[HN Gopher] Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries
___________________________________________________________________
Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries
Author : mythical_39
Score : 550 points
Date : 2026-01-20 15:11 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| adrr wrote:
| What happens when USD stops becoming the the reserve currency for
| the world? And who takes its place?
| petcat wrote:
| That would never happen until the US Navy ceases to be
| effective globally.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Confidently wrong.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| You mean like how the Houthi's unilaterally decided to shut
| down Red Sea shipping and the US Navy is still powerless to
| restore it?
| petcat wrote:
| That's regional politics. Nothing to do with the
| superiority of one navy over another
| estearum wrote:
| What? The Houthis shutting down a major global shipping
| route and the US openly giving up on restoring it is not
| "regional politics."
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| The dollar being the reserve currency is international
| finance. Nothing to do with the superiority of one navy
| over another.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Navies appear to be obsolete (edit: I'll exempt ballistic
| missile subs from this statement, though.) You don't even
| need a navy of your own to sink another country's navy
| these days.
|
| When $100M in armaments can take out a $10000M carrier,
| it's time to rethink things.
| epistasis wrote:
| What is the theory of how the US Navy keeps the dollar the
| reserve currency, when the US has made itself a pariah state?
| What mechanism? Would the US Navy be doing piracy and demand
| protection money in dollars? Piracy payoffs would be a far
| far lower demand for dollars than there currently is and, and
| also greatly reduce all other trade with the US, further
| reducing demand for US dollars.
|
| Really curious what your reasoning is here.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I think it works as a statement right up until you start an
| actual war, then the threat is gone. No point worrying US
| will invade if you don't support it economically, if it
| already invaded
| mythical_39 wrote:
| I saw an interesting article about plumbing problems on one
| of our aircraft carriers.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2026/01/17/nx-s1-5680167/major-
| plumbing-...
| actionfromafar wrote:
| The argument made like that is an original argument bent
| backwards. The argument was that the US Navy guaranteed open
| shipping lanes and kept Pax Americana. Now we get closed
| shipping lanes and Bellum Americanum.
| jansper39 wrote:
| If the US pisses enough countries off with this Greenland
| stuff that they shut down US bases around the world, that
| substantially curtails the US Navy's ability to be effective
| globally.
| sekai wrote:
| > That would never happen until the US Navy ceases to be
| effective globally.
|
| US Navy would have have no parking spots left in Europe if
| they try to annex Greenland.
| basilgohar wrote:
| The US starts more wars until its eventual complete collapse.
| See The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. We're operating out
| of a playbook for imperial destruction word for word.
| drstewart wrote:
| "History buffs" that literally only know the Roman Empire and
| Hitler should probably try expand their purview.
| saubeidl wrote:
| I think Qing dynasty China might be a better fit.
| woooooo wrote:
| Qing suffered a century of unequal treaties before they
| fell, they were the bullied and not the bully. (They were
| also medieval and isolationist which further hurts the
| comparison IMO).
| cratermoon wrote:
| France and most of the European imperialists before the
| first world war.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| That's the manly history that appeals to men! Men of
| masculinity.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| What are some better parallels? Seriously, no snark, please
| throw out some suggestions for reading. I can't think of
| any other country that has done this to itself.
| WarmWash wrote:
| The dollar sucks but everything else is worse.
| vdupras wrote:
| Hey, it's nice that you came in signed up to HN to cheer for
| the USD. I think it's going to be needed to change the
| overall sentiment.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Yep, nothing signals stability and genuine sentiment like a
| bunch of brand new accounts swooping in and touting the
| strength of the dollar.
|
| HN seems totally fine with this behaviour too, also super
| reassuring.
| woooooo wrote:
| HN trusts the community by giving us green text for the
| new accounts.
| WarmWash wrote:
| I would say the same on my old accounts too. I rotate
| accounts annually (it is january). I'm not anyone note
| worthy or famous, this account and my others are just as
| generic as any other HN commoner.
| LunaSea wrote:
| The USD dollar sank -10% this last year versus the euro.
| drstewart wrote:
| The Euro sank -10% this last year versus the Zambian Kwacha
| causalscience wrote:
| Zambia doesn't actually matter though.
| drstewart wrote:
| Yet it's a stronger performing currency
| causalscience wrote:
| All you're saying is "it went up more". Still irrelevant
| impact in the world.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| My guess would be EUR takes its place, gold will also be used
| more. I guess what happens is USD gets much weaker and US
| buying power goes down. Maybe destroying the USD will
| eventually cause the boost to domestic manufacturing that Trump
| wanted, since foreign goods will be out of reach. Cut down the
| forest to kill a squirrel. I'm no expert though
| throwway120385 wrote:
| There will never be a boost to domestic manufacturing without
| some kind of investment. The booms of the 1950's and 1960's
| were a result of massive government spending in the 1930's
| and 1940's building a bunch of capacity and researching novel
| manufacturing techniques and building new tools. If we don't
| have the morale for that we will simply stop having as many
| things.
| dpc050505 wrote:
| It also included a bunch of women joining the workforce, an
| enormous baby-boom and brown people acquiring the freedom
| and prosperity necessary to become consumers. Demographics
| are always the fundamental driver of economic movements.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Historically, gold's day in the sun is always juuust around
| the corner, right after the disastrous collapse that never
| quite arrives.
|
| Now that we really do have a destructive realignment
| underway, maybe gold will actually be useful again. I doubt
| it, but I'm no currency expert.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It seems to be in demand. It is getting really expensive!
| diggyhole wrote:
| Two words: Fart Coin
| fisherjeff wrote:
| As much as it pains me to say it, this is a plausible answer
| in 2026
| neilwilson wrote:
| We finally realise there is no such thing as a "reserve
| currency" in the floating exchange rate era and that the
| concept is a long dead hangover from fixed exchange rates.
|
| And that's definitely going to upset the gold bugs.
|
| (In reality lots of things are held in reserve)
|
| USD is a routing currency that is used because it is cheaper
| than the mesh alternative. When it stops being cheaper whoever
| is then cheapest will get the routing transactions.
| Archelaos wrote:
| The share of the USD as a reserve currency has already been
| slowly declining over the last decade, although it is all but
| dramatic. The reduction is not in favour of another particular
| currency. Instead, the proportion of minor currencies is
| increasing. Here is a diagram for the years 2016 to 2023:
| https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/232562/umfrag...
| shimman wrote:
| Look up something called "dedollarization," it's been talked
| about in academic circles for quite some time and now more
| mainstream institutions are discussing it more too.
| KPGv2 wrote:
| Yes, in my undergrad government policy classes twenty years
| ago, we were talking about a "basket of currencies" that
| would replace the USD as the global reserve.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| IMF has this, intra-countries, with their SDR ( _" Special
| Drawing Rights"_). China was added in the 2010s, and USD
| has slowly been losing its percentage of the SDR's overall-
| makeup.
|
| [*] <https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights>
|
| SDR's are a type of Keynes' _" Bancor"_ concept, but only
| transactable between countries. Citizens may resort to the
| commoner's bancor, e.g. bitcoin (but also gold, silver &c).
|
| [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I doubt it would be replaced by a single global reserve
| currency. More likely there would be a handful of currencies
| that perform a similar role (USD, EUR, CNY, maybe some others)
| and which you primarily use depends on whose sphere of
| influence you are in.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Probably some type of balanced trade. Holding each trade
| partners currency and balancing it at times. Or even between
| multiple holders and currency pairs.
|
| If there is need you can now build very complicated systems as
| everything is digital anyway.
|
| Maybe stable coins would be finally useful. Each currency has
| own stable coin and then they are automatically traded in
| massive market... /s
| tinfoilhatter wrote:
| The petrodollar (a product of Kissinger) has been in collapse
| since Saudi Arabia began divesting from it.
|
| We've been printing pretend money for quite some time, and
| supressing the value of precious metals (which is why you're
| now seeing silver bullion sell for $100+ an ounce). Copper is
| also selling out now.
|
| These precious metals are extremely valuable because they're
| used to manufacture all of the technology consumers and nation
| states rely on daily. We're going to see a regression towards
| mercantilism and commodity hoarding. Most likely fiat will be
| abandoned in favor of crypto as we enter a new era of
| hyperinflation.
|
| Buckle up - 2026 is going to be a wild ride.
| tinfoilhatter wrote:
| Gotta love HN - getting downvoted with no explanation, but
| most likely because the truth is uncomfortable and people
| would rather press the downvote button than face facts.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| The USD has already been in decline as a reserve currency. The
| only thing that is happening is the decline is accelerating.
|
| It is not necessarily a question of "takes its place", but more
| about being more serious about diversification. Or to
| paraphrase the old IBM saying "nobody got fired for buying USD"
| is no longer the case.
|
| In terms of options you have JPY, EUR and CNY as the big-three
| and maybe tag AUD on top.
| axus wrote:
| Bitcoins, probably
| mywittyname wrote:
| To the rest of the world - Nothing. Trade works just fine
| without a reserve currency.
|
| For the USA - massive inflation. All of those dollars are
| coming back home, which will weaken the dollar.
|
| Plus, there's the second-order effects from a president taking
| control of the fed by trumping up charges on its members. So
| high inflation + low/zero/negative interest rates.
| corimaith wrote:
| >And who takes its place?
