• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

G7 Kananaskis 2025

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
10,170
Points
1,160
1749917732670.png

This map haunts me these days. It is from the IMF Database. It is a map of General Government Debt as a percent of GDP as of 2023. I don't think things have improved much over the last two years.

Here's the link.


Here are the actual numbers for the G7.

1749918016681.png

Note the outliers:

Germany - Low at 62.66% of GDP
Japan - High at 249.67% of GDP

All of the rest of them, Canada included, have passed 100% of GDP in Government Debt.

Germany can afford to go to 5% of GDP on Defence. Even if they had to completely finance it from debt they would still only rise to 67.66% That ignores the spending they already have, the fact that much of the new spending is likely to be on the internal economy and, more importantly, German manufactures weapons that are in demand on the international market. It makes money from them.

Everybody else is hovering around the bankrupt levels. The only real hope the rest of the G7 has is that they are only at 100% and Japan has managed to survive at 250%. But that is probably due to being a member of the club and having good friends.

What if the G7 is a busted flush? A Norwegian Blue?

....

If you look at the map you find that Canada, the US, the UK, France and Italy are all in the same boat as Spain, Portugal and Italy (Remember the PIIIGS?) and Venezuela.

Everybody else in NATO is in the Green. They have borrowing room. Even Ukraine at 82.33% of a wartime GDP has more head room than the rest of the G7, Germany excluded.

The rest of NATO

North to South

Iceland 62.24%
Norway 44%
Sweden 36.37%
Finland 77.02%
Denmark 29.66%
Estonia 19.31%
Latvia 43.57%
Lithuania 38.29%
Netherlands 45.02%

Belgium 105%

Luxembourg 25.67%

Poland 49.59%
Czechia 42.38%
Slovakia 56.05%
Hungary 69.44%
Slovenia 69.22%
Croatia 63.02%
Montenegro 61.5%
North Macedonia 54.5%
Albania 59.81%
Romania 48.85%
Bulgaria 32.92%

Turkiye 29.26%

Even the poorest countries seem likely to have better credit scores than us and our G7 club.

For interest sake

Israel 61.94%

.....

All of that seems to suggest that all of those countries have a lot more financial freedom of movement than we do. And the rest of the G7. Curiously Belgium falls into the G7 pattern but Australia (49.01% !!!!) doesn't.

Si vis pacem, para bellum
"If you want peace, prepare for war." - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract Dē Rē Mīlitārī (fourth or fifth century AD)
"The sinews of war are infinite money" - Marcus Tullius Cicero - 43 BC

We need money.
We could be Australia.
Instead we are Belgium.

We need freedom.

.....

Poland has an interesting history it is an ancient land, but one that has disappeared and reappeared. And it disappeared because of a veto.

The liberum veto (Latin for "free veto" was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and to nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting either Sisto activitatem! (Latin: "I stop the activity!") or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!"). The rule was in place from the mid-17th century to the late 18th century in the Sejm's parliamentary deliberations. It was based on the premise that since all of the Polish–Lithuanian noblemen were equal, every measure that came before the Sejm had to be passed unanimously. The liberum veto was a key part of the political system of the Commonwealth, strengthening democratic elements and checking royal power and went against the European-wide trend of having a strong executive (absolute monarchy).

Many historians hold that the liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system, particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings, causing foreign occupation, dominance and manipulation of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and its eventual destruction in the partitions. Piotr Stefan Wandycz wrote that the "liberum veto had become the sinister symbol of old Polish anarchy". In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, about a third failing to pass any legislation, mostly because of the liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from the apparent paralysis.


From recent Canadian newspapers


We appear, in my opinion, to be at risk of stripping ourselves of the very sinews necessary to supply us freedom and following 18th century Poland rather than 18th century UK and USA.

....

Meanwhile other countries seem to be opting for looser associations and maintaining more freedom to manoeuvre.

What if the future doesn't look like the G7, NATO, the EU and the UN?
What if the future looks like Israel, Ukraine and Turkey?

Sweden and Finland both gave up the independence of neutrality to join NATO.
But they came in by way of two other clubs.
Both were members of NORDEFCO (Nordic Defence Co-Operation 2009) Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland
Both were members of JEF (Joint Expeditionary Force 2014) NORDEFCO plus Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and UK.

The character of both those clubs could be summed up as voluntary co-operation of the willing, retaining freedom to act outside of the group.

Not the centralized diktats of a dirigiste Colbert.

....

So I find myself arguing both sides against the middle.

Too much looks like Colbert. Too little looks like the Polish Sejm.

The middle, to me, looks like Gladstone and Disraeli.

I hope we can get there.

....

Meanwhile, Ukraine, I am guessing it has less and less appetite for joining NATO the stronger it, and its extra-NATO alliances, become.

I think Israel, Turkiye, Ukraine, and possibly NORDEFCO/JEF are going to become more attractive models to more nations.

Note that I emphasise NORDEFCO/JEF. I don't think the UK is a meaningful contributor. It is untrustworthy. Just like France and Italy it is consumed by its own internal battles.

