The graph shows the total nearly 60 trillion in debt of the entire world, divided by country.
For this purpose, the ratio of debt to GDP is displayed in color. The data are from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and include only the government debt.
It does not include the private debts of the population, as well as the debt of the corporations.
Also not included are the unfunded future liabilities for pensions and other social costs.
All figures are specified in FIAT money (USDollars), means not backed by a physical commodity.
Parsifal, August 10, 2015
We see that the United States has a share of 23.3% in the global economy, but 29.1% of the world debt.
The debt to GDP ratio is 103.4%.
Japan is worse off with only 6.18% of the world economy, but 19.99% of the world debt.
China, the second largest economy in the world, accounts for 13.9% of the global economy and has only 6.25% of world debt.
The debt to GDP ratio is at low 39.4%
7 of the 15 countries with the most debt is located in Europe.
Together they hold 26% of the world debt !
When added together, the debt of the United States, Japan and Europe, i.e. the so-called West, then make this fabulous 75% of total world debt.
The debt of Russia is compared tiny and less than that of Switzerland !
Nevertheless, the rating of the prestigious (because is only American, such as Moody's, Standard & Poor's, Fitch or DBRS) agencies for the USA at very good AA + (investment grade) and for the Russian Federation at BB + (bonds with a rating of BB or worse are considered 'sub-investment grade' and called 'junk bonds')
The 'prosperity' of the West has become possible only with a gigantic debt economy, not by actual work done.
The West always does so snootily and arrogant, while everything is set up only on credit !
The entire debt for the infrastructure, for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, etc. that are used today, as well as the pensions have to pay future generations.
In other words, every child that comes into the world has to bear from the first minute of life already tens of thousands in debt.
Could the Queen lose throne in DNA shock? Scientists in staggering Richard III discovery
THE Queen's right to the throne came under question today after scientists made a staggering genetic discovery surrounding King Richard III - which threatens to shake the foundations of the royal dynasty.
DNA analysis of Richard III has brought into question the Queen's right to the throne
Experts are almost 100 per cent sure that the skeleton with a twisted spine found in a Leicester car park in 2012 is that of the last Plantagenet king.
Now new research has found a chink in the Tudor ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II whose right to the throne can be traced all the way back to King Henry VII, via James I and Mary Queen of Scots.
Previous DNA analysis had determined two female-line relatives of King Richard III still living and five other male-line relatives that have little royal significance.
But new evidence released today shows a break in the male 'Y chromosome' line - a newly discovered illegitimacy - which brings into question the entire history of the British monarchy since the reign of Henry IV.
The research questions the historic legitimacy concerning the descent of Edward III to his son John of Gaunt and also his two grandsons, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset and Henry IV, the first Lancastrian King.
It centres around John of Gaunt, who was Tudor King Henry VII's great great grandfather and ancestor of the Queen.
Richard III was connected to these lineages through his great grandfather Edmund, Duke of York - John of Gaunt’s brother.
Prof Schurer, pro-vice chancellor of the University of Leicester, said: “We don’t know where the break is, but if there’s one particular link that has more significance than any other, it has to be the link between Edward III and his son John of Gaunt.
“John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV, so if John of Gaunt was not actually the child of Edward III, arguably Henry IV had no legitimate right to the throne, and therefore neither did Henry V, Henry VI, and, indirectly, the Tudors.”
Writing in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists said the claim to the crown of the “entire Tudor dynasty” partly rested on its members’ descent from John of Gaunt.
They added: “The claim of the Tudor dynasty would also be brought into question if the false paternity occurred between John of Gaunt and his son, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset.”
Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, the last significant clash between the forces of the Houses of Lancaster and York in the War of the Roses.
PA,The Queen has been monarch for 62 years
Tudor and Plantagenet royal family tree
According to historical records he was buried in Grey Friars Church, Leicester, which once stood on the site of the car park where his bones were found.
Examination of the skeleton showed that it had a twisted spine rather than the hunchback for which Richard III was famous. Although he would have walked with one shoulder higher than the other, his deformity could easily have been concealed beneath clothing and armour.
The genetic analysis showed a 96 per cent probability that Richard had blue eyes and a 77 per cent likelihood that he was blond, at least in childhood. It was possible that his hair colour may have darkened with age, said the scientists.
His appearance was probably similar to that depicted in an early portrait held by the Society of Antiquaries in London.
In their paper, the researchers compared the investigation to a missing person case that becomes more difficult over time - in this case, 527 years.
Geneticist Dr Turi King, from the University of Leicester, said: “What we have concluded is that there is, at its most conservative, a 99.999 per cent probability that these are indeed the remains of Richard III. The evidence is overwhelming.
Prof Schurer stressed that the history of the British monarchy took “all kinds of twists and turns” and the Y chromosome discovery had no bearing on the present Queen’s right to rule.
He insisted: “We are not in any way indicating that Her Majesty should not be on the throne.”
He pointed out that the Tudors took the crown essentially “by force” while using the blood line leading to John of Gaunt to back up their claim.
Asked at a press briefing if casting doubt on the Tudors could be said to put into question the legitimacy of subsequent monarchs, he replied: “Some may wish to do that. I don’t think I should do it, based on speculation.”
James Corbett joined me to discuss 9/11 and its lesser-known connections to tech and economic scams and scandals, as well as the suspicious aspects of big insurance companies, global banking, and the rise of the technological control grid. The conversation closes on issues of China and BRICS and his own book recommendations.