Talk:Public sector borrowing requirement

message: Someone can help here...
So far as I understand it, the PSBR is an increase in national debt for the current year. If the government kept recognisable accounts (e.g. P&L and Balance sheet etc) this would be the Financing required to keep the organisation solvent. i.e. money needed to be raised by debt or a rights issue. Its only a 'requirement' in so far as there is a negative cash flow. 
Moreover, if gilts are essentially a mortgage on the country, then it is rather like mortgaging your house to pay for school fees, health costs, a new car, and general living.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.198.220.193 (talk • contribs) .
:I guess I don't quite understand what your question is.  PSBR does not refer to the increase in national debt as a whole; it is the public sector deficit only (i.e., the difference between public sector expenditures and public sector revenue), and, correspondingly, the borrowing that is required (hence the word requirement in PSBR; and yes, if there were a surplus, then no borrowing would be required) to cover this difference.  As for the mortage example, it's a bit on the emotional side, but the underlying idea is correct.  The difference is that if you (an individual) default on your mortgage, your only way out is through declaring bancrupcy; but it is very unlikely (although possible) that the government is going to default over PSBR—they can always issue more gilts to fulfil pending obligations (which, incidentally, is one of the reasons why government bonds are considered risk-free).
:Hope this answers your question, or at least provides some explanation.  Please restate your question if this is not what you needed.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: I have no idea what's going on in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasnor15 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on

message: The UK government (as an EU member) uses the European System of Accounts and not commercial accounting practices.  This produces some strange results because capital spending is lumped together with current spending.  The private sector would not be allowed to do this.  Why are governments allowed to do it? I think this may be what User:155.198.220.193 (above) was referring to. Biscuittin (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, there is a failure to distinguish between Stock and flow. Biscuittin (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  European System of Accounts