UK's public debt is approaching 100 percent of GDP

  • Thread starter Black Swan
  • Start date
  • Watchers 3
B

Black Swan

The national debt will soar to £ 1.4trillion over the coming years, or 100 per cent of economic output, according to Roger Bootle. the Government will need to implement an additional £350 billion of spending cuts and tax increases over the next five years. Britain’s public borrowing is set to rise to 15 per cent of its gross domestic product this year — more than twice the level when the country was forced to seek support from the International Monetary Fund in the 1970s....:-0

Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Cuts in U.K. government spending of two percent a year will be needed until at least 2014, squeezing Britain’s public services and stifling economic growth, Deloitte Economic Adviser Roger Bootle said.

The public sector will bear the brunt of additional fiscal tightening worth five percent of gross domestic product, or about 70 billion pounds ($115 billion) a year over the next five years, Bootle said in an e-mailed statement today. These cuts would be additional to measures already announced by Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, he said.

“After a decade or more in which rapid increases in public spending have lent powerful support to the U.K. economy, the great squeeze is about to begin,” Bootle wrote.

U.K. public borrowing is forecast to rise to 15 percent of GDP this year and public debt is approaching 100 percent of GDP, leaving the public finances in “the worst shape for more than 50 years,” said Bootle, who is Managing Director of Capital Economics Limited and was a Treasury adviser under Britain’s last Conservative government, which exited power in 1997.

“Alistair Darling put some measures in place to address the situation in April’s Budget. But they did not go nearly far enough. We estimate that a further fiscal tightening worth some five percent of GDP per annum -- or around 70 billion pounds -- will be needed over the next five years, and possibly much more.”

The cuts on their own would shave more than one percent off annual real economic growth compared with recent years, Bootle said. The effect would increase to a two percent reduction when the decline in growth in household income and spending is taken into account, he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ascJEzz5Ud_k
 
And according to CNBC, as at Q2 2009, our external debt was the third biggest in the world, after Ireland and Switzerland, at 408.3% of GDP (£9 trillion).
www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=19

Our illustrious govt will be passing the hat around folks, and you are the targets.
Glenn
 
And according to CNBC, as at Q2 2009, our external debt was the third biggest in the world, after Ireland and Switzerland, at 408.3% of GDP (£9 trillion).
www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=19

Our illustrious govt will be passing the hat around folks, and you are the targets.
Glenn
This external debt figure from CNBC is completely meaningless bollox.

For example, Japanese public debt is huge, but it's mostly held by domestic investors. Thus it wouldn't qualify under the CNBC definition of 'external debt'. Does that somehow mean that the Japanese govt is less likely to default? Hardly... Yet, for some unfathomable reason, Japan doesn't even appear on the CNBC list. Conversely, countries with active cross-border debt mkts, such as Switzerland and Denmark, rank high, in spite of the fact that their public finances actually are in a much better shape than US or Japan's.

CNBC's ineptitude simply boggles the mind! Their list is totally meaningless. Not that I'm saying that the UK is doing really well; just that you can't make conclusions based on HSBC's idiotic figures.
 

Dya know for the first time in ages I got 'the fear' at the weekend, shopping in some non discript decrepit northern outpost mall/s. 2pm on a Saturday and the place was empty and I mean empty, like there had been a mass evacuation I reckon 15-20% empty stores. Stores had hardly any stock - some of the the major retailers still struggling to get trade insurance. My lads favourite clothes shop had their worst week for 3 years since opening at the height of the spending mania, still Xmas might turn it around...:rolleyes: and that's just at the coal face, and in the UK we are what we buy, it's sadly a major leisure activity.

I reckon the North/South divide in this recession is/will be worse than the 80's, the only jobs that pay above minimum are in the public sector, pick up the local job rag and it's skinnier than it's ever been and has 'quango' jobs outweighing private by approx. 2:1. The unemployment rate in the Uk has jumped by over 1 million in 18 months ( a post war record) and it hardly merits discussion in the mainstream media.

To think this collpase is over is total delusion IMHO. To think the problem and system could be saved by printing/creating more digits, underpinned by the collapsed global reserve currency at the root cause of the problem, doesn't even merit GCSE economic discussion.

The desperate acts witnessed last Autumn did not save the empire's system, we had an event horizon that couldn't be faced up to.
 
This one is a bit more sensible, but Evans-Pritchard, like a few other people talking about Japan (Einhorn, etc) are missing an important point. Due to the complexity of Japanese govt accounts, public debt figures are not shown as a single net number, like for the other Western economies. As a result, the 200%+ of GDP figure often includes debt that one branch of the govt owes another. For example, the BoJ holdings of JGBs etc are about 20% of nominal GDP.