|
| Anybody who can (EU, Yuan) does not want to. Primairly because
| as export based economies, they want a weak currency in
| relation to a strong reserve (dollar) so they can make their
| goods more competitive, and also because surplus naturally
| appreciates a currency without central bank intervention via
| buying US treasuries to offset the appreciation. And for China,
| they're not going to accept the liberalized capital controls
| neede for it either.
|
| So the answer is if the US dollars fail it would be global
| economic collapse and then chaos, but contrary to the rhetoric
| the rest of the world's economic systems are too uniquely
| vested in the USD to see it fail. As for gold, well we come to
| the same problem as noted above but worse, and in that
| situation the US actually holds the highest gold reserves so
| they still benefit the most out of it.
| jlarocco wrote:
| I wonder if there needs to be a single reserve currency any
| more.
|
| In the past it made things easier for everybody to use the same
| currency, but is that still the case with modern electronic
| transactions?
|
| Maybe it splinters into Euro, BRICS, and USD?
| kzrdude wrote:
| It's easier if contracts run on the same currency I think,
| your suppliers price in USD, you sell your products in USD,
| it's easier for a whole supply chain that way. I can imagine
| that fracturing or switching to Euro for things like
| manufacturing and semiconductors.
| david-gpu wrote:
| A sensible response, indeed. Investing is about finding the right
| balance of risk vs reward. When a country becomes less reliable,
| it becomes a less attractive investment, until the interest they
| pay rises enough to compensate for the additional risk.
|
| Edit: Yes, I am being sarcastic.
| seydor wrote:
| When facing war you have more important things to think about,
| including confiscation and freezing of assets
| notyourwork wrote:
| Both can be true. Start with soft preemptive planning for
| both reasons.
| bowmessage wrote:
| > $100 million
|
| Is that a lot? Seems relatively inconsequential in the grand
| scheme of things, but perhaps a warning of larger moves to come.
| brookst wrote:
| It's the symbolism more than direct financial impact. You get
| 100 moves like this and it starts to become real money.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It's not a symbolic move by the pension fund. It's all of the
| fund's US treasuries.
| marcusverus wrote:
| 100 moves of this size (~$10B) would make up 0.1% of foreign-
| held US treasuries (~$8.5T).
| koolba wrote:
| It's hard to put an exact number but it's on the order of
| $500-1000 billion daily.
|
| So a drop in the bucket, but we'll have to see if it's a
| domino.
| hypeatei wrote:
| It's not a lot. Multiple countries could offload hundreds of
| _billions_ and the U.S. Treasury would buy them up immediately
| (and probably ask the Federal Reserve for some help the next
| day)
|
| I can't find the program name at the moment, but the Treasury
| plans for situations like this regularly.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > the Treasury plans for situations like this regularly.
|
| For attacking allies?
|
| I know that's not what you meant but we must be pushing up
| against scenarios that haven't been considered possible.
| munk-a wrote:
| We've certainly planned for single allies going unhinged -
| but what we didn't plan for was us going unhinged and
| causing all our allies to take retaliatory actions. If
| France, Denmark, Germany, Britain - any one of them was
| swept up in nationalistic fervor and turned their back on
| our multi-lateral alliances we could easily weather that
| storm... when it's us though, that threatens the USD's
| acceptance as the defacto trading currency especially at a
| time when BRICS is semi-coherent and we're weathering a
| recent inflationary burst. This is like a perfect storm.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Definitely, I think there'd be a crisis if our biggest
| holders like the UK and Japan sold off their treasury
| securities but some "small" selloffs aren't outside the
| realm of possibilities. Trillions in selloffs though, that
| might get interesting.
| luke5441 wrote:
| The FED can print as much money as it wants. Defaulting this
| way on US debt won't make the US a more desirable debtor
| nation.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I think you are missing the point. The point is it would
| materialize as inflation instead of debt default. Not that
| there is no downside risk.
| luke5441 wrote:
| Inflation is a kind of default, I'm not missing the
| point.
|
| The value of the dollar is based on the promise of 2%
| inflation of a basket of goods. Breaking that promise is
| default.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Well... no. Default is when you can't pay back what you
| promised. Not keeping inflation under a certain target.
|
| Unless words just don't mean anything anymore. In which
| case, yes. Which could also mean no.
| luke5441 wrote:
| In case you are interested in more than definitions of
| words: Bond investors do not care if you default by
| giving them a haircut, doing things like forcefully
| extending the term to 100 years or lowering the currency
| value by printing money. In either case they will adjust
| their future risk premium of US govt. bonds and of course
| price in future inflation.
|
| One might be able to hide the money printing for a while,
| though, while the haircut is explicit.
| mythical_39 wrote:
| So if the Treasury is the only entity buying treasuries, what
| is the USD worth at your local grocery store?
|
| how about at the companies that supply that grocery store?
|
| and so on up the chain.
| WarmWash wrote:
| About $1T is traded daily so it's really more a symbolic move.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Two people buying and selling the same dollar a trillion time
| would hit that trade volume in a day. There's also a huge
| difference between short term and long term bonds.
|
| So we need a better metric to evaluate this against. If we
| look at recent auctions, they typically move around 35-40
| billion in 10 year notes and about 25-30 billion in 30 year
| notes. With the rest being short term.
|
| In 2025, the Treasury issued $30 trillion total over 400
| auctions.
|
| So yes, $100MM is not a lot, but it's still three or so
| auctions worth of bonds. There's also the downstream impacts
| of this, as the Netherlands is likely no longer buying
| t-bonds in any form. And this is just one country.
| monkeydust wrote:
| Nope but its about the sentiment
|
| https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| China has been divesting for the last nine months, and
| continues to do so.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-18/foreign-h...
| | https://archive.today/4pfum
| elicash wrote:
| It's a pension fund of/for teachers in Denmark. That amount in
| U.S. Treasuries sounds like an expected size to me.
| louthy wrote:
| Whilst this might be symbolic, money managers don't tend to do
| symbolism. Surely it's more likely that they fear what's to
| come: an economic war against the dollar as pushback for the
| threats from Trump. So selling before the price tanks makes
| good sense.
| lostlogin wrote:
| The other thread going on this topic says that Europe could
| sell about $10 trillion. That's a lot, but also, it's only a
| bit over 10 days trading at normal volumes (according to the
| numbers being discussed in this thread).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46692052
| Arnt wrote:
| The normal trading volume isn't really the key. Rather, it's
| how elastic the price is.
|
| Suppose these guys sell 10% of the daily trading volume. How
| do the traders in the market react? One possibility: Buy at
| current prices. Another: Speculate that there'll be more
| sales and the price will drop by a couple of per cent in the
| coming days/weeks, and delay their buying in order to buy the
| dip.
|
| I'm sure the Americans have laid plans for how to avoid a
| major Oops.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| For reference, 25-30% of US treasuries are foreign owned.
| It's still a lot but I think people over-estimate how much of
| US debt is foreign owned.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Sure, but if the majority of that foreign owned debt is
| sold off, it's very likely there would be a run and
| everyone would try to sell in a panic.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It would have a massive negative impact, and there are
| reason why these countries dont do this (their own
| interests), but that's all besides the point. The US hold
| most of it's debt, which is not something everyone
| realizes.
| Havoc wrote:
| It's about the right sizing for a pension fund invest. Most
| pension fund transactions I see are in roughly that range 50 to
| 200ish
|
| Rounding error on a global scale.
| seydor wrote:
| Let's see how Norway will react
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| +1
| exabrial wrote:
| The US keeps voting to raise its debt cieling. Theres not end in
| sight to endless taxation by both parties.
|
| Nobody is reducing spending and delivery continues to go down.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Congress passed a tax cut last year for the wealthiest as part
| of the One Big Beautiful Bill ("OBBB") that increases the debt
| by $1T-$4T over ten years. What taxation by both parties?
|
| The US pays $800B/year to service debt. It pays $800B-$1T/year
| for the military. What would you like cut that is
| discretionary? There appears to be no appetite to raise taxes
| on the wealthy, pay down debt, and reduce military spending. So
| US credit card go brrr. We'll hit a debt spiral eventually.
|
| https://usafacts.org/government-spending/
| Filligree wrote:
| The deficit reliably starts to come down whenever a Democrat
| leadership is in place. It then jumps back up under the
| Republicans.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Well, the unsophisticated and low education keep voting for
| Republicans, so what do? If you're an individual, if you
| can, the best you can do is be prepared to get out and not
| have exposure to the US financially or from a tax
| perspective. Otherwise you're stuck going over the cliff
| economically with the lemmings due to an uneducated,
| unsophisticated, vibe driven electorate and a suboptimal
| political and governance system lacking sufficient checks
| and balances to prevent this outcome.
|
| Maybe we're lucky and adults come back into power, but hope
| alone is not a strategy. No one is coming to save you,
| prepare accordingly. I have prepared accordingly to
| decouple from the US entirely as a citizen, if necessary.
| It's regrettable and I have no other solution for those
| inquiring. You can't control the winds, but you can adjust
| your sails. My genuine condolences and sympathies if one
| cannot escape the US either via income, wealth, or some
| form of visa (lineage, family, work, etc).
