult to do that because many of them are indeed unscrupulous people who only seek personal gain and include it from the debt that their country does.

This is why it's important to know how to do good governance so that when you become someone influential in government, you know what to do.
Many people want positions in government but not many of them know how to do so that the government in the country they lead can advance, especially for economic problems.
This is not an easy thing to do, but because they think that jobs, especially in government, are wet fields for personal gain, they will not think of anything else because their own greed is in control, considering that their intention is only to enrich themselves, not to advance the government.

It would be naïve to think that they stopped at 1994, that was the point up until they used their official power, now they are using their unofficial power, slavery ended in USA 150+ years ago, do you really think blacks have the same rights even today? Let alone 20-30 years after it ended?

I can easily tell you that 30 years after apartheid ended, the whites did not started to be equals to blacks there, and in this case it was the whites that came in there, and they are still abusing Africa a lot. This isn't even just about certain nations, all of west still take all the resources from Africa and makes the profit while paying them peanuts. The moment Africa says no, and uses their own resources, they will be much better.

The government's decision to lend money from other countries is quite a wise decision if a country is in dire need of their economic conditions along with other conditions as you mentioned. Some of the things you have mentioned are the most important parts that must be developed by the government in every country because the economy, education, infrastructure, health and others are all things that are really needed by citizens. So it wouldn't be wrong for the government to lend money to other countries to make things develop with payment methods that don't burden the loan taker.

It is not the country that gives loans to others but banks. These are good debts and for good reason. As we can see, developing countries are committing huge debts because that serves as their capital for economic development and projects which they believe that the return is enough to pay off the debts and make another one. No country has no debt and this is probably because the demand is quite high and there is no enough capital to cover them all urges them to do that in order to achieve their plan. Like in running a business, sometimes we need to borrow money for the sake that we can provide what we have to do to grow our business.

It's as if the state did it on purpose because that's how a country can continue to develop and even debts and receivables must be done by a country to continue cooperation so it cannot be denied that these debts and receivables are part of the needs or cooperation that is being established. by that country.
However, this does not mean that some countries cannot pay their debts, so they continue to take on debts to cover their debts or only pay the interest on their debts.

One thing that is certain is that the Borrowing Country will be controlled gradually through the initial conditions agreed upon.

Even though it is able to pay off debts, the State chooses to avoid the greater risks that could arise. Like having to raise taxes which will automatically make people miserable, and will lose the trust of the debt-giving country or the debt-giving bank, in the future it may not be given again when it is needed. In terms of other benefits if you don't pay off debts, namely for investment, the government certainly has plans that are divided into term periods. Usually it will be invested in development projects, so that it will generate greater income for the State.

They cant in short, you have to consider all the debt that is owed to pensioners in the yield on their debt and alot of that equates to government liability also for national pensions.     Japan for example has a horrible demographic imbalance where the working population are minor to those wanting to retire, the debt is being paid via various means of juggling the monetary supply.  Ultimately currency value declines to service the deficit budgets of most major debtor countries.    If a country has a growing working population then its fair to say they can repay the debt in future but at present that money would be deployed only owed, giving a yield meanwhile which to some is useful in itself.
  All debts can of course be paid if you confiscate all the wealth and assets of a country, thats government overreach and what some fear will occur.  To a limited extent we have seen bank accounts taken over to stop a government default, the top 20% removed that kind of thing its rare and destructive behavior but quite a feasible scenario imo

A good government that has a vision to develop a country is not born instantly because it requires ability and skills for them to demonstrate these qualities to voters before nominating themselves as leaders. Other incentives are also quite influential in the positions given to existing agencies, so that the government can collectively work together to develop a more advanced country.

Retaliation for winning during self-nomination can destroy the foundation for building the character of the position given, so that the position given is not in accordance with their skills and qualities. We often see that the direct election system can lead to a concept of the state that does not work properly because in it there is retribution that must be carried out by the elected leader. There is no idea of developing a country if the leader's concept is like this and when economic conditions get worse they don't have any ideas to solve it and in the end society suffers even more.

I have simple questions:
After the change of apartheid, most companies in South Africa were nationalized. The white population is less than 10% and they live a very limited life, the power/government is in the hands of South Africans, the country has the richest resources...
BUT...
- After the abolition of apartheid, most major cities in South Africa were abandoned by the white population, only Cape Town partially escaped this fate, their crime rate rose to one of the highest in Africa. Whites moved into localized enclaves like Sandton. Johannesburg and Durban, once the richest and most prosperous cities, have become some of the most dangerous on the planet, gradually declining....
- The average income of the population is approaching the lower end of the global average.
- Of South Africa's 54.9 million population, only 18 (not exactly) million people are able-bodied. The unemployed are 23% (in 2008).