Still, the stituation in Japan is certainly pretty horrible. Mostly due to their demographic problems and their unwillingness to accept immigration.
 
This external debt figure from CNBC is completely meaningless bollox.

For example, Japanese public debt is huge, but it's mostly held by domestic investors. Thus it wouldn't qualify under the CNBC definition of 'external debt'. Does that somehow mean that the Japanese govt is less likely to default? Hardly... Yet, for some unfathomable reason, Japan doesn't even appear on the CNBC list. Conversely, countries with active cross-border debt mkts, such as Switzerland and Denmark, rank high, in spite of the fact that their public finances actually are in a much better shape than US or Japan's.

CNBC's ineptitude simply boggles the mind! Their list is totally meaningless. Not that I'm saying that the UK is doing really well; just that you can't make conclusions based on HSBC's idiotic figures.

and Japan's unemployment rate is only half the UKs or US...good eh? Until you realise they have spent up their savings like never before, unbelievably Japans savings rate is down to 2% from a median of 15%, that's not a culture shift that's desperation, for the first time postwar the middle classes have eroded their savings in order to stay off their unthinkably embarrassing dole Qs..

They have a Tsunami of fiscal and monetary problems that will hit inside the next 2-3 years IMHO. thereafter their demographics suggest a nightmare from which they'll take forever to recover..
 
What is it that you disagree with ?

Are the cnbc figures wrong ? If so, how do you know ?
Does external debt have no effect in your view ?
Glenn

This external debt figure from CNBC is completely meaningless bollox.

For example, Japanese public debt is huge, but it's mostly held by domestic investors. Thus it wouldn't qualify under the CNBC definition of 'external debt'. Does that somehow mean that the Japanese govt is less likely to default? Hardly... Yet, for some unfathomable reason, Japan doesn't even appear on the CNBC list. Conversely, countries with active cross-border debt mkts, such as Switzerland and Denmark, rank high, in spite of the fact that their public finances actually are in a much better shape than US or Japan's.

CNBC's ineptitude simply boggles the mind! Their list is totally meaningless. Not that I'm saying that the UK is doing really well; just that you can't make conclusions based on HSBC's idiotic figures.
 
What is it that you disagree with ?

Are the cnbc figures wrong ? If so, how do you know ?
Does external debt have no effect in your view ?
Glenn
I do not know whether the CNBC figures are accurate or not...

Whether they are accurate or not, doesn't matter in the slightest in my view. The quantity CNBC defines as 'external debt' is meaningless. I think I have explained why that is the case. I would be happy to expand on my explanation further, if you so desire.
 
I do not know whether the CNBC figures are accurate or not...

Whether they are accurate or not, doesn't matter in the slightest in my view. The quantity CNBC defines as 'external debt' is meaningless. I think I have explained why that is the case. I would be happy to expand on my explanation further, if you so desire.

Please do.
Please note this is not a challenge, I just find the whole debate very interesting and is certainly educational.
 
Please do.
Please note this is not a challenge, I just find the whole debate very interesting and is certainly educational.
I am happy to respond, but it might get a bit involved...

Let's look, as an example, at the public side of the equation in two not so hypothetical countries, S and J.

The country S is relatively small, fiscally sound and quite conservative. The total public debt of country S is only arnd 45% of nominal GDP.

The country J, on the other hand, is a veritable disaster in the making, with all sorts of problems looming on the horizon. Total public debt of country J is arnd 200% of nominal GDP.

Which country do you think is more of a mess? The answer shouldn't be too difficult, I would think...

Now would you change your answer to the previous question if I tell you that the overwhelming majority of country S public debt (80%) is held by foreign investors, while almost all of the country J debt (92%) is held by domestic investors (pensioners, etc)? I personally wouldn't, since I don't think defaulting on obligations to your own citizens is any easier than defaulting on loans made by foreign investors.

However, if you do the calculation the way CNBC does it, country S's 'external' public debt stands at 36% of GDP, while country J's is only at 16%, which makes country S look worse than country J.

You do the same exercise for the private debt of the citizens and companies of the two countries, assuming the same domestic/foreign investor mix. Country S will have an immense 'external debt' to GDP ratio, while country J will have a small one. Now what exactly does that tell you?

