Talk:Government bond

Misleading to call it risk free

Calling all government bonds risk-free seems incorrect to me. In quantitative financial research, the term risk-free is appropriate for short term government debt, being Treasury bills in the U.S. This is so because you may expect the short term government bills to be repaid. Contributed 09:10, 17 October 2005 by User:JanRog

A few things :

1. the only credit instruments that are actually 100% risk-free are those that have in point of fact been fully repaid; any live debt, ie one with a non-negative maturity, is risky;
2. there is such a thing as the term structure of interest rates. Using the same rate for all maturities is wide off the mark, except in the ultra-rare case of a flat yield curve;
3. in each currency, the best approximation one has for risk free interest rates rate for non-negative maturities comes from the more liquid government bonds, provided the said government has not over-issued; as governments enjoy fiscal power, their credit in their own currency is in fact quite good;
4. using only one, "risk free" or not, interest rate for all maturities should be seen more as an indication of a quantitative model's limitations than as an indication that other interest rates are risky.

Htournyol 16:02, 21 October 2005 Goverement bonds suck

Monetization? Monetisation? government buying its own bonds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.165.71 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement about printing money

I have removed the "or simply print more money" from the paragraph about government debt, since governments do not print money, central banks do. This is not the same thing. KennethJ (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonds in reality are issued by the privately owned central banks (FED, Bank of England, Central bank of europe etc. all are owned by private individuals). In fact the central banks, a bunch of bankers organised into a cartel, they LEND money to your governments which then are sold in form of certificates, and if the money is not paid back then that is your public debt... basically, bonds are strictly related and controlled by central banks.The amount of bonds sold or bought by the government would help the central banks to keep an eye on the amount/number of printed money in circulation (see monetary policy). This is how THEY the private bankers control or enslave your government,the politicians, the corporate,the shareholders, you and the entire financial and monetary system of the world. Bond = is the bondage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.120.102 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BIG LOL at you ... Nonsense - go read something from Von Mises institute you Knob-end.

Why are you in denial , everyone else knows the FED is privatised. It has shareholders so its not hte GVT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.116.155 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Still nonsense. The Federal Reserve Bank is "privatized" (although not exactly a "corporation", as each bank has one vote on what would be "shareholder" votes in a real corporation), but the Federal Reserve Board is a government agency. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

[to 85.2.120.120] Makes Perfectly good sense to me. The Guy below above is a total Cock-head . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense to you. You two are the same person. And you should learn the protocol for discussing things on a talk page, WP:TALK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

what are bonds?

Bonds in reality are issued by the privately owned central banks (FED, Bank of England, Central bank of europe etc. all banks are owned by private individuals). In fact the central banks, a bunch of bankers organised into a cartel, they LEND money to your governments which then are sold in form of certificates for the holder to keep it under his bed, and if this money is not paid back to the banks then that will add up as a public debt... Basically, bonds are strictly related and controlled by central banks.The amount of bonds sold or bought by the government would help the central banks to keep an eye on the amount/number of printed money in circulation (see monetary policy). This is how THEY the private bankers control or enslave your government,the politicians, the corporate,the shareholders, you and the entire financial and monetary system of the world. Bond = is the bondage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.120.102 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonds are Slavery to the ignorant masses of consumers.SLAVERY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.237.52 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense (the second time), also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes its absolutley nonsense that Governments selling bonds (Printed Paper) to other nations for pieces of paper (Money) and then requiring its citizens to work and pay taxation to foreign governments is not SLAVERY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.203.232 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Complete, and utter nonsense. Not even left-libertarians consider bonds to be slavery. Some consider taxation to be slavery.

And, for those who want a little fact, government bonds are not issued by central banks; some are purchased by central banks with created funds. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign bond vs. Government bond

According to some sources, a sovereign bond is a government bond. According to other sources it's a bond issued by a government in a currency other than its own.

Anyone care to weigh in?

Pnm (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Sovereign bond into Government bond

Whether these terms are synonymous or not, addressing the two in a single article would improve the coverage. Inflation is a topic they have in common (both articles mention already). Currency risk is mentioned in Sovereign bond and is relevant to Government bond but not written about.

Managing much-needed references will be easier with one article than two.

Keeping all the issues in front of editors at once may also reduce the likelihood of United States or Western bias.

Pnm (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently done, although not all the pointers have been fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should cover both government bonds and sovereign bonds, but they are not the same thing and the article does not make some fundamental distinctions. For instance the introduction says that they are instruments issued by national governments, whereas in many countries government bonds are also issued by state/provincial/regional and local governments. It also says they are issued to support government expenditure, but that is not always the case, eg in Australia where the national government continues to issue bonds even in times of budget surplus, in order to provide a risk-free safe haven for investors.

Prosopon (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The UK section now has references but the rest of the article is still unreferenced. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

recent edits

I've reverted the following nonsense by IPs 3 times:

1. There's no truth in the "Mechanism" section I deleted.

   Yes its true, its on Wikipedia , it mus tbe true .

   Are you saing Wikipedia isnt true now jus tbecasue you dont like the facts,

   you say wikipedia is all full of lies. How dare you destroy wikipeida articles.

   Your like these climate Deniers that say Carbon Dioxide is a poisonous gas and heats the planet.

   the sun Heats the Planet and Government bonds are debt slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.116.155 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

2. The parenthetical remarks in the "Function" section are absurd, fringe assessments.
3. The addition of Sovereign Bond (now merged into this article) and Fractional Reserve Banking to the "See also" section would be absurd, even if the capitalization were corrected.

I've reverted 3 times, so I must leave it to others to monitor this article for a while. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

More details:

1. There is little, if any truth, to the first paragraphs of the "Mechanism" section, and the last paragraph is both totally incorrect and biased.
2. Some of the parenthetical remarks in the function section are just absurd. I recommend deleting the entire section, as the previous version also presupposed a particular economic POV, but will not do so, in the spirit of WP:3RR.
3. See also:
   1. Sovereign Bond is a miscapitalization of Sovereign bond, which now redirects here. Even before it did, there was a link in the lede, so it is inappropriate in the "See also" section.
   2. Fractional Reserve Banking (in whatever capitalization) has nothing to do with the subject of this article. A central bank can create money either by buying bonds with created money or the application of fractional reserve banking, but that has little to do with government bonds.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Those IPs are all coming from one location, and the edits quack like the banned user Karmaisking. They are obviously socks of the banned user. I suggest reverting on sight, per WP:DENY. LK (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Types of Government Bonds / Advantages of Government Bonds

I did not see any way to salvage these sections added last month. They are very specifically about US national and subnational government bonds, subjects that have their own articles. The claims (for example, that government bonds are necessarily low-risk) do not generalize. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The addition of the "Advantages" section, Special:Diff/894240719, appears to be promotional, non-neutral and badly referenced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)