Question - what is the "side" of "whites keep robbing the country" ? One option - corrupt government and disenfranchised population .... Perhaps this is a problem that should be solved and not to look for guilty parties....

When you say " Crazy debts " that sounds pretty big. This is one thing that the OP and others didn't realize. They think it's easy to pay a debt like that. We can't even pay a small debt so how much more a big one right?

GDP isn't progressive at all times but it can only for those who are rich countries. Same goes with the salary. Lump sum payment are indeed tough, though I think it also has a benefit. But in my case, I still prefer the other way around of paying. Having a debt is still tough, no matter what is your status in life. So much better if we can avoid it as possible. The key is to have a proper plan, save, and invest so that we will always have a money to be used for something.

Good take here and an even better suggestion/advise regarding having debt and how we can try to avoid it. It is of course true that no matter what scale the debt is, it will cause a problem for anyone especially when payments season comes. For the rich, payment for a debt may come at a time that they are too comfortable with the flow of their money that they overlook the debts that are piling up on their door, while for the poor no matter the situation in the end debt is always a problem to deal with. However, while you two make outstanding points, the OP is talking about debts of countries which is a little different than our personal debts. Government debts often provides partnership with other countries as well as financial services for a country's project for development. Hence, as those projects are made and provides the country with profits, they are able to slowly and steadily pay for their debt either through money or products which ensures that the initial budget of the government is not jeopardize.

If a well developed countries can still be in debts having built up their country to standard then what will the masses think of the country.
It's just like a father catering for his children and  making sure they get the best,so he will go extra miles to ascertain that level.

So this said countries can go in debts because they feel their country need s to be upgraded with certain infrastructure although they may not be having what it takes to enlarge their territories so they end up  doing what they intend to .

I think they still have more development to take care of than paying off the outstanding debt. Of course, this is always thought through carefully considering that some of the countries you mentioned are the countries with the greatest powers. Of course they also have to develop their progress with existing finances to maintain the strength of their country. therefore they are not too burdened by debt.

the thing with government borrowing money because they wants to develop as much as they can while also paying off their debts, so they can't just pay all in one sweep because they also have other things to take care of even though if its capabilit they surely can get rid of their debts instantly.
its the complicated things with macroeconomic because simply put too much things need to be considered therefore sometime some decision might not make sense for individual but its the best for the country.
having loan from other countries and giving loan to other countries also helps grow bilateral connection across each country, you know there's always reason behind every countrys decision.

If a country has the ability to repay the debt, why won't that country repay the debt!  In fact, these amounts are so high that no country has the ability to pay all the debts at once. Because reserves are allocated for each sector of each country.  It is not possible to repay the loan with all the money.  Moreover, the amount of reserve money of many developing countries is so low that they will pay off the debt, on the contrary, they are on the way to bankruptcy.  And the developed countries may not feel the need to repay the debt because they prefer to invest that money in some other sector.  Maybe developed countries have the capacity to bear the burden of interest on these loans

There are so many reasons for it, for example, if a country has some political clashes between their politicians or something in between their country's politics, then this should be also a reason.
The other reason is a relationship with different countries, which means if a country has a strong relationship with a country and between them there comes a clash, then the exchange of their export and imports between the countries stops. So, this should be also a reason.
The third reason is the country's increasing population if the population of a country increases then they don't want to pay their dept.
Because there will be more spending in a country on their health care, the security of their country, the pensions they are offering to its country's people, etc. So, I think these will be the reasons for the countries which have, but they didn't want to pay. There will be many more, but I have discussed some here.

When there is a strong economical relationship between countries, even if war starts, business still stays the business. For example, my country had war with Russia, lost its territories and people died but still, there is a very strong economical bond because we are neighbors and get cheap food and natural resources from Russia.
Btw I don't understand this debt thing: Greece, Italy and Spain have one of the highest debt burdens but people from my country immigrate to work in those countries while my country isn't in debt burden. This makes me to think that debt isn't as bad as they say. The only country where life is bad is Brazil from list.

When the war starts, how the economic condition of a country should be the way it was before? In a war, the country is suffering from wars, most countries don't make partnerships with them. After the war, the country didn't have the reputation that it had before. I have seen many countries after their wars, were almost destroyed and the countries that were their strong relatives helped them through money through food, but the relationship they had before, was different from now onwards.

The same is the case with my country, people mostly go out to other countries in search of their jobs, but the country in which I live has a debt burden. And also, go to those countries which have also a debt burden.

We will of course think that the country will easily pay off the debt, but if we enter the government which regulates finances then this is not easy, the state has of course made a daily to annual income and expenditure plan, and the debt is of course already included in that calculation so that if If you want to pay off debt, you have to take another budget, which is certainly not easy.