As I said, these are not so hypothetical countries. Country S is Switzerland, which is #2 on the CNBC list. Country J is Japan, which doesn't appear on the list at all. Is Japan, in terms of public finances, growth outlook etc, in a better state than Switzerland? Hell no! The only reason Japan doesn't appear on the list is because the owners of Japanese debt are the Japanese themselves. Is this debt that is owed to your own citizens and companies a 'nicer', 'friendlier' type of debt that you can sorta put aside? Hell no!

Hope this lengthy explanation helps...
 
There seems to be a rather large difference between the figure you quote fo Switzerland (45% of Nominal GDP) and the figure from cnbc (422.7%). If the 422.7% is Real GDP, the I can't imagine that the effect of inflation would allow you to arrive at a figure of 45%, so where does this figure come from ?

In any case, the reason I posted the link was to provide additional information about debt, that is all.
Debt, whether internal or external, is debt, and has to be paid or can be defaulted on in either case.
Glenn
 
There seems to be a rather large difference between the figure you quote fo Switzerland (45% of Nominal GDP) and the figure from cnbc (422.7%). If the 422.7% is Real GDP, the I can't imagine that the effect of inflation would allow you to arrive at a figure of 45%, so where does this figure come from ?

In any case, the reason I posted the link was to provide additional information about debt, that is all.
Debt, whether internal or external, is debt, and has to be paid or can be defaulted on in either case.
Glenn
Precisely... Debt is debt, regardless of who it is owed to, which is exactly why it makes so little sense to look only at the 'external debt' the way CNBC does.

As to why our numbers are different, it's because the CNBC table looks at total external debt, including that which is owed by domestic corporations and individuals to foreign entities. My example used public debt, which for Switzerland recently stood at arnd 45%. In general, the total debt-to-GDP ratio for Switzerland is at something like 450% - 500%, for Japan something like 600% - 700% (these are approximate figures that I sorta compiled from some old data).
 
which is exactly why it makes so little sense to look only at the 'external debt' the way CNBC does.
QUOTE]

I think you missed my point.
I wasn't 'only' looking at external debt. I was simply providing it in addition to your public debt info, to complete the total debt picture.
Glenn

Oh b@gger. After 6 1/2 years I've become legendary. Being a 'legend is my own lunchtime' is not a attribute I aspired to.
Sign of a misspent trading day. Ho hum.
 
Last edited:
which is exactly why it makes so little sense to look only at the 'external debt' the way CNBC does.
QUOTE]

I think you missed my point.
I wasn't 'only' looking at external debt. I was simply providing it in addition to your public debt info, to complete the total debt picture.
Glenn

Oh b@gger. After 6 1/2 years I've become legendary. Being a 'legend is my own lunchtime' is not a attribute I aspired to.
Sign of a misspent trading day. Ho hum.
No, you misunderstand me...

I am not talking about any specific public debt figure, that was just taken as an example. I am simply saying that the number given by CNBC in their ranking is completely meaningless. It cannot be in addition to the public debt figure (it overlaps, but is not a superset). The public debt figure, arguably, offers some insight into the state of the country's finances. The CNBC 'total external debt' figure, on the other hand, is of no use whatsoever.
 
Your assertions mean nothing without substantive evidence.
I'll leave you to have the last word, as that seems to be your sole mission.
Glenn

No, you misunderstand me...

I am not talking about any specific public debt figure, that was just taken as an example. I am simply saying that the number given by CNBC in their ranking is completely meaningless. It cannot be in addition to the public debt figure (it overlaps, but is not a superset). The public debt figure, arguably, offers some insight into the state of the country's finances. The CNBC 'total external debt' figure, on the other hand, is of no use whatsoever.
 
Your assertions mean nothing without substantive evidence.
I'll leave you to have the last word, as that seems to be your sole mission.
Glenn
How much more substantive evidence do you require? I have waxed poetic on the subject of public/external etc debt over something like 5 pages. What else can I say to get my point across?

As to my mission, you are mistaken. My sole mission is to discredit CNBC, which is a piece of sh1t organization responsible for publishing pieces of sh1t rather than pieces of journalism. That table of theirs was an example of more than just absolutely sh1tty reporting. It was a misleading and insidious attempt at blatant US cheerleading, masquerading as serious reporting on the world economies. CNBC REALLY PISSES ME OFF.
 
Not for the UK after WWII it wasn't and we were in more debt after it than at any time previously.


Paul


make couple of accountant disappear, and delete the numbers in national bank.

if still doesnt remove the debt, follow what america does.. destroy couple of 9/11 building. :devilish::p :LOL:
 
Top