|
| (derived from first principles)
| KPGv2 wrote:
| so 100% of your savings are in foreign companies that
| don't have US as a client, plus BTC, and you have dual
| citizenship already plus don't own your own home?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I own a residence outright in a European country, I have
| invested in a golden visa fund (renewables) that will
| provide my family European citizenship after five years,
| I am financially independent with a minority of my
| portfolio in US exposure, and I have built a network of
| folks who will employ me anywhere globally. I hold no
| crypto while also holding at least a year of expenses in
| Euros. We have applied for and received permanent
| residency in Mexico as well (no upkeep cost, the only
| thing we can't do is vote). Even without a golden visa,
| Spain will allow you to apply for a digital nomad visa
| with a three year term from within the country while a
| tourist (for any employment sourced at least 80% out of
| the country), and with one two year extension, will then
| allow you permanent residency after five years (for
| example; there are many paths to an exit, citations
| below, and most of the developed world is hungry for
| skilled labor).
|
| Through the actions above, I feel that I have diversified
| away from the US sufficiently for my risk appetite. I
| don't feel I need to renounce my US citizenship currently
| (due to foreign earned income exclusions), but I am also
| prepared for that in the future if necessary.
|
| Resources for others I have assembled helping folks exit:
|
| https://relocateme.substack.com/
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/urwlbr/a_guide
| _fo...
|
| https://old.reddit.com/user/Shufflebuzz/comments/1iv4dud/
| shu...
|
| https://www.helpmeleave.us/
|
| https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-
| citizenship/se... (Canadian citizenship by lineage)
|
| https://healthcareinfusion.org/ (for healthcare workers
| interested in Canada)
|
| https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/b58914ce-b98d-4
| 330... from https://pancakeonastick.substack.com/
| (Digital Nomad Visa Map)
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| It blows my mind that republicans are still seen as the
| fiscally responsible party.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's a great indicator of how much of the American
| public's sentiment on everything is driven by marketing.
|
| Just say "Fiscal responsibility" enough times and it's
| magically true, and nobody will listen to the educated
| people pointing at literal receipts because they are "the
| elites", which is a group that somehow doesn't include
| the people who's wealth has grown 10x based on explicitly
| pro-rich person fiscal policy for decades.
|
| It's why they blame democrats for "globalism" as well,
| despite the fact that the entire country loudly voted for
| Reagan because of his "lets reduce taxes and magically
| get rich" narrative.
|
| Or how it's constantly said that "Democrats turned their
| back on blue collar workers". Said by people voting for
| the "Unions are inherently bad" party.
|
| Everything about American behavior makes sense when you
| understand them as especially prone to swallowing
| marketing and ideology as truth.
| elicash wrote:
| In "defense" of Republicans, the MAIN reason for deficit
| increasing under Republicans is that their administrations
| often end with some type of economic disaster. Their
| increased spending is part of the picture, but not as
| responsible as the impacts from final year recessions.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Congress passed a tax cut last year for the wealthiest as
| part of the One Big Beautiful Bill ("OBBB")
|
| I think you need to call it by its real name.
|
| One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
|
| You can tell how much care and considering went into if from
| the name.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
| whimsicalism wrote:
| We don't need tax cuts, we need higher taxes and less spending
| on the rich&old. Our welfare system is completely backwards, if
| you are facing declining fertility and struggling young people
| - you don't continue to tax the young to spend on the wealthier
| generation.
|
| Unfortunately most young people don't realize they are being
| hoodwinked and so poll extremely supportive of this scheme.
| spankalee wrote:
| Why should taxes "end"?
| jeltz wrote:
| The US most likely needs to raise taxes if you want to stop
| constant loans.
| epistasis wrote:
| The fund is not concerned about the debt ceiling. The are
| concerned about the US threatening invasion of its allies.
|
| The debt ceiling is literally not a problem at all, unless the
| US were to do something as monumentally stupid as to stop
| allowing its GDP to grow through trade, and devalue the US
| dollar, in which case everybody flees US treasuries, resulting
| in collapse of value, causing more people to flee UST, etc....
|
| The debt hawks are very wrong about the fundamentals of
| currency, but they are less dangerous than the war hawks in the
| White House to the US's economic future.
|
| It's one thing to do a epically stupid invasion of Iraq on
| faked intelligence, which ally support. It's another thing
| entirely to invade allies. It will totally end US dominance in
| the world.
| mythical_39 wrote:
| "The decision is rooted in the poor U.S. government finances,
| which make us think that we need to make an effort to find an
| alternative way of conducting our liquidity and risk
| management," Investment Director Anders Schelde said in a
| written statement.
|
| "Thus, it is not directly related to the ongoing rift between
| the U.S. and Europe, but of course that didn't make it more
| difficult to take the decision," he added.
|
| quotes from the Reuters article
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Another case of, 'well they would say that, wouldn't they'
| epistasis wrote:
| Indeed. There was a progressive slate elected to the
| board of this pension fund a decade ago, to facilitate
| oil divestment:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/runestahl.bsky.social/post/3mcuy
| opn...
|
| Doing a small amount of CYA as a fiduciary, while causing
| bond rates to rise, is merely prudent.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The fiscal trajectory of the US absolutely matters for
| growth, inflation expectations, tax expectations, and
| government capability.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > endless taxation by both parties.
|
| How do you run a country without taxation? Can you point at an
| example?
| mywittyname wrote:
| Tariffs, obvs.
|
| /s
|
| Serious answer: deficit spending and let inflation act as the
| taxation mechanism.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Deficit spending with zero taxation?
|
| The approach is tried and true with a small deficit, but
| surely you need some decent source of revenue to keep the
| inflation under control.
| fabian2k wrote:
| > "The decision is rooted in the poor U.S. government finances,
| which make us think that we need to make an effort to find an
| alternative way of conducting our liquidity and risk management,"
| Investment Director Anders Schelde said in a written statement.
|
| Not a political decision. Still a bad sign for the US, but not
| really unexpected.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| This divestment is so little and with so little aim.
|
| The whole situation is been caused by a single guy and 400
| enablers, whereas the US is a 400 million people country.
|
| The correct form of reaction is a punch in the face during a
| bilateral meeting, Zelensky came close to doing it but
| unfortunately he resisted his impulse , that's where the
| epicenter of all newly generated global problems in the last 10
| years lies, in that octogenarian brian of his.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| The americans that support Trump are many more than 400.
|
| Also, them having elected Trump TWICE, why would they ever be
| trusted ?
|
| Also when the alternatives are people like.. Hilary Clinton ?
| lostlogin wrote:
| > when the alternatives are people like.. Hilary Clinton ?
|
| Would she have been worse than this?
|
| And the US had a better choice the second time.
| jeltz wrote:
| No, I do not even think people like DeSantis or Ted Cruz
| would have been worse. Trump was one of the worst possible
| candidates the US voters could pick.
| lostlogin wrote:
| And you don't just have to pick from the red team.
|
| But as you say, was there a worse option? It's hard to
| find it.
| senderista wrote:
| I think it's safe to say that none of the other potential
| GOP candidates would have threatened to invade a NATO
| ally.
| lpcvoid wrote:
| Hilary Clinton could have literally entered office and done
| _nothing_ , and still be better for the American people
| than the current admin, which is making life more difficult
| every week for not just Americans, but a good part of the
| whole world. But hey, the libs were owned, so I guess
| that's good or something.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| >Hilary Clinton could have literally entered office and
| done nothing
|
| Like Keir Starmer has in the UK. He got elected for
| saying nothing too. Country didn't get much worse. Maybe
| we should have 5 years off changes now and then?
| inetknght wrote:
| > _The whole situation is been caused by a single guy and 400
| enablers_
|
| There's a hell of a lot more than 400 enablers. Every single
| person who voted for the treasonous traitor orange cheeto
| enabled this; every single person still supporting him is still
| an enabler.
|
| We have the modern Nazi party in the USA. Treat it like that.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| The GOP is the bicentennial institution , the anchor that 50%
| of the country see as the bastion against progressivism
|
| Conservatism vs. Progressivism will keep raging on for the
| whole eternity.
|
| Trumpism is for sure made up of the 400 enablers who took
| control of the bicentennial institution that is the GOP
| jeltz wrote:
| Why don't you go up and punch him in the face yourself?
| Especially if the problem is just one man and 400 enablers hat
| should be trivial. Just find 1000 people to beat them up.
|
| In reality that one man is backed by half of the US voters, the
| Republican Party a lot of rich and powerful people, a clear
| majority of the police forces and an unknown part of the US
| military.
| hbarka wrote:
| > backed by half of the US voters
|
| False. People who say this don't know that a large percentage
| of Americans don't care to vote.
| GJim wrote:
| "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a
| choice".
| hbarka wrote:
| It's still factually wrong to say 50% supported. Nobody
| knows that.
|
| 38% for Harris, 39% for Trump. Larger number wins. The
| other 23% who did not vote are null choice and could have
| made a difference.
| hagbarth wrote:
| This isn't a political move. It's a pension fund derisking a
| small part of their investments by moving them out of a riskier
| asset.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| When I actually look at the data, a lot of US deficit growth came
| from several specific shocks, with inconsistent years of
| recovery.
|
| - 9/11
|
| - Iraq War
|
| - Covid
|
| The US did recover a bit deficit-wise in Obama years, but have
| not reset the fiscal picture from Covid.