I'm even surprise to see United State is included in the list. I don't think this debt has any reasonable effect on this country and this is why they aren't bother in paying this debt. Almost all the listed countries are capable of paying off this debt if they want to but may not pay it just because they have alot to attend to within the country.

everything was already planned for long term, the government have so many experts at financial that I don't think every decision they make is a sudden decision, even taking up on a loan from another country usually also brings many benefits.
its just how macroeconomy works, so many things goes forth and some goes back, its all about suiting to the country's needs.
in other words, so many decision are being made with so many considerations in which also consider the well being of the country's economy not just out of speculation.

Isn't your analysis of wartime economic linkages insightful and revealing? Russian events demonstrate that business and economics often shape international relations differently from politics and military. Maintaining business relations during wartime is difficult

Next, we discuss national debt, which confuses even economists. How can countries with massive debts offer immigrants jobs and opportunity? The diverse character of economies answers your question. High debt levels may be bad, but do they prevent a country from providing for its inhabitants and immigrants?

Despite fiscal problems, Greece, Italy, and Spain have infrastructure, industries, and services that need labor. Isn't that why immigrants come? Despite debt, labor is sometimes more tempting than scarce prospects in a country with less debt. Navigating global economy and individual chances is tricky, right?

I think that should already be a give. A country's debt is a very serious matter and there are obviously a lot of things to consider, including where the money will go, why it is needed, how much, and where will get the debt from. Although it may seem like some decisions are too sudden for us citizens and we'll just suddenly be informed through news articles and posts online about the decisions and acts of our countries' respective governments, we should be aware that in reality those decisions and actions took a lot of time and long discussions between various sectors of the government and government officials before they come up with the end result that reaches our radar. To put it simply, we get the end product or the already summarized version hence the feeling of things seeming like they are too rushed or out of nowhere.

It's not like how we think. Just think about the stock market. If a company sells all its shares and cash out its money from the market, the market will be manipulated, and there is a chance for a market crash. This is why the government also has some rules in the stock market. When it comes to GDP and paying debt, a government cannot take money from all the profitable sectors to pay the debts. If they do, many projects won't be able to run anymore and will be closed due to insufficient funds. To rerun the project, they have to retake the loan. So, there is no need to rush to pay the debts while they have time to pay them by installment. There might be other reasons as well. But the mentioned one is the most significant.

Debt is indeed something that seems difficult, sometimes we feel why there are countries or companies that are still managing debts even though they can be paid off immediately, especially large countries like the ones above, of course it is not difficult to immediately pay off these debts and I think the influencing factor is because the country also needs debt to make financial ratios look normal.

The initial function of debt is for leverage (debt for leverage), but if a country depends on debt and there is more debt but the growth is slower, it means the debt has failed, so the risk of debt default is higher.

It is true that every country needs debt to accelerate development growth, but if there is too much debt it means a country does not have sovereignty, as is the case on the African continent.

Sometimes I think, what makes all countries debt is because all countries that have a central bank must have debt. Because the central bank itself circulates money to the public through debt. Government bonds. Can it be called a Ponzi scheme that we agree and believe in?

Not only countries pay debts because they have "things to attend within the country". It is often creditors initiative not to get debt, but get something instead. Many people often see debt as an equivalent of money only. For example Japan that is leading the list. I am sure that Japan can pay their debt, but those who they owe, instead would ask for profitable import/export conditions in exchange of debt decrease. Consider debts as long term jockers one country could use against other. Instead of receiving money countries would accept special conditions or contracts from debtors.

This is not the reason, to be honest. The financial ratio does not matter. Think about your own business so you can understand better. Let's say you have some products in your store worth $5000 now and you can generate $20 profit per day by selling these products. After your sale, you buy again from this sale. Now, you took another $ 5,000 loan that will charge you $500 a year, and you can pay them in installments.

If you have $ 10,000 worth of products in your store, your daily profit will be $40 a day. Now let's calculate: If you generate another $20 profit per day, that will be around $7300 a year and your debt was $5000+ the service charge. I hope you get the match. The rate of interest varies from institution to institution. The profit ratio varies as well.

The idea that governments have ot have zero debt is silly as well, that doesn't make sense at all. You make some money and you increase that income and the more income you have the more debt you could have. USA may have the highest debt ever, but has anyone checked if they have the highest revenue they ever had as well? If that is the case and they are making more, then it makes sense to have a lot of  debt and it wouldn't be a wrong move.

The bigger your revenue gets the bigger your debt gets, that is how you make both of them work. I understand that some people may approach it differently but you should definitely make sure that you are doing it the right way. I personally believe that they need to keep getting more and more debt, to increase their revenue more and more. If you could end up with something that would be a lot better if they do the right thing and use that debt to grow it though, otherwise just pure debt without any benefits would not be a smart move.

