Periods and governments with decreasing debt to gdp ratio:
2014 to 2018, Michel I: MR, NVA, CD&V, VLD
2003 to 2007, Verhofstad II: VLD/MR, PS/SP
1999 to 2003, Verhofstad I: VLD/MR, PS, Groen
1995 to 1999, Dehaene II: CD&V/CDH, PS/SP
Periods and governments with increasing debt to gdp ratio:
1985 to 1987, Martens VI: CD&V/CDH, VLD/MR
1987 to 1988, Martens VII: Same as above, shortlived
1988 to 1991, Martens VIII: CD&V/CDH PS/SP, VB
1992 to 1995, Dehaene I: CD&V/CDH, PS/SP
2007 to 2011, 3 different governments: though to assign parties. Leterme (CD&V) is the name that sticks.
Anyone know why it rose so fast in the late 80’s?
It’s better than I expected
GDB? For a sec I thought I was in a sub for C developpers.
Interesting graph, though this can be very misleading (not intentionally) when you try to interpret this graph.
Secondly, we are missing data to interpret increases and decreases correctly. To do so, we would need:
1. A graph showing GDP growth
1. A graph showing amount of debt/debt growth
Again, not saying this graph is intentionally misleading, but it is important to understand that graphs can lead to the wrong conclusion if you don’t have the right data and frame of reference.
6 comments
Need graph that shows yearly interest on that debt compared to gdp.
Sauce: https://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/belgium
Periods and governments with decreasing debt to gdp ratio:
2014 to 2018, Michel I: MR, NVA, CD&V, VLD
2003 to 2007, Verhofstad II: VLD/MR, PS/SP
1999 to 2003, Verhofstad I: VLD/MR, PS, Groen
1995 to 1999, Dehaene II: CD&V/CDH, PS/SP
Periods and governments with increasing debt to gdp ratio:
1985 to 1987, Martens VI: CD&V/CDH, VLD/MR
1987 to 1988, Martens VII: Same as above, shortlived
1988 to 1991, Martens VIII: CD&V/CDH PS/SP, VB
1992 to 1995, Dehaene I: CD&V/CDH, PS/SP
2007 to 2011, 3 different governments: though to assign parties. Leterme (CD&V) is the name that sticks.
Anyone know why it rose so fast in the late 80’s?
It’s better than I expected
GDB? For a sec I thought I was in a sub for C developpers.
Interesting graph, though this can be very misleading (not intentionally) when you try to interpret this graph.
First of all, notice the Y-axis starts at 80%. This makes it look like 2010 was a very good year. But when you compare our figures to let’s say [The Netherlands who were at 60%](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2021/38/overheidstekort-eerste-halfjaar-ruim-12-miljard-euro#:~:text=Dit%20kwam%20doordat%20het%20bruto,2%20procent%20van%20het%20bbp.) during the same period, you would realize we are still way above what would be considered a healthy amount of debt%.
Secondly, we are missing data to interpret increases and decreases correctly. To do so, we would need:
1. A graph showing GDP growth
1. A graph showing amount of debt/debt growth
Again, not saying this graph is intentionally misleading, but it is important to understand that graphs can lead to the wrong conclusion if you don’t have the right data and frame of reference.