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
| epistasis wrote:
| What does debt pressure have to do with this? That is an
| unconnected topic, and not a threat to treasuries.
| orwin wrote:
| The plunge around 2001 wasn't caused by 9/11, and was
| orchestrated a bit before. Since Clinton managed to cut a lot
| of spending (both due to his governance and global economics)
| and reduce some tax avoidance schemes, the US budget had a
| surplus, so the Bush admin implemented a lot of tax cuts. 9/11
| and the following wars didn't had any positive impact, but
| without the Bush tax cuts, the US budget would still have a
| surplus in 2003 before the Iraq war
| qgin wrote:
| So much of the way the United States works is having a nearly
| limitless source of borrowing at low rates in the form of selling
| treasury bonds.
|
| The further we get away from that being true, the more precarious
| things become.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| We're under active, malicious attack by 1/3 of our own eligible
| voters. Not clear how this will play out, as I can't think of
| any historical parallels.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| It's a lot like the rise and presidency of Andrew Jackson.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| It's over 50% and there are plenty of plainly obvious
| parallels both historical and contemporary.
| epistasis wrote:
| Far far below 50%. The media tricked some people into
| supporting Trump by perpetuating his obvious lies
| unchallenged, but now that people see what Trump is doing
| he is underwater on all issues.
|
| Most other contemporary and historical parallels of
| authoritarians show far higher popularity of the
| authoritarian. Trump is nowhere close.
|
| The biggest risk to the US is that the media is completely
| compromised, as are leadership at many institutions. Even
| in Silicon Valley, the loudest and most vocal leaders are
| self-destructively supporting this madness that will
| destroy the US's wealth, and their future wealth gains too.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _The media tricked some people into supporting Trump_
|
| You could almost make this case in 2016, but anyone who
| fell for Trump in 2024 will just fall for the next con
| man to come along. At some point we have to take
| responsibility for our own choices and stop blaming the
| media.
|
| The truth about Trump was out there, and it was not hard
| to find.
|
| Added here due to rate-limiting:
|
| _2024 was right after voters had seen Biden at that
| debate, while all the "responsible" people insisted he
| was sharp and smart. It really was more unique than its
| given credit for._
|
| Both candidates were a disgrace to the parties who
| propped them up. However, nothing Biden said was any
| worse than what Trump said about immigrants eating
| peoples' pet dogs and cats.
|
| At the Biden/Trump debate, the choice was between
| malevolent, incoherent senility and plain old garden-
| variety senility, and the voters choose poorly. At the
| actual election, there were even fewer excuses for voting
| for Trump, as Biden was no longer in play.
| woooooo wrote:
| 2024 was right after voters had seen Biden at that
| debate, while all the "responsible" people insisted he
| was sharp and smart. It really was more unique than its
| given credit for.
| epistasis wrote:
| No, it's largely the media. Compare what passes for
| political journalism from, say the New York Times to the
| rest of the world and it becomes clear that the US media
| politics coverage is in its best form mere both-sidesism.
|
| Most people who were tricked were people who don't pay
| much attention, and might only get a few articles of
| news, if anything. When the media doesn't tell people
| that there are plans for mass deportations at numbers
| that require legal immigrants to be deported, then the
| media is lying to its consumers. When the media is not
| willing to report that Project 2025 is Trump's plan, and
| instead places Trump's lie about ignorance on the same
| footing as the reality of people saying it _is_ his plan,
| then the media lies to people.
|
| Media consumers expect that journalists will react
| normally to extreme news. But instead the media is
| normalizing extremely unpopular and ridiculous policies
| that everybody would hate if they knew what the media
| knew.
|
| I know large families of Mexican descent who have lived
| in the US for generations, that had many Trump voters in
| the recent election, from people that don't follow much
| news, and believed ridiculous things like Trump being a
| "Peace President." As you might imagine, there's a bit of
| intense discussion these days about how they were tricked
| into voting for secret police that will imprison family
| members and detain them for days without cause. If
| somebody reads a single article, they shouldn't have to
| read 5 more in order to get the _real_ story merely
| because the media was more concerned about normalizing
| Trump 's views than it was about reacting like a normal
| person would to the insanity of Trump.
|
| Do people have personal responsibility to be better
| informed? Sure! But when they go to CBS they should get a
| real news article, not glazing of the most radical
| opinions out there on the political spectrum.
| ca6d8815 wrote:
| It is 49.8% (people who voted Trump in 2024) of 64.1%
| (people who voted in 2024), or 31.9% or ~1/3 of the total
| eligible voting population, which is what your parent
| states.
| xienze wrote:
| You understand how statistics work, don't you? When you
| have 64% of the population voting, that's a pretty big
| sample size, enough so that you can reasonably
| extrapolate that the 49.8% share _probably_ holds across
| the rest of the population, give or take.
|
| Put another way, if someone asked you to estimate what
| the split between the one third of the population that
| didn't vote was, what would you use as a reference point?
| Social media posts? Vibes? Or maybe polls leading up to
| the vote that showed the same roughly 50-50 split found
| in the actual results?
| larkost wrote:
| I don't think that you understand how that part of
| statistics works. You are said that we have sampled 64%
| of the population, so we can extrapolate to the rest.
| That works if the sampling is sufficiently random. But in
| this case the "sampling" is people who voted, so an
| entirely (self) selected population, and pretty much not
| random at all (i.e.: people who were mostly less decisive
| about their opinions/vote).
|
| So I don't think we can extrapolate confidently at all.
| So we really don't know whether it holds for the rest of
| the population at all.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| The parent comment was edited after my reply.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Yes, sorry; I added 'eligible' to emphasize how many
| people failed to vote at all.
|
| Unfortunately, my understanding based on reported surveys
| [1] is that if the non-voters _had_ voted, Trump 's
| margin of victory would have been even greater. If that's
| the case, then those who say that my 1/3 figure is too
| low are correct.
|
| 1:
| https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-
| turno...
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Failing to vote still isn't an "active" attack, so I
| think you're technically vindicated. (But yes, the
| situation is dire either way.)
| dh2022 wrote:
| That is the problem though - a third of the US population
| is basically lunatics... This will not go away. And one
| cannot keep a third of the population "down".
| pavlov wrote:
| It's not uncommon for democracies to be subverted by a
| minority party.
|
| Nazis did it in Germany. They lost parliamentary seats in the
| November 1932 election, but remained the largest party with
| 33% of seats. The next year the country was already a
| dictatorship.
|
| Communists did it in Czhechoslovakia in 1948. They led a
| coalition government but had just lost the previous election.
|
| I'm worried that United States 2027 will be added to this
| list. If MAGA sees their grip on power starting to fade after
| November elections, they may try increasingly extreme
| measures.
| weakfish wrote:
| I mean, they already tried it on J6, we just got lucky it
| failed and yet didn't learn our lesson
| tokai wrote:
| Thats why its really fricking important to have more than two
| parties, so coalitions can be formed to counter such things.
| epistasis wrote:
| When you say "nearly limitless" source of borrowing, the limit
| is the gain in global wealth. The US has been siphoning off a
| huge chunk of world wealth by printing dollars to serve as the
| currency for that wealth.
|
| All the people complaining about "US Debt" and $26T of "net
| investment" or whatever don't realize that this is/was the
| benefit of the US being stable, strong, and friendly.
|
| When the US is unstable, weak, and a bully, as it is now, all
| that goes away. The bill comes due, and the US will pay dearly.
| The rest of the world will pay nothing.
| adventured wrote:
| The US is more stable than the powers of Europe (which have
| constant political upheavals, snap elections that completely
| remake the political landscape, etc). You're confusing
| Trump's mouth with how the US political system actually
| functions.
|
| Just because the US changes political direction, that doesn't
| equate to instability. Its aims are changing, like it or not,
| good or bad. The US deciding it wants Greenland is not a
| proof of instability, it's a change in the strategic goals
| held by the people controlling the superpower.
|
| And the US is at a high level of strength, not weakness. Its
| large corporations hold sway over the globe in a manner the
| likes of which has never been seen before in modern history.
| Its military has force projection to nearly every point on
| the globe, with hundreds of global military bases. Its
| national wealth is at an all-time high. Its stock markets are
| at all-time highs. Its median income is at an all-time high.
| Its median disposable income is at an all-time high. Its
| housing wealth is at an all-time high.
| triceratops wrote:
| > Its median income is at an all-time high. Its median
| dispoable income is at an all-time high. Its housing wealth
| is at an all-time high.
|
| Then why is everyone so damned unhappy all the time?
| xienze wrote:
| The US used to be a much more homogeneous country, which
| certainly makes it a lot easier for everyone to be on the
| same page because of shared cultural values.
|
| That has changed dramatically in the past few decades and
| with it, places where Americans can find common ground.
|
| Other western countries are going down the exact same
| path, just a bit behind us.
| triceratops wrote:
| I love how racism gets snuck into everything these days.
|
| No, homogeneity doesn't cause happiness.[1] And the US
| was always less homogenous than other "western"
| countries.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Japan#Suicide_
| proble...
| xienze wrote:
| > No, homogeneity doesn't cause happiness.
|
| Funny though how all those European countries everyone on
| HN and Reddit point to as "how things should be" are all
| pretty ethnically and culturally homogenous, though
| that's changing rapidly. Interestingly, cracks are
| starting to appear.
|
| > And the US was always less homogenous than other
| "western" countries.
|
| The US was 85-90% white in 1965. That's pretty
| homogenous.
| epistasis wrote:
| What is considered "white" now certainly wasn't in the
| past. It took a long time before Italians were considered
| to be part of the in-group. Irish and Italian people were
| considered an inferior race and suffered extreme racial
| prejudice when lots of immigrants came from those
| nations.