Those who can borrow the most money at the lowest cost are the winners in life, much like most of the countries on that list - but why did you squeeze Brazil on to the list without a number against it? Also, why is your list out of the correct order, it looks like you've just picked 10 at random which makes no sense because that would not make them the biggest countries with debt, take the UK for example with over a trillion dollars in debt - you've presented statistics that are poorly researched and wrong. Regardless, it doesn't really matter how much you borrow but rather the ability of paying back the debt or at least paying off the interest on it. That is what makes you a credible debtor country.

We believe that all of these countries can afford to pay their debts but they choose not to because if we think deeply, this is also how they do business with other countries and gain trust.  In fact, those countries that have huge debts creates more projects and developments which means that through debts they will give more earning opportunity to the people. As the country wanted to improve its economic development, the more they committed debts.
Maybe I was wrong but they are not pressured to pay their debts which leaders don't bother to see how huge us their debts already.

Well,most countries aren't able to pay of their debt because of the Greedy leaders in the nation. The money given to them to pay off the debt or rather the money they are suppose to use to pay off the debt,they use it for themselves and their families and end up collecting high taxes from the citizens which is very wrong

I understand the concept of opportunity cost, but if what you wrote is true then I'm left asking "Where the fuck do our tax dollars go?".  Those expenses above are usually taxpayer-funded as far as I know, and some of them aren't even at the federal government level but either state or even municipal levels.

And the question OP asked is one I've never asked myself; instead I've always wondered why countries get into so much debt in the first place (particularly the US, which is where I'm from).  The US debt is something I've been hearing about for decades, and I'm sure it's been an issue for longer than I've been alive.  I'm not sure if the US or the other countries in OP's list actually could pay off their entire debt all at once even if they wanted to.  I'm pretty sure that would mean whopping tax increases or some kind of financial chicanery that would wind up hurting the country rather than helping it.

It's sad.  This isn't even going to be my generation's problem, but the current gen's one and their kids' and grandkids' problem.  I would dread it if I were to live 50 more years, because I think the whole political landscape is going to be much different than it is today.

You always need to ask yourself who is controlling the country and what would they personally gain from such actions. In most countries it's politicians in the government that control fiscal spending, but they usually only a few years in power and have to worry about reelections. Theoretically it would make a lot of sense for a country to reduce their debt levels during boom periods, because they can then cheaper take out loans during the next crisis. The problem is that this is not attractive for the politicians, they would need to cut back spending which is going to anger voters. For the government it's more attractive to keep spending high and make substitutes and gifts for various political groups. In economic terms it makes sense to have some debt for countries, because they can invest the money today to boost economic growth and repay the loans later when the economy is much stronger. This assumes the money is spend on profitable projects and not wasted. The optimal debt levels for a country is around 60% of GDP and not 100% like we are seeing at the moment.

I think this is not a strange problem in some countries in the world, it is difficult to find leaders who are truly honest and always fair in dividing every portion for their people, for example government aid funds which when in the data are very large but what reaches the community is only half or even smaller than that, things like that have happened very often and one of them is in my own country.

And for the debt problem itself, honestly this is very strange, even though tax revenues to the government are always smooth and maybe only a small part is problematic, but strangely the state debt is even more piled up when hearing from some local news, of course this is a big question for the community itself. In addition, it is not uncommon for us to find officials who are overflowing with wealth, even though we already know how and how much their salaries are given by the community, and if we calculate the wealth they have is far greater than their monthly salaries, of course this is not balanced, there is a game behind the scenes. Therefore, for the next time we must be really careful when there is a leader election.

Leaders are not greedy all the time but if we think about it then we can realize that how tough this work is to handle the whole country. I don't think that all the time leaders are wrong because a leader cannot move forward against the rules and regulations of a country.

There are larger salaries of a country's leader that instead of his expenses he save lots of money thats why people think that a leader is stealing the country's money but we don't think how larger is the salary of a leader. A country's leader always thinks about the prosperity of a country as well as the citizens of a country but if citizens fails to achieve their wishes then they create wrong concept and spread negativity among others. We should think positive and realize the fact that managing all the things as a leader is not as simple as we think.

Another observation to take note with those that also go in debt is that they will always struggles to make repayment back just to be able to have another one and therefore the whole thing turns a continuous process that as they are paying for one another is coming in, debt is one of the worst decision to make because it renders one under a particular subject for years if not generations.

It will go on for generations but definitely, there is something built for the people if it's a good governing body. There are a lot of people who are trying to make the country a better place if they have power to do so and having money being borrowed would give them that. For the country now, it's best that they give to the debt always but also have more so it is flowing. I think it is okay as long as it's being used correctly and not being corrupted by the people ruling the place.