Visual CapitalistModify

2026-03-27 23:34:35

How Global Government Debt Grew to $111 Trillion

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Global government debt has crossed a new milestone. Gross public debt worldwide reached $111 trillion in 2025, more than five times the $19.7 trillion recorded in 2000.

This visualization uses data from the IMF to trace that trajectory through a stacked area chart, breaking down world public debt by the U.S., the EU, Japan, China, the rest of advanced economies, and emerging market and developing economies from 2000 to 2025.

The U.S. and China Now Hold Over Half of All Government Debt

Two countries dominate the picture. The United States carries $38.3 trillion in public debt, while China holds $18.7 trillion. Combined, they account for roughly 51% of the global total.

The data table below shows the government debt from 2000 to 2025 in U.S. dollars for the U.S., China, the EU, Japan, and rest of the world:

Year	U.S. Gov't Debt ($T)	EU Gov't Debt ($T)	Japan Gov't Debt ($T)	China Gov't Debt ($T)	Other Countries' Gov't Debt ($T)	World Total Gov't Debt ($T)
2000	$4.90	$5.90	$5.10	$0.20	$3.60	$19.70
2001	$5.66	$4.86	$6.35	$0.33	$5.02	$22.21
2002	$6.11	$5.31	$6.45	$0.38	$5.28	$23.52
2003	$6.75	$6.65	$7.23	$0.44	$5.83	$26.91
2004	$8.12	$7.66	$8.29	$0.52	$6.49	$31.07
2005	$8.58	$8.03	$8.44	$0.60	$6.94	$32.58
2006	$8.92	$8.28	$8.01	$0.70	$7.33	$33.24
2007	$9.40	$9.21	$7.92	$1.04	$8.25	$35.81
2008	$10.91	$10.73	$9.24	$1.24	$9.12	$41.23
2009	$12.61	$11.21	$10.52	$1.76	$9.38	$45.47
2010	$14.39	$11.80	$11.86	$2.05	$11.09	$51.19
2011	$15.60	$13.10	$13.66	$2.53	$12.65	$57.53
2012	$16.85	$12.77	$14.18	$2.94	$13.21	$59.94
2013	$17.73	$13.68	$11.96	$3.57	$13.80	$60.73
2014	$18.48	$14.05	$11.42	$4.21	$14.46	$62.61
2015	$19.29	$11.88	$10.15	$4.61	$14.21	$60.13
2016	$20.19	$12.02	$11.63	$5.69	$14.60	$64.14
2017	$20.86	$12.39	$11.41	$6.74	$15.83	$67.23
2018	$22.23	$13.09	$11.71	$7.84	$16.60	$71.48
2019	$23.43	$12.51	$12.10	$8.66	$17.16	$73.85
2020	$28.33	$14.15	$13.06	$10.43	$18.97	$84.92
2021	$29.66	$15.48	$12.78	$12.76	$21.39	$92.07
2022	$31.03	$14.30	$10.58	$13.81	$22.06	$91.78
2023	$33.33	$15.27	$10.11	$14.98	$23.77	$97.46
2024	$35.84	$16.04	$9.49	$16.56	$24.74	$102.67
2025	$38.29	$17.55	$9.83	$18.67	$26.60	$110.93

The U.S. trajectory accelerated sharply in 2020, when pandemic-era spending pushed federal debt from $23.4 trillion to $28.3 trillion in a single year. It has continued climbing since, driven by elevated deficits, rising interest costs, and no meaningful fiscal consolidation.

China’s path has been different in character but equally striking in scale. Starting from just $0.2 trillion in 2000, Chinese public debt grew at approximately 18% per year, roughly 14 times the global average in dollar terms. Much of this reflects local government borrowing to fund infrastructure and property development.

How the Global Debt Landscape Has Shifted Since 2000

The chart highlights several distinct phases in the buildup of global debt:

2000–2007: Debt Stabilization. Total public debt grew modestly from $19.7 trillion to $35.8 trillion, largely in line with global GDP growth.

2008–2009: Financial Crisis Surge. The global financial crisis triggered a sharp jump in sovereign borrowing as governments bailed out banks and launched stimulus programs. Global debt rose from $35.8 trillion to $45.5 trillion in two years.

2010–2012: European Debt Crisis. EU sovereign debt reached $13.1 trillion in 2011 as Greece, Italy, and Spain faced spiraling borrowing costs. Austerity measures followed across the eurozone.