|
| And that evolution itself tells the story of the US
| itself. The people in non-homogenous neighborhoods are
| happy and harmonious, but outsiders scared of cultural
| differences cause racial strife and discontent.
|
| Those who let themselves get worked up about racism are
| the problem, not the non-homogenous races.
| epistasis wrote:
| The combination of median disposable income and housing
| wealth being at all time highs is a big part of it!
|
| Those with housing have locked others out of housing,
| causing lots of "wealth" that those with housing don't
| even consider to be wealth. They think it's just "normal"
| and don't realize the massive advantage it gives them
| over everybody stuck renting.
|
| But that's symptomatic of all the other inequality.
| Housing is the biggest expense, and most obvious form of
| rent extraction that the wealthy use to exploit those
| without wealth, but it's not the only one.
| blibble wrote:
| > The US is more stable than the powers of Europe (which
| have constant political upheavals, snap elections that
| completely remake the political landscape, etc). You're
| confusing Trump's mouth with how the US political system
| actually functions.
|
| this is satire right?
|
| the UK's system is close to 1000 years old
|
| I doubt the current US system will last another decade
|
| > with hundreds of global military bases
|
| all of which will evaporate the moment it does anything to
| Greenland
| adventured wrote:
| The UK's current system is realistically about the same
| age as the US, their first PM was in the 18th century.
| Unless you're claiming the King/Queen is still in control
| of everything. You can't have that premise both ways.
| blibble wrote:
| > The UK's current system is realistically about the same
| age as the US
|
| no, it's evolved continuously from 1066
|
| by the time of the US rebellion, the king was already
| neutered
|
| > their first PM was in the 18th century.
|
| the title of "Prime Minister" is a modern invention (and
| not a formal position)
|
| there has been a Lord High Treasurer since the 1100s
|
| a constitutionally limited monarchy is older than the US
|
| meanwhile the modern US seems to be a absolute monarchy
| that isn't constitutionally limited
| GJim wrote:
| > The US is more stable than the powers of Europe .......
| You're confusing Trump's mouth with how the US political
| system actually functions.
|
| Eh?
|
| If the US political system was stable and fit for purpose,
| the US would have got rid of the wannabe dictator by now;
| or at _least_ held his power in check.
|
| EDIT: Amusingly, I'm being downvoted by a class of American
| who refuses to believe _their_ way might not be the best
| after all. Even when the facts are staring them in the
| face.
| epistasis wrote:
| As a US citizen, I agree with you that if the US was a
| stable power we would have gotten rid of the dictator for
| good after the first term. And most _definitely_ after
| trying to usurp an entire election. Or worst case after
| he issued pardons to all people involved in any way to
| usurp the election, including many hardened criminals.
| After all these things, even if we get control of the US
| government and place it into stable, hands, it will take
| a generation to rebuild the broken trust.
|
| But I don't think that the people downvoting you are
| necessarily other US citizens. It feels like HN is _very_
| good at eliminating bots, but in these sorts of
| discussions lots of sleeper agent bots come out to try to
| shift discussion. Every bit of our social media is _full_
| of it and I think that the downvotes your comment
| probably come from that.
| 7speter wrote:
| > And the US is at a high level of strength, not weakness.
| Its large corporations hold sway over the globe in a manner
| the likes of which has never been seen before in modern
| history. Its military has force projection to nearly every
| point on the globe, with hundreds of global military bases.
| Its national wealth is at an all-time high. Its stock
| markets are at all-time highs. Its median income is at an
| all-time high. Its median dispoable income is at an all-
| time high. Its housing wealth is at an all-time high
|
| This is in part because other countries allow American
| countries to come in and take over markets.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| In a war type scenario between US and Europe, what do you
| think will happen to those large corporations 'sway'? Their
| assets will be confiscated, their systems cut off or
| repurposed. It will immediately end any sway those
| corporations had
| floatrock wrote:
| and to op's point about
|
| > Its military has force projection to nearly every point
| on the globe, with hundreds of global military bases
|
| How are the hosts to all those bases going to react when
| suddenly the guest acts belligerent? When the ally drops
| down to an occupier, that force projection suddenly
| starts looking like occupation, which becomes a lot more
| expensive to maintain.
|
| And the expense has worked until now because everyone
| else has wanted our currency so what's a bit more
| currency printing, but when we kick our own global
| reserve currency status because we fucked all of our
| allies, well now that "force projections becomes a lot
| more expensive" actually becomes expensive^squared.
|
| This is absolutely idiotic for anyone who indulges in the
| privileges of empire.
| justin66 wrote:
| > The US is more stable than the powers of Europe (which
| have constant political upheavals, snap elections that
| completely remake the political landscape, etc)
|
| How many European powers have had their incumbent head of
| state violently attempt to hold onto power after losing an
| election after January 6th, 2021?
| epistasis wrote:
| A stable country would do what South Korea or Brazil did:
| imprison the criminal.
|
| Instead, in the US, we have our supposed captains of
| industry wielding chain saws on stage to publicly support
| the wannabe tyrant, and donating billions behind the
| scenes to privately support the wannabe tyrant.
| epistasis wrote:
| > You're confusing Trump's mouth with how the US political
| system actually functions.
|
| I'm not confusing anything, right now Trump's mouth _IS_
| the political system in the US. Republicans control _every_
| aspect of the government completely, all the way through to
| the checks of the US Supreme Court.
|
| No Republican has enough backbone to stand up to Trump, and
| if they do gain a backbone to stand up to Trump at all,
| like MTG, they exit politics quickly. Thomas Massie is the
| closest to somebody who is standing up to Trump. If
| Republicans in the Senate were willing to _stay in office_
| yet defect from the party, that would be enough to stand up
| to Trump, but even that 's not happening.
|
| Right now, the US is in a position not unlike Imperial
| Japan, right before they launched an attack on the US,
| forcing the US into WW2. High Command _wants_ somebody to
| stand up and stop the obviously bad action, but nobody is
| willing to make the short-term sacrifice for the long-term
| good.
| isodev wrote:
| > The US is more stable than the powers of Europe (which
| have constant political upheavals, snap elections that
| completely remake the political landscape, etc)
|
| Can you name 26 countries with the same level of unity and
| cooperation with the US as what exists between the 27
| members of the EU (and larger economic zone)?
|
| The US is but one country. If you zoom into states, you'd
| see a lot more bickering and division - y'all just sent
| your military against your own people just now...
| senderista wrote:
| Sorry, Trump insisting on annexing Greenland is not a
| "change in strategic goals", it's a toddler's petulant
| obsession. The US already had carte blanche from Denmark to
| do pretty much whatever it wanted in Greenland.
|
| Besides Trump, I doubt there's another official in the WH
| who wants this. They are all just humoring the demented old
| man.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Its baffling that you think the collapse of the USD would
| have no negative ramifications on the rest of the world...
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| It will suck, and then it will get better.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Yes but you have a) no idea how bad the suck will be b)
| no idea how long the suck will last and c) what the
| "better" will look like.
|
| I am not advocating that the status quo should go on, I
| am just saying that the repercussions will be vast and
| long lasting, likely resulting in a world war, and
| whatever follows after that(if anything).
| 7speter wrote:
| The negative ramifications seem to be better than being
| invaded by the US or having regional entities invaded by
| the US, and the ensuing instability as a result.
|
| If its going to be like this the rest of the world might as
| well cut its losses
| mym1990 wrote:
| You seem to have a very limited view of the world if you
| think the US doesn't have fans of totalitarian rule and
| that the "rest of the world" is exclusively against US
| global strategy. I am going to guess that you actually
| have no idea what the negative ramifications of the
| collapse of a currency that underpins the foundations of
| our world are, because it is something that is near
| impossible to predict.
|
| I agree that at some point, governments and people will
| need to step up and fight back, but the idea that the US
| will somehow fall in a vacuum and everyone else will live
| happily ever after is laughable.
| staplers wrote:
| the US will somehow fall in a vacuum and everyone else
| will live happily ever after is laughable.
|
| If enough countries collectively decide to not export to
| the US, it's game over. See Cuba as an example.
|
| Not everything is a movie with a final battle.
| Alternatives are found and adopted all the time without
| violent strife.
| overfeed wrote:
| > Its baffling that you think the collapse of the USD would
| have no negative ramifications on the rest of the world.
|
| Empires rise and fall, _pax Americana_ was not the world 's
| first hegemony. The end of the British Empire is within
| living memory - while they sowed seeds of instability in a
| handful of former colonies that still flare up today, the
| rest of the world is fine. Britain, on the other hand, has
| had to enter a "managed decline", and is a much smaller
| player in world politics than it was a century ago.
| mym1990 wrote:
| If you think the US is going to decline slowly, fade into
| history and not try to go out with a bang, I guess that
| is certainly one world view!
| sizzle wrote:
| Is that "bang" Mutually Assured Destruction?
| epistasis wrote:
| What do you think the US is going to do for that bang?
| How could a bang ever bring the wealth and peace that its
| prior friendship with allies brought?
|
| The US doesn't have the cards to play, because the
| current US Government doesn't even understand where the
| wealth has come from. That US Government has risen to
| power by tricking the public into thinking that _the very
| things that make the US wealthy and powerful_ are
| actually a scam making them poorer.