A world of self-interested hedgehogs?
 
?

You seem to have drifted far from your title.

No. I consider the state of the G7 to be central to all other issues, including the state of Canada's relations with it.

The event has the possibility of being as significant as the meeting of Churchill and Roosevelt on USS Augusta in Placentia Bay and the resultant Atlantic Charter. The fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent treaty modifications was less consequential.
 
You’re not bankrupt if you continue to service your debt and run operations. Why didn’t Japan become bankrupt when it passed 100% debt:GDP? When will Japan actually become bankrupt? 275%? 300%?

That is a really good question. But is it good practice to rely on the outlier as a working model? Maybe the rest aren't "hovering around the bankrupt levels" but by all appearances they (especially the Brits, French and Italians) are struggling to keep out of financial difficulties. Meanwhile the countries in the Green seem to have sufficient room to engage in re-armament. They contemplate 5% on defence. G7 struggles to exceed 2%.


Japan's Ministry of Defense reported Tuesday that the share of defense-related spending will account for 1.8% of the country's gross domestic product in fiscal 2025, up 0.2 point from the previous fiscal year. The government has set a goal of reaching 2% in fiscal 2027. (Apr 16, 2025)
 



Approximately 13.5% of Japan's outstanding government bonds (JGBs) are held by foreign investors. This figure represents the proportion of Japanese government debt owned by international entities as of December 2023. While this percentage is significant, the majority of Japan's public debt is held domestically.



Foreign investors own around 50% of France's overall government debt, much higher than around 28% in Italy, 30% in the U.S., 40% in Spain and 45% in Germany, according to data from Barclays and the U.S. Treasury.
foreign investors only hold about 25-30% of UK government debt. The rest is held by the UK private sector (pension funds, insurance companies e.t.c). Recently, the Bank of England has also been purchasing Gilts under the Asset Purchase Scheme.




The $527 billion foreign-owned investment debt I mentioned earlier represents around 55 percent of our (Canada's) total debt.1 And if the “all other countries” ratio in general foreign investments holds true2 for federal public debt, then it’s realistic to assume that the federal government currently owes around 11 percent of its debt to government and business entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

So reading this

55% of Canada's debt is held by foreigners (55% of 107.49% is 59% of GDP)
50% of France's debt (50% of 110.64% is 55% of GDP)
28% of Italy's (28% of 134.79% is 38% of GDP)
30% of the US's (30% of 123.01% is 37% of GDP)
13.5% of Japan's (13.5% of 249.67% is 34% of GDP)
25-30% of the UK's (25-30% of 101.5% is 25% to 30% of GDP)
45% of Germany's (45% of 62.66% is 28% of GDP)

@Good2Golf Is the arithmetic right?
 
He’ll be white-hatted and will receive a large ostrich egg that’s been painted by a Calgary woman, in addition to a book about Ukrainian pioneers in Canada.

A large electronic billboard, designed by Ivan Ostapenko, near the Calgary International Airport is in place welcoming Zelenskky to Alberta -- and reminding other world leaders to keep Ukraine at the top of mind, says Roman Yosyfiv, the president of the Calgary branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.



Coming off of last weeks news that there wouldn't be a hatting ceremony, there will be at least one now.

 















So reading this

55% of Canada's debt is held by foreigners (55% of 107.49% is 59% of GDP)
50% of France's debt (50% of 110.64% is 55% of GDP)
28% of Italy's (28% of 134.79% is 38% of GDP)
30% of the US's (30% of 123.01% is 37% of GDP)
13.5% of Japan's (13.5% of 249.67% is 34% of GDP)
25-30% of the UK's (25-30% of 101.5% is 25% to 30% of GDP)
45% of Germany's (45% of 62.66% is 28% of GDP)

@Good2Golf Is the arithmetic right?
Looks right, Kirkhill. Any bets on how much of that 55% debt is owned by China? 😉
 
Looks right, Kirkhill. Any bets on how much of that 55% debt is owned by China? 😉

"I'll take that bet for $100 G2G!!"

"...Ah, wait up. Nevermind. It's 2025 and I'm broke asf now..."


No bets. I thought I had seen that answer somewhere


So let’s break this down. The $527 billion foreign-owned investment debt I mentioned earlier represents around 55 percent of our total debt.1 And if the “all other countries” ratio in general foreign investments holds true2 for federal public debt, then it’s realistic to assume that the federal government currently owes around 11 percent of its debt to government and business entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

By all accounts, an 11 percent share in a government’s debt counts as leverage. Given China’s recent history, our ability to act independently in international and even domestic affairs could be compromised. But it could also be destabilizing, exposing us to risk if China’s economy faces turmoil which could disrupt our ability to roll over debt or secure new financing.

Mark Carney’s plan to add another 20 percent to our debt over the next four years will only increase our exposure to these - and many more - risks. Canadian voters have made an interesting choice.

If your company had 11% of its shares held by a hostile competitor would you be worried?
 
