Then you should at long least start to consider it.

"But have you actually looked at these series? They go all the way back to whatever date is possible, the 17th century in some cases."

So you do have all the information you need about the debt financed state of the 17th, 18, 19th and 20th century. And you still ignore it.

"It's doubly mistaken (as far as my choices are concerned) because the late 70s, according to Streeck's narrative, were a time when governments relied less on debt, with an increasing recourse to markets to finance expenditure in the following decades. So I see no reason not to start in 1977."

But Streeck narrative isn't, you know, true.

"As I said, if you don't like the source of these statistics, find others. This I doubt you will bother to do, because your MO is, in general, to bring loud assertions to the table without backing them up."

While your modus operandi is to make personal smears.

Do you really want to deny the simplest historical facts about the modern state and its foundation on the ability of he modern state to issue debt and mobilize the capital of its own and other national economies? Do I have to drag a history of the bond market of Amsterdam in?  

 "And this goes for your final point. You have, from the start of this thread, summarily dismissed Streeck's narrative of the neoliberal turn of the 1980s making governments more reliant on markets. "

No. I pointed out that if look at how the modern state actually financed itself, debt was always central. And nothing you said or what your neoliberal authorities said can change this central fact. So a linchpin of what Streeck said is simply wrong.  A case of (unwitting ?) acceptance of neoliberal cultural hegemony.

Don't ask "Why is Streeck accepting a neoliberal narrative?", not until you have convincingly shown that it is in fact a neoliberal narrative.  

Public debts are a central part of the neoliberal narrative. If you don't want to recognize even this...