|
| The current US Government has already broken the trust
| that makes the US strong. The repercussions will take
| years to become fully visible, and without immediate
| course correction those future repercussions will get far
| far worse.
| corimaith wrote:
| You do realise it is arthimetically impossible to balance all
| the desired export surpluses of the EU, China, Japan, etc
| together without the US as the demand sink right? Whatever
| adjustment comes is certainly going to require somebody to
| act in a manner contrary to their current strategies, and
| it's going to be a painful adjustment.
|
| And which is harder? Bringing back production to satiate
| domestic demand or increasing domestic demand? Historically,
| demand deficiency is much harder to restore.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Single most accurate and astute comment on the entire page.
| Not everyone can be a net exporter, of course...
| epistasis wrote:
| Think _one_ step further. When a different currency
| becomes the reserve currency, the currency rises in
| value, the holders become far wealthier, get their
| imports for cheaper, and suddenly they can even subsidize
| their local industries that rely on exports to the point
| that it 's a smooth transition to more of a consumer
| economy.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I think there is too much emphasis placed on the
| "decline" of the US. The real decline is in the EU, which
| essentially has remained flat or shrank in real terms
| over the last 50 years. They have coasted on the Euro and
| past wealth and innovation, but the chickens are coming
| home to roost now. Notice how they pivot from the US to
| China when daddy war bucks stops subsidizing them. Europe
| has nothing. No children, no new businesses, no armies,
| can't defend itself, can't make energy. It's a disaster.
| Truly decadence and no one wants to hear the truth.
|
| The US is fine. The real strength is in its economy and
| government system that is tilted far more to the wealthy
| and business than Europe, which is too exposed to
| democracy and orators promising something for nothing
| epistasis wrote:
| > no armies, can't defend itself, can't make energy.
|
| Look I love dumping on the Europoors as much as anyone,
| but even I can see that this is a bit extreme.
| "Decadence?" What does that even mean here? That people
| are happy and secure and have good qualities of life,
| without worrying about everything falling apart?
|
| The US is not fine, and is falling apart. The US _is_
| living decadently on its reserve currency status, which
| enable things like ridiculously wasteful and unproductive
| military spending. Even its military spending on things
| like the, say, F35, require external customers in order
| for it to make _any_ sense at all. But all that decadence
| is at risk. Decadence is good, I want it, I don 't want
| austerity. Give me this awesome US decadence or I'll have
| to settle for the fake European "decadence" which is mere
| economic and health security without all the extra
| spending that US consumers get to make.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| You have it 100% backwards. The goal of Europeans is _not
| to work_. They have low productivity. The majority of the
| economy is tourism or bureacracy. It 's just a decaying,
| old place. It's fine if you goal is to be a museum but as
| a 21st century economy they have enormous structural
| problems. They will continue to sell their crown jewels
| to the highest bidder, because no one wants to work. Look
| at the hundreds of thousands of young men and women
| flocking to Ukraine to die on the front lines... there
| aren't any! No one actually wants to do anything
| epistasis wrote:
| > The goal of Europeans is not to work.
|
| What, would you say, all these entrepreneurs in Silicon
| Valley are doing here?
|
| They are all trying to invent something _so that they don
| 't have to work anymore_.
|
| > They will continue to sell their crown jewels to the
| highest bidder, because no one wants to work.
|
| Is this about Europe or the US?
| monero-xmr wrote:
| It's like this: if Europe tried to seize Alaska, millions
| of Americans would fight to the death. But America is
| going to take Greenland with barely a fart from the EU.
| Because they don't care. It's a museum
| epistasis wrote:
| That idea has been so destroyed by current events that I
| can only imagine that you are trolling or have been
| living in a cave for a few weeks. Check the news!
| monero-xmr wrote:
| What? You think suddenly Europe is going to erode its
| safety net and actually sacrifice something? Impossible
| epistasis wrote:
| That furthers the imbalance to the detriment of the US and
| in favor of the holders of whichever currency replaces USD.
|
| Dedollarization means that the US market is _far_ poorer
| and can 't import as much as before, yet the new reserve
| currency(ies) make holders that much richer, enabling
| greater demand for either imports or self-consumption.
|
| It will be an adjustment, but there will be many winners,
| none of which are the US. There may be some losers who do
| not negotiate trade deals or can't find new markets, but
| it's unlikely. The supposed US trade war on China has
| resulted in their GDP growing by a massive 5% last year.
| Canada, losing its exports to the US, negotiates deals with
| other countries.
|
| The pain for other countries is more organizational than
| anything economic. The US will face massive economic
| disaster in the form of devalued dollars and the need to
| close the government deficit after decades of being
| addicted to massive reserve-currency-enabled deficit
| spending. The US will be plummeted into massive recession
| by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely
| trades with whoever are the winners.
|
| If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a
| consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial
| reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely
| massive. Europe may have a harder time signaling to
| Europeans that they are far wealthier, but make imports
| cheaper for Europeans, and people who find that they
| suddenly have a lot more left in their bank account at the
| end of the month usually find ways to spend at least part
| of it.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > balance all the desired export surpluses of the EU,
| China, Japan, etc together without the US as the demand
| sink
|
| in 2022 China, Russia exported around 630 billion USD, US
| imported around 950 billion USD. maybe the world will not
| end if these three just go and play in a separate sandbox;)
|
| > it's going to be a painful adjustment.
|
| even if demand falls a bit it's not the end of the world if
| it becomes more sustainable afterwards (less
| overproduction, consumer waste, gassing the environment)
| adventured wrote:
| Japan is the model of low interest rate debt and the US is not
| close to how low Japan was able to go, with a currency (Yen)
| vastly less potent than the global reserve currency.
|
| Most of the US borrowing is domestic, very little of it is now
| foreign. No foreign entity can afford to absorb $2 trillion of
| new paper every year. That's equal to the total holdings of
| China + Japan. Going forward you might as well regard all US
| Govt borrowing as domestic, as that will essentially be the
| case given the scale. The UK holds $885b of treasuries, what
| are they going to buy annually that will make a difference at
| this point?
|
| Every nation has a limitless ability to borrow internally via
| currency debasement, with obvious consequences. That USD
| debasement is why gold has gone up 10x in 20 years when priced
| in dollars. It's why healthcare and housing is so expensive -
| when priced in dollars. Cash pushed into gold in 2005, $100k,
| would now buy you a million dollar house. It's the dollar of
| course that has been hammered (among other currencies, the Euro
| has not done well against gold either).
|
| The US won't stop being able to debase its currency and buy its
| own debt. What the US is doing is eating its hand. If it
| continues to get worse, it moves on to eating its arm, and so
| on (the US is de facto consuming its national wealth through
| stealth confiscation via currency destruction, rather than
| paying the bills with taxation directly).
| maxglute wrote:
| >what are they going to buy annually that will make a
| difference at this point
|
| Mechanically, "they" being sovereign banks serve as price-
| insensitive marginal buyers that close treasury auctions
| regardless of price because they buy treasury for
| storage/liquidity. VS domestic buyers (hedgefund insurance),
| who are price sensitive = raise rates to attract discriminate
| buyers who buy for yield/valuation = worse debt servicing =
| faster debasing. Foreign sovereign buyers still play governor
| role in making sure domestic buyers get a shit none-market
| deal, i.e. US gov gets a good deal which moderates velocity
| of debasing. Of course past certain level of debt brrrting,
| the ability for sovereign buyers to absorb is compromised, in
| which case it makes sense for US to fuck foreign buyers over
| and inflate away as much debt as possible while still reserve
| currency - US can inflate/soft default faster than world can
| unwind. And TBH US will probably be "fine" as long as US can
| still gunboat diplomacy. If can't be banker anymore, be the
| mob boss.
| MikeNotThePope wrote:
| There will always be a market if the interest rates are high
| enough. But wanting to lower interest rates and introducing
| political instability seems like a bad combo.
| afavour wrote:
| It's symbolism. But it's important symbolism. Far more notable, I
| think, is Macron saying this morning that Europe needs more
| investment from China. Canada signing a deal with China to allow
| their cars to be sold in the country.
|
| It's all a sliding slope until it reaches a breaking point and
| falls off like a cliff.
|
| EDIT: to quote the Canadian PN earlier today:
|
| "American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, a
| stable financial system... this bargain no longer works. Let me
| be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition...
| recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as a
| weapon. Tariffs as leverage ..."
| tomaskafka wrote:
| That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power
| against Trump. Chinese are our adversaries (EDIT: enemies, they
| actually bankroll Russian invasion and supply weapons) and I
| hope president of France understands that.
| koe123 wrote:
| Genuinely: why? I feel like they were our geopolitical
| adversary by proxy cause of USA, but is that still true?
| afavour wrote:
| > That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power
| against Trump.
|
| In the Canadian example at least the deal is signed. It's not
| just words.
|
| > Chinese are our adversaries
|
| Increasingly the US is a European adversary. They are
| literally threatening to invade the territory of a European
| country! China isn't doing that.
|
| Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-
| one is holding him back. People didn't take the tariff
| bluster seriously and then it became very real.
| foobarian wrote:
| I really don't get the Greenland thing. Is there some 4D
| chess reason for it? The US already has military bases
| there and could probably have as many more as they wanted
| if they just asked nicely. So the whole security thing is a
| pretext
| afavour wrote:
| IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out
| at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it
| beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because
| they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes
| from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards
| will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g.
| Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a
| distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
| nemomarx wrote:
| No one's really put out a strong case for it like that.
| You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated
| and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming
| or something?
|
| But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally
| like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego
| reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same
| excuses mostly.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Probably to indelibly put his name on a piece of the US.
| How did we get Greenland? Trump.
| senderista wrote:
| It's the Mercator projection's fault
| jfengel wrote:
| There have been mumblings about mineral wealth, and about
| strategic bases. None of them really make a lick of
| sense.
|
| It does not look as if it's serious. But this is a deeply
| unserious administration, so it's hard to guess.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily
| with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military
| bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands.
| Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no
| rational net-positive reason for this no matter what
| dimension you look in
| graemep wrote:
| Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt
| least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and
| economically within the western sphere.
| jpadkins wrote:
| if there were more valuable reasons, talking publicly
| about it would only drive up the price.
| xienze wrote:
| > Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but
| no-one is holding him back.
|
| Does anyone really need to? We're not getting Greenland and
| everyone knows it, ESPECIALLY the people screeching the
| most about it. Trump's whole thing is giving the media lots
| of fresh meat to go wild over so they're distracted. I'm
| sure it's some sort of Sun Tzu thing he read about and has
| latched on to.
|
| However, this one in particular is really baffling in that
| he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse.
|
| > People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then
| it became very real.
|
| I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and
| there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things
| have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's
| really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty
| moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something
| he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's
| obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.
| notahacker wrote:
| > Does anyone really need to?
|
| It feels like the rest of the post answers your own
| question. Yes, Vance and basically everyone below him
| know full well that the US acquiring Greenland would be
| utterly pointless and utterly disastrous.
|
| But he won't let it go, and in the mean time he's doing
| lots of stuff with real world consequences like tariffs
| and incinerating alliances to try to get people to agree
| with his stupid idea. Can't even use it as a "negotiation
| chip" when its the fruits of actual completed
| negotiations being threatened and the US could put any
| military installations in Greenland they wanted if they
| said "please" instead of "we are going to take you over".
| fooster wrote:
| Chinese are Canadian adversaries mostly because of the US.
| The US more or less forced Canada to hold Meng Wanzhou, which
| caused a huge rise in diplomatic tensions and cost Canada
| billions. Some thanks we got for that.
| petcat wrote:
| Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada.
|
| Did USA cause that
| Cornbilly wrote:
| >Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada.
|
| No.
| rjrjrjrj wrote:
| Weird whataboutery
| Supermancho wrote:
| For a time there was a large amount of Chinese money
| fleeing to Canada and the US, buying up coastland and
| other high value residential. Circa 2018ish, that
| reversed due to Xi Ping's mandates. Near Seattle, the
| Bellevue luxury market bottom fell out over a month long
| period. AFAIK, it never fully returned to the hey day
| levels of spending.
| maxglute wrote:
| US buyers owns like 10x more real estate in Canada in $$$
| terms than PRC buyers, and US tends to buy the strategic
| stuff like commercial/industry, something like 50% of all
| foreign controlled assets in Canada is controlled by US.
| VS PRC mostly buying houses, foreigners own like 5% of
| housing stock in Canada.
| fooster wrote:
| > Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada.
|
| No. Why would you claim something that is easily refuted?
| 75-80% of all residences in Canada are owner occupied.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| This is definitely the biggest incident, but there's also
| been supposed Chinese meddling in Canadian politics and
| establishing foreign police stations which allegedly were
| threatening people in Canada.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm Italian/Polish, China has never done anything to me in
| history.
|
| Whereas I remember multiple times our allies pillaging and
| colonizing the country.
|
| Not a fan of their espionage, lack of IP respect and human
| rights record (albeit we should also look at ourselves on the
| last one as well). But those are things that could've been
| challenged diplomatically through economical levers imho.
|
| The only reason China suddenly became the enemy is because
| their GDP growth put them as the world's biggest economy in
| few decades and Washington wasn't happy with this.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I hope president of France understands that
|
| I'm sure he does.
|
| But only a fool would piss off the Chinese.
|
| Both in Macron's own country and his region, there will be
| hundreds of companies who are already cut-off from Russia,
| Africa, Middle-East and Central Asia due to geopolitics.
| China doesn't care and is busy selling there.
|
| So what's left is the remainder of Asia, which is China's
| home turf where they are already ultra-competitive as they
| have the geographic advantage.
|
| And of course there will be companies in Macron's country and
| region using Chinese manufacturing or otherwise engaged in
| Chinese JVs to get access to sell to the Chinese market.
|
| So for Macron to go full-Trump on China would be a textbook
| case of cutting your nose to spite your face. The Chinese are
| masters at playing the long game and the West needs to be
| careful about knee-jerk short-termism actions.
| busterarm wrote:
| Canada needs cheaper cars than US manufacturers want to
| provide. US brand cars have all been going higher dollar and
| further up market in recent years.
|
| Quebec is famous for the "Quebec Special". Cars with manual
| everything. No AC. Manual windows. Completely stripped down to
| be as affordable/disposable as possible. Also the roads are
| absolute shit, they never wash off the salt, there used to be
| no inspections and title-washing is common practice there.
| earlyriser wrote:
| Is this a thing? I have never heard about that, living in QC
| for the last 20 years and owned and rode dozens of cars. The
| car salesman looked at me as a rare species when I wanted a
| manual Soul. I have never seen an no AC or manual windows car
| here.
| busterarm wrote:
| Sorry, I'm old. I last lived in Canada 20 years ago. Times
| do change, but yes this very much used to be a thing. Base
| model/optionless imports still are, however.
|
| Everything I said about the roads and title washing still
| applies.
| dh2022 wrote:
| The Hyundai my parents have been driving for the past 7
| years does not have AC nor automatic windows :). They live
| in Montreal, and hate the lack of AC during the summer, but
| it is what it is - car is cheaper without AC.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| They are certainly going to get them! Apparently zero tariffs
| on Chinese made EVs coming into Canada, so they will have
| EV's of at least same quality as Tesla, but half price (e.g.
| see Marques Brownlee's recent Xiaomi review).
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > Canada needs cheaper cars than US manufacturers want to
| provide.
|
| So does the U.S.
| busterarm wrote:
| That's an opinion. One I agree with in principal, but not
| reflected in sales figures.
|
| Also I'd be willing to bet that if interest rates dropped,
| car purchasing would skyrocket even at current prices.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| People in the U.S. have to own a car. There are no
| inexpensive options any longer.
|
| Car loans would be ticking time bomb on the U.S. economy.
| All it takes are waves of layoffs and therefore droves of
| unemployed people saddled with car loans.
| busterarm wrote:
| US car sales are pretty consistent between 12mil & 17mil
| per year going back to the mid 70s, which spans a few
| recessions at this point...
| overfeed wrote:
| > One I agree with in principal, but not reflected in
| sales figures.
|
| In the absence of perfect competition and perfect
| information, one cannot infer from the absence of sales
| that there is no demand for item X.
| btbuildem wrote:
| It's not pure symbolism. The most effective way to reduce the
| global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is
| to hit the dollar. The US economy is in a very precarious
| state, tensions along political ideology lines are high, and it
| would not take much more than a worsening of economic
| conditions plus a catalyst event to kick off armed unrest
| within the country. A new civil war that drives the US to
| fragment into several independent regions over the course of
| the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a
| global perspective.
| raincole wrote:
| > Danish pension fund AkademikerPension said on Tuesday it
| would sell off its holding of U.S. Treasuries, worth some
| $100 million,
|
| > AkademikerPension has in total 164 billion Danish crowns
| ($25.74 billion)
|
| So they are moving about 0.4% of their investment.
|
| Not pure symbolism, but $100 million is really nothing when
| we're talking about US treasuries. In the past decade, China
| has reduced their holding by about $600B.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Think of it as a bowshot. There are many more such 10 to
| 100 billion funds and they can move at the drop of a hat if
| they have to.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Can. Won't. There is no safer place to stash money in the
| world. Nobody buys treasuries for the fun of it. They do
| it since that is the safest place to stash money long
| term.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's your opinion, which you are of course welcome to.
|
| People buy treasuries because they expect a return. If a
| party is threatening to get into a shooting war with you
| your expectations of a return drop significantly. This
| then causes that party to protect their investment, the
| last one to defect will hold the bag. The US is
| signalling on all wavelengths that it is no longer the
| safest place to stash money, long term or otherwise.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| ok, let's run with your theory. Where does one safely
| stash a small-ish sum like ~$100B now?
| jacquesm wrote:
| You are so far out from understanding why pension funds
| put money in foreign government paper that I'm not sure
| where to begin explaining it. But the key is simply
| portfolio diversification. Institutional investors have
| access to a very large number of options on where, how
| and for how long they want to park their money that it
| isn't some kind of forced move to put their money in US
| Treasuries.
|
| It's just a way to hedge their bets. In the larger scheme
| of things $100B isn't all that much (it may be to you,
| but even a small trading desk of a mid sized bank or
| multinational, say Royal Dutch Shell, or such) have
| access to that kind of money. They are not going to take
| the chance that Donald Trump on Monday morning, after
| eating a bad burger the night before, decides to unleash
| the might of the US military on their territory and be
| left holding the bag.
|
| One downside of running a trade deficit with the rest of
| the world is that they have you by the short and curlies;
| if they dump your paper you will have to buy it back as
| fast as they can dump it to avoid a crash of your
| currency. That can get expensive really quickly.
