If They Can Pay off their Debts, Why Don't They?

[philipma1957]

Debt is not a bad thing, poor countries are still poor even without debts.

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

[1714767793]

1714767793

[awik p]

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.

[Silberman]

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.

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.

[DrBeer]

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

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 ?

[tygeade]

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.

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.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

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.

[Razmirraz]

Snip.

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.

[ndutndut]

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.

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.

[Litzki1990]

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.

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.

[Mahanton]

Snip.

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.

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.

[puloweh555]

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.

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.

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.

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).

[BigBos]

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.

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.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Lorence.xD]

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.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

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

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.

[Davian144]

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).

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.

[erep]

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.

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.

[Vispilio]

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.

[Silberman]

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.

[Patrol69]

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.