2013–2019: Cheap Borrowing Era. Low interest rates allowed governments to sustain higher debt loads without immediate fiscal pressure. Global debt drifted from $60.7 trillion to $73.9 trillion.

2020: Pandemic Debt Explosion. COVID-19 pushed global debt from $73.9 trillion to $84.9 trillion in a single year, the largest one-year increase on record.

2022–2025: High Debt, Rising Costs. With interest rates elevated, the cost of servicing this debt has risen sharply, particularly for the U.S. and emerging economies.

Japan and the EU: Diverging Paths

Japan’s debt peaked at $14.2 trillion in 2012 and has since declined to $9.8 trillion, partly due to yen depreciation against the dollar (debt is denominated in yen but measured here in USD). In domestic terms, Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains among the highest in the world at over 230%.

The EU followed a similar pattern of post-crisis consolidation, with debt falling from a peak of $15.5 trillion in 2021 to $14.3 trillion in 2022 before climbing again to $17.6 trillion in 2025 as member states increased defense and energy spending.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s $111 Trillion in Government Debt on Voronoi.

2026-03-27 21:33:14

Mapped: Which States Have Produced the Most Billionaires?

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

The U.S. has produced more billionaires than any other country, and some states have generated far more than others.

This map shows where America’s billionaires were born, based on a 2026 PlayersTime analysis of the Forbes Real-Time Billionaires List.

It covers 1,647 billionaires with available birthplace data and compares both each state’s total billionaire births and its rate per 1 million people.

Most Billionaires Born Per Capita

Adjusting for population by taking each state’s figure per one million people, there are some surprising results, such as the strong showing of both Massachusetts (3.2) and Missouri (2.6). These states outperform all but one of their peers in terms of per-capita billionaire births.

The data table below lists the states in which the most billionaires have been born by both sheer total and on a per-capita basis.

If Massachusetts and Missouri surprise, then New York (4.5) certainly does not. Despite being one of the most populous states, as well as being home to the poorest congressional district in the country, the Empire State manages to outperform the other 49 states even by per-capita measurements.

In large part, this is owing to New York City, which has birthed more billionaires than anywhere else worldwide.

The Biggest Billionaire Birthplace States

Unsurprisingly given its high per-capita rate and population, New York scores the top spot in sheer numbers (with 90) as well.

Among the analyzed billionaires, more billionaires were born in the Empire State than in the next two most prominent states, California (51) and Texas (32), combined, despite the fact that both of those states are more populous than New York and house massive industries such as energy and technology.

In light of this, New York’s sky-high position reflects not only its namesake city’s central role in the global economy, but also its historic wealth centers like Westchester Country, which has the highest property taxes in the country.

The Richest Person Born in the U.S.

Per Forbes, the world’s richest man as of 2026 is Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa before making his fortune in the United States. Musk’s net worth is over $800 billion as of 2026.

However, runner-up and Google cofounder Larry Page, who has a net worth of nearly $250 billion, was born in Lansing, Michigan, making him the richest individual worldwide to be born in the United States.

Following Page, the next richest U.S.-born individual would be Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, fourth on the Forbes list, who was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico and currently has a net worth of roughly $225 billion.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Breaking Down the Wealth of America’s Top 20 Billionaires on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

2026-03-27 19:04:04

Warren Buffett vs. the S&P 500: Growth of $100 (1965–2025)

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Anyone lucky enough to invest $100 in Berkshire Hathaway at the start of 1965 would be sitting on significant returns, but just how much would they have outperformed the S&P 500?

This graphic compares Berkshire Hathaway and the S&P 500 from 1965 to 2025, based on data from Berkshire Hathaway’s 2025 annual report.

Berkshire Hathaway’s Returns Compared to the Market

A $100 investment in Berkshire Hathaway in 1965 would be worth $6.1 million investment at the end of 2025, significantly outperforming the S&P 500’s dollar return of $45,500.

The data table below shows the performance of Berkshire Hathaway between 1965 and 2025 versus the S&P 500 index.

Berkshire figures are based on per-share market value, while S&P 500 numbers are total returns with dividends reinvested.

Warren Buffett delivered a return of more than 6,088,000% on Berkshire’s stock as he transformed a struggling textile maker into the most valuable company in the world that isn’t either a tech giant or a state oil producer.

Put differently, the world’s greatest investor turned the same initial investment of just $100 into about 134 times as much wealth as the broader market over the same six-decade span.