If your company had 11% of its shares held by a hostile competitor would you be worried?

It depends. Does that shareholder hold voting shares? Do his shares give him seats on the board of directors? What direction can the shareholder force? But the reality is that that your hypothetical "shareholder" doesn't own "shares"; he's a bondholder, much the same as some of us here were when Canada Savings Bond were a thing. We bought debt (loaned money) from the government under the terms that they set as to rate of return, maturity and redemption. Of course an order of magnitude separates institutional/governmental lenders from individuals purchasing savings bonds. But there is similarity in that neither can give orders to the government borrowing the money. The big players may screw with the credit rating of the government but other than not lending more money, there is little they can do if the government pays interest and eventually returns the principal. Even if a country goes bankrupt, other than the strife it will cause to the inhabitants, the most that lenders get is a lesson to not lend any more.
 
It depends. Does that shareholder hold voting shares? Do his shares give him seats on the board of directors? What direction can the shareholder force? But the reality is that that your hypothetical "shareholder" doesn't own "shares"; he's a bondholder, much the same as some of us here were when Canada Savings Bond were a thing. We bought debt (loaned money) from the government under the terms that they set as to rate of return, maturity and redemption. Of course an order of magnitude separates institutional/governmental lenders from individuals purchasing savings bonds. But there is similarity in that neither can give orders to the government borrowing the money. The big players may screw with the credit rating of the government but other than not lending more money, there is little they can do if the government pays interest and eventually returns the principal. Even if a country goes bankrupt, other than the strife it will cause to the inhabitants, the most that lenders get is a lesson to not lend any more.

Should we talk to Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves about bond exposure? Or how about Brian Mulroney, Michael Wilson, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin?

 
Should we talk to Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves about bond exposure? Or how about Brian Mulroney, Michael Wilson, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin?

I think Liz Truss was blamed for a lot she wasn't really responsible for because certain things - long in the making - finally came to fruition while she was PM...

(She wasn't PM long enough to really do much!)


As for us being on the brink of bankruptcy and clawing our way back to fiscal responsibility... its a shame that stopped being a thing.



(I'm sure the extra $562B in new debt we plan on incurring over the next 4 years won't come back to bite us at all...)
 















So reading this

55% of Canada's debt is held by foreigners (55% of 107.49% is 59% of GDP)
50% of France's debt (50% of 110.64% is 55% of GDP)
28% of Italy's (28% of 134.79% is 38% of GDP)
30% of the US's (30% of 123.01% is 37% of GDP)
13.5% of Japan's (13.5% of 249.67% is 34% of GDP)
25-30% of the UK's (25-30% of 101.5% is 25% to 30% of GDP)
45% of Germany's (45% of 62.66% is 28% of GDP)

@Good2Golf Is the arithmetic right?
The thought going through my head this morning in a coffee deprived mood was. this:

What was the implications of cancelling the Canadian Savings Bond Program 10? years ago? That's a program I was invested in from an infant (thank you Mom and Dad) to adult but was my money being lent directly to the Federal Gov't to use. I understand that when interest rate were very low it was not an ideal situation from administration perspective but does it make sense to renew this?

Can CRA, who already handle online banks for taxes and refunds, maybe be a web based broker of digitial based savings bonds? I can get a mortgage without visiting a physical bank which is a much lower overhead cost situation....so why not CSB's? Or self guided RRSP/TFSA purchase?

Just random thoughts to allow Canadian money remain in Canada to allow Canadians to do more things for Canada.
 
The thought going through my head this morning in a coffee deprived mood was. this:

What was the implications of cancelling the Canadian Savings Bond Program 10? years ago? That's a program I was invested in from an infant (thank you Mom and Dad) to adult but was my money being lent directly to the Federal Gov't to use. I understand that when interest rate were very low it was not an ideal situation from administration perspective but does it make sense to renew this?

Can CRA, who already handle online banks for taxes and refunds, maybe be a web based broker of digitial based savings bonds? I can get a mortgage without visiting a physical bank which is a much lower overhead cost situation....so why not CSB's? Or self guided RRSP/TFSA purchase?

Just random thoughts to allow Canadian money remain in Canada to allow Canadians to do more things for Canada.

Canada Savings Bonds apparently started as War Bonds in 1915, later relabelled Victory Bonds.


BMO apparently has an opinion.

 
Canada Savings Bonds apparently started as War Bonds in 1915, later relabelled Victory Bonds.


BMO apparently has an opinion.

Had not heard of the Guns and Bonds part. Something to consider on a calmer day.

Just thinking of how communities used to self fund planes/tanks/ships in WW2, how local farmers used to fund raise for local infrastructure projects like schools and halls, and now today we lack some of those mechanisms. A person can still donate lump sum money but there's' nothing like Victory Bonds/War Bonds/CSB's that allow for an investment in the countries future the same way.

Some of this is a moral position but I also learned a lot of about basic investing concepts via the parents taking my down to the bank to decide which bonds to renew and/or purchase as a kid (a token amount in hindsight) but important financial education was learned young.
 
Back
Top