How Warren Buffett Outperformed the S&P 500

The formula behind the success is simple in theory, but incredibly difficult in practice: buy high-quality businesses at attractive prices.

The 95-year-old legendary value investor is not afraid to accumulate large positions in companies he likes and then hold them “forever”.

Examples include American Express, first purchased in 1964; Coca-Cola in 1988; Moody’s in 2000; and Apple in 2016, all of which remain part of Berkshire’s portfolio.

Berkshire’s structure as a publicly traded holding company allowed shareholders to compound wealth alongside him without paying recurring management or performance fees.

Had Buffett charged hedge-fund-style fees, the ending value would likely have been only a few hundred thousand dollars rather than $6.1 million, depending on the exact fee model used.

Did Buffett Beat the Market Consistently?

Over the 61-year period, Berkshire posted positive returns in 50 years—slightly more often than the S&P 500. More importantly, its gains were much larger in winning years, averaging 32% versus 19% for the index.

Despite this long-term dominance, Buffett did experience periods of underperformance.

While Buffett outperformed the S&P 500 in every decade from 1965 to 2015, from 2015 to 2025 the S&P 500 returned 304% compared to Berkshire Hathaway’s 234%.

As the world’s largest public conglomerate, Berkshire’s sheer size—combined with a long bull market led by mega-cap AI stocks—has made it harder for the Oracle of Omaha to find great companies at attractive prices.

Many of the market’s biggest AI winners, like Nvidia, Meta, and Palantir, also fall outside his “circle of competence”.

Even so, Buffett’s long-term record of outsized returns is arguably the most extraordinary example of wealth creation in financial market history, helping cement his place among the world’s richest people.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about legendary money managers check out this graphic which visualizes Jim Simons’ Medallion Fund’s returns vs. the S&P 500.

2026-03-27 05:16:12

Charted: U.S. War Support Hits Record Lows

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

At the start of World War II, 97% of Americans supported military action. In 2026, just 41% back the Iran conflict, the lowest level recorded for any U.S. intervention.

This graphic compares initial public approval across major U.S. conflicts since 1941 based on polling data from the New York Times, highlighting how war support has evolved, from near-unanimous backing during global conflicts to far more divided sentiment today.

A Broad Downward Trend in War Support

Public support for U.S. military interventions has generally declined over the past 85 years.

During the 1940s and 50s, U.S. wars saw strong majority backing. World War II (97%), and the Korean War (76%) each had widespread approval at the outset.

The table below shows how public trust in military intervention has clearly weakened, especially in the post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan era. Data on initial public support for the Vietnam War is not available for comparison.

Support for the Libya intervention stood at just 47% in 2011, and the 2026 Iran conflict sits even lower at 41%, suggesting a growing reluctance among Americans to back new wars.

For Iran in particular, approval ratings are hindered by several strategic and domestic factors. First, the purpose of the war is opaque, with Iran posing no immediate threat or danger to the American public preceding the attacks. Secondly, ambiguity surrounding how—and when—it will end complicates measurements of success.

Beyond these variables, affordability and the cost of living ultimately remain the most central political concerns among Americans, rather than foreign policy.

Moments That Drove War Support Higher

While the long-term trend points downward, major events can still trigger sharp spikes in support.

The clearest example is the Afghanistan War, which began in the aftermath of 9/11. Initial approval reached 92%, reflecting a moment of national unity and urgency. Yet by 2021, 47% said America’s longest war in history was a mistake.

Similarly, the Iraq War in 2003 launched with 76% support, though public opinion would later shift significantly as the conflict dragged on.

These cases show that context matters, especially when Americans perceive a direct threat. But even these surges have become less durable over time, with support often eroding faster than previous conflicts in history.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s most militarized economies by three metrics.

2026-03-26 22:19:47

Mapped: Where $200K Incomes Are Most Common in America

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Earning $200,000 a year may sound like a high bar, but in some parts of the U.S., it’s far more common than you might expect.

In Washington, D.C., 26.6% of households earn $200K+, more than double the national average of 12.5%. In many Northeastern and West Coast states, the share is closer to 20%.

This map, based on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, shows where $200K incomes are concentrated, and where they remain relatively rare.

The Top States for Households Earning $200K and Above

In the highest-ranking parts of the country, $200K household incomes are increasingly common. D.C. leads at 26.6%, while Massachusetts (22.5%), New Jersey (21.8%), California (21.0%), and Maryland (20.8%) all exceed 20%.

At the top end, the share of $200K households is roughly 3–4 times higher than in the lowest-ranking states.

While Texas has the second-highest number of $200K households after California, exceeding 1.5 million, its share still trails wealthier coastal states, at 13.2%.

A similar pattern is seen in Florida (11.9%), which also falls below the national average. Despite an influx of wealthy residents during the pandemic, drawn by its tax advantages, most households fall within the $75,000 to $99,999 income bracket.

Where High Incomes Are Least Common

At the other end of the spectrum, $200K incomes make up a small share of households:

• West Virginia: 5.9%
• Mississippi: 6.0%
• Arkansas: 6.6%

Seven of the 10 lowest-ranking states are in the South, highlighting a persistent regional income divide.

West Virginia, for instance, has one of the lowest median household incomes nationally, at $60,789 in 2024. Mississippi, meanwhile, saw real median household incomes grow just 5.6% between 2010 and 2024, far below the national average of 22%.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the number of billionaires in every U.S. state.

2026-03-26 20:02:07

Mapped: The World’s Riskiest Markets in 2026

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Not all markets offer the same tradeoff between risk and return.

This map shows equity risk premiums around the world—based on estimates from NYU professor Aswath Damodaran. These premiums reflect the extra return investors demand to invest in each country, with higher values signaling greater perceived risk.

The gap is stark. While a handful of stable economies sit near 4–5%, countries facing conflict or economic collapse can exceed 30%, highlighting how dramatically risk perceptions diverge across global markets.

The World’s Riskiest Countries

Check out the data, which is as of January 2026, although Türkiye was updated in February:

Country	Equity Risk Premium
Belarus	30.9%
Lebanon	30.9%
Sudan	30.9%
Venezuela	30.9%
Bolivia	19.8%
Cuba	19.8%
Myanmar	19.8%
North Korea	19.8%
Sri Lanka	19.8%
Syria	19.8%
Ukraine	19.8%
Yemen	19.8%
Ecuador	17.2%
Haiti	17.2%
Malawi	17.2%
Mozambique	17.2%
Niger	17.2%
Somalia	17.2%
Ethiopia	15.9%
Gabon	15.9%
Guinea	15.9%
Laos	15.9%
Liberia	15.9%
Maldives	15.9%
Mali	15.9%
Republic of Congo	15.9%
Zambia	15.9%
Zimbabwe	15.9%
Argentina	13.9%
Belize	13.9%
Burkina Faso	13.9%
Cameroon	13.9%
Egypt	13.9%
Ghana	13.9%
Guinea-Bissau	13.9%
Iran	13.9%
Iraq	13.9%
Kenya	13.9%
Pakistan	13.9%
Senegal	13.9%
Solomon Islands	13.9%
Suriname	13.9%
Tunisia	13.9%
Angola	12.6%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	12.6%
DRC	12.6%
El Salvador	12.6%
Kyrgyzstan	12.6%
Madagascar	12.6%
Moldova	12.6%
Nigeria	12.6%
Sierra Leone	12.6%
St. Vincent & the Grenadines	12.6%
Tajikistan	12.6%
Togo	12.6%
Uganda	12.6%
Bahrain	11.4%
Bangladesh	11.4%
Barbados	11.4%
Cambodia	11.4%
Cape Verde	11.4%
Gambia	11.4%
Nicaragua	11.4%
Papua New Guinea	11.4%
Rwanda	11.4%
Swaziland	11.4%
Algeria	10.1%
Bahamas	10.1%
Benin	10.1%
Cook Islands	10.1%
Fiji	10.1%
Honduras	10.1%
Mongolia	10.1%
Montenegro	10.1%
Namibia	10.1%
Tanzania	10.1%
Albania	8.9%
Armenia	8.9%
Jamaica	8.9%
Jordan	8.9%
Macedonia	8.9%
Nepal	8.9%
Türkiye	8.9%
Uzbekistan	8.9%
Costa Rica	8.1%
Côte d'Ivoire	8.1%
Dominican Republic	8.1%
Georgia	8.1%
Libya	8.1%
Russia	8.1%
Serbia	8.1%
South Africa	8.1%
St. Maarten	8.1%
Trinidad and Tobago	8.1%
Vietnam	8.1%
Brazil	7.5%
Guatemala	7.5%
Morocco	7.5%
Sharjah	7.5%
Aruba	7.1%
Azerbaijan	7.1%
Colombia	7.1%
Curacao	7.1%
Greece	7.1%
India	7.1%
Mauritius	7.1%
Montserrat	7.1%
Oman	7.1%
Panama	7.1%
Paraguay	7.1%
Romania	7.1%
Hungary	6.7%
Indonesia	6.7%
Italy	6.7%
Mexico	6.7%
Philippines	6.7%
Andorra	6.3%
Botswana	6.3%
Bulgaria	6.3%
Guyana	6.3%
Israel	6.3%
Kazakhstan	6.3%
Peru	6.3%
Thailand	6.3%
Turks and Caicos Islands	6.3%
Uruguay	6.3%
Croatia	5.8%
Cyprus	5.8%
Latvia	5.8%
Malaysia	5.8%
Portugal	5.8%
Slovakia	5.8%
Slovenia	5.8%
Spain	5.8%
Bermuda	5.3%
Chile	5.3%
Lithuania	5.3%
Malta	5.3%
Poland	5.3%
China	5.1%
Estonia	5.1%
Guernsey	5.1%
Iceland	5.1%
Japan	5.1%
Kuwait	5.1%
Belgium	5.0%
Brunei	5.0%
Cayman Islands	5.0%
Czechia	5.0%
France	5.0%
Hong Kong	5.0%
Ireland	5.0%
Isle of Man	5.0%
Jersey	5.0%
Macao	5.0%
Saudi Arabia	5.0%
Taiwan	5.0%
United Kingdom	5.0%
Abu Dhabi	4.9%
South Korea	4.9%
Qatar	4.9%
United Arab Emirates	4.9%
Austria	4.6%
Finland	4.6%
United States	4.5%
Australia	4.2%
Canada	4.2%
Denmark	4.2%
Germany	4.2%
Liechtenstein	4.2%
Luxembourg	4.2%
Netherlands	4.2%
New Zealand	4.2%
Norway	4.2%
Singapore	4.2%
Sweden	4.2%
Switzerland	4.2%

To estimate the investment risk premium, Damodaran looked at each country’s credit rating and how much extra interest investors want when lending to it. For countries where government bonds aren’t available or traded, he based his estimate on the differences in equity returns of two emerging markets indices.

As a last step, he added that country risk premium to his estimate of a mature market equity risk premium.

The riskiest countries are those that experience war, sanctions, and economic collapse. Belarus, Lebanon, Sudan, and Venezuela each have the highest equity risk premiums of 30.9%.

Belarusians have faced intense political repression as they responded to the contested re-election of Alexander Lukashenko in 2020. Lebanon is considered a failed state as governance and the economy have collapsed, while armed groups are present on the streets.

There has been a civil war in Sudan since 2023, causing a devastating humanitarian crisis. Meanwhile, Venezuela has a long history of instability; the mismanagement of its oil industry and the economy sent the once-prosperous nation into disarray.

Cuba, Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen, which have also experienced conflict or sanctions, are among a cluster of countries with risk premiums of 19.8%.

Countries Considered Safer Investment Bets

Some of the safest countries include Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, and the Netherlands, with risk premiums at 4.2%. Investors likely treat them interchangeably.

The U.S. has a slightly higher premium at 4.5%, which may reflect recent political polarization and higher equity volatility. Indeed, “Sell America” dominated investor conversations earlier this year amid economic uncertainty, questions around the independence of the Federal Reserve, and the depreciation of the dollar.

Still, it is one of just 19 countries that have risk premiums below 5%.

Europe is not homogeneous. Southern countries, where economies were hit by the 2009 debt crisis, have higher risk premiums. Spain and Portugal sit at 5.8%, Italy at 6.7%, and Greece is 7.1%.

How Investors Back Riskier Markets

Only certain kinds of investors are willing to place risky bets.

Pension funds, for instance, tend to have a low risk tolerance as they are using the public’s pension savings to invest. Investment mandates can also limit how much a fund is allowed to allocate to emerging markets or high-risk strategies. In practice, they can access riskier markets indirectly via diversified funds, where they are able to hedge their bets.

No matter the size of the reward, emerging markets investors tend to focus on countries showing signs of stability, economic and business reform, and an alignment with global long-term themes.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about investment in emerging markets, check out this graphic, which ranks foreign direct investment scores.