| pedalpete wrote:
| The US was a safe place with consistent returns for
| decades. Now the US has increased risk. It isn't a
| calculation of "where do we put $100B", it's a
| calculation of "what is the balance of managing risk and
| returns".
|
| Canada and Australia are low risk, but don't have the
| returns of the US. Brasil, Argentina, have higher risk.
|
| The allocations get spread across different risk
| profiles, and the money gets spread across different
| investments. Of course, this is on the assumption the
| majority of this money stays in Treasuries. These large
| funds have options beyond that. It's a mathematical
| calculation where every asset in the world is an option.
| $100B can be spread around pretty easily I'd think.
| chimprich wrote:
| > They do it since that is the safest place to stash
| money long term.
|
| Only historically. The calculus is rapidly changing. If
| the US can't even respect sovereign territory of friendly
| countries, it doesn't inspire trust that they would repay
| debt.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I'm curious when people make comments like this, do they
| actually live in the US and believe this or has the media
| environment gotten so bad in Europe+ that people have no clue
| what's real or not?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Maybe you'd trust Blackrock's CEO instead? I live in the US
| and I have rotated away from US equities and treasuries to
| derisk from volatility of poor governance (both this
| administration and long term fiscal policy).
|
| _BlackRock CEO delivers blunt warning on US national debt_
| - https://www.thestreet.com/investing/blackrock-ceo-
| delivers-b... - January 18th, 2026
|
| _The U.S. Deficit Will 'Overwhelm This Country': BlackRock
| CEO Larry Fink_ -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1GzgnhkI
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I don't disagree that our fiscal situation is
| unsustainable. I'm curious specifically about the people
| envisioning (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting
| into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to
| have lost touch with reality.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| In longitudinal surveys, typically, about 5% of folks
| elect the "some men want to watch the world burn" option.
| I cannot speak to the glee component you mention, I know
| these people exist, but they are a minority. I _can_
| speak to the ongoing political polarization that treats
| national politics as a sport and is avoiding course
| correcting fiscal policy trajectory. And this fiscal
| policy is going to lead to widening wealth inequality, a
| continuation of a K shaped economic recovery, and pushing
| the electorate to more extreme options besides the voting
| booth. No one is "winning", there is no moderate middle
| ground any more, and I don't see how this trajectory will
| change. Thanks Gingrich (who set us on this path decades
| ago)!
|
| _Nearly 40% of Young Americans Say Political Violence Is
| Acceptable in Certain Circumstances, Harvard Poll Finds_
| - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/4/hpop-poll-
| polit... - December 4th, 2025
|
| _Americans say politically motivated violence is
| increasing, and they see many reasons why_ -
| https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2025/10/23/americans... - October 23rd, 2025
| antonvs wrote:
| What could easily happen much sooner than 5 years is an
| incident that gives Trump an excuse to invoke the
| Insurrection Act, and send federal troops - not just
| National Guard - into blue US cities. Things could go a
| lot of different ways after that, but something
| resembling civil war - or a smaller-scale guerilla war -
| is very much in the realm of possibility.
|
| Be wary of normalcy bias, it's a big part of what lets
| the Trump admin get away with what its doing. People
| think "oh that can't happen"... until it does.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I'm curious specifically about the people envisioning
| (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting into a civil
| war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost
| touch with reality._
|
| The MN governor has called up their National Guard to
| help _local_ law enforcement. The Pentagon is readying
| troops as well, presumably to help _federal_ officials
| (ICE).
|
| If both sides think they are following lawful orders, and
| neither side will give, what do you think will happen? (I
| have no answers.)
|
| Further, there are folks that want a conflict because the
| West has become too decadent or something, and some
| conflict is needed to toughen up (?):
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| To note, I believe it's possible the ~1500 troops staging
| to Minnesota are not to assist with ICE operations, but
| to be air lifted via the 133rd Airlift Wing to Greenland.
| If interested in pursuing this, task some commercial
| satellite imaging.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/133rd_Airlift_Wing
| throw0101a wrote:
| "Pentagon readies 1,500 troops for potential Minnesota
| deployment, officials say":
|
| * https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2026/jan/18/pentagon-ala...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| What they say cannot be trusted, based on all available
| evidence, so you must infer the truth from actions.
| throw0101c wrote:
| The troops that are being readied are actually the 11th
| Airborne Division:
|
| * https://time.com/7347191/minnesota-army-troops-standby/
|
| whose deputy commander is a Canadian, as a part of an
| exchange program:
|
| * https://11thairbornedivision.army.mil/dcgo/
|
| so I'm not sure how sending him to Greenland is going to
| work.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Federal supremacy will win, the MN governor will not tell
| local LE directly to prevent federal agents enforcing
| federal law. I understand that law is not popular among
| many right now, but that is how it will play out.
|
| There will not be civil war unless the military truly
| comes to assist in a Trump attempt to take power in 2028,
| which I think is very unlikely.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan,
| losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded [1]. The US has one
| of the highest per capita of gun ownership and less than
| a million soldiers on US soil [2] [3]. Federal supremacy
| is based on the concept of the US military winning a
| conflict when they haven't won one since WW2. Force
| projection via military hardware and popping into
| Venezuela to extract its leader is a far different
| proposition than urban combat where your home and family
| is on the same soil.
|
| I very much hope civil war is unlikely, but the federal
| government is vastly undermanned if a conflict occurs on
| US soil.
|
| (have four siblings who have decades in combined military
| tours across all service branches except the coast guard,
| and I leverage them as a resource collectively in these
| matters)
|
| [1] https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2016-10/costs-war-
| numbers
|
| [2] https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-troops-are-in-
| the-us-m...
|
| [3] https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-
| the-us-...
| GJim wrote:
| > The US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan,
| losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded
|
| Denmark and the UK (to mention just two countries) also
| lost men fighting alongside America in Iraq and
| Afghanistan.
|
| Look how they are being repaid.
|
| Here is a rather sobering video from a British
| perspective: The Prime Minister responding to JD Vance by
| simply reading out in Parliament, the names of British
| soldiers who died supporting American operations.
|
| https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pm-honours-uk-troops-
| killed-123537...
| defen wrote:
| In what world are Iraq / Afghanistan good "comps" for the
| US military's performance in a civil war? Those countries
| had a virtually endless supply of young men who _wanted_
| to die for their cause, due to religious fanaticism, and
| were willing to do anything to make that happen. Who is
| going to fulfill that role in this hypothetical civil
| war? The US military was also faced with 10,000 km long
| supply lines and extremely rugged terrain where no one
| had any local knowledge.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as
| they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
|
| When your material needs are satisfied then only
| ideological battles remain to be won.
|
| And having lots of material stuff you have plenty to
| throw at the enemy.
|
| It's already happening. People are willing to forego
| their material needs and harm the country and themselves
| to 'own' and defeat the other side.
|
| The only hope is that the ideological wars become so
| scattered and around so many topics and centers of power
| that it's not 70m people vs. 70m people or that the
| ideological wars are slow that people realize that they
| come with a loss of quality of life and material wealth
| and rebalance towards the latter instead of pursuing the
| 'owning the other side' doctrine
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think effectively all empirics go against this notion,
| the only real counterexample I can think of is the
| Troubles. People living comfortable lives don't want to
| die and the ideology usually routes around that: look how
| morality has been evolving wrt the notion of 'sacrifice
| for the common good' - and we expect people will
| sacrifice their _lives_ for their perception of the
| common good? doubt it
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > People living comfortable lives don't want to die
|
| Trump is the prime example , why did he decide to abandon
| the lifestyle afforded by his 500 million dollar net
| worth to pursue a job where 27% of his predecessors where
| shot at? Abandoning comfortable life to risk death.
|
| Why don't rich celebrities quit after the first death
| threat letter, when they already have a huge bag of
| money?
|
| The material wealth at the extremes is a recipe for
| unstable and unpredictable behavior , not for calm and
| collected behavior. People engage in ego battles and fall
| in love with their ideas and are willing to go to war for
| them as in a world of abundance they are the only thing
| that matters in order to 'win'.
|
| The most abstract things (interest rates ring a bell)
| become personal because ideas about them were conceived
| in self reflection during the infinite hours of thinking
| and wondering free time afforded by material abundance,
| killing off ideas becomes akin to killing part of self
| and becomes unacceptable to the ego.
|
| This Is true for individuals and countries alike.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
| drstewart wrote:
| >Fink is still a big believer in the U.S. economy and
| argues things are looking mostly constructive at this
| point. He feels the bull story is still intact, but its
| durability matters a lot more.
|
| So do you believe him? Let me guess: you'll pick and
| choose the parts
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I agree with his statement you quote. I believe that the
| US still has some growth ahead purely out of existing
| demographics and population, but that due to go forward
| geopolitics and global trade reconfigurations, more
| growth will be had internationally than in the US over
| the next 5-10 years (and this is the same guidance I
| share with the HNW individuals I advise from geopolitical
| safety and portfolio strategy perspectives). Where has
| most growth been in the US recently? The Mag 7, AI, data
| centers, etc. Will this growth last? No one knows. What
| happens when it stops? Sadness.
|
| _Global markets outperform the U.S. in 2025_ -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DERutj8lfY - December
| 30th, 2025
|
| _2026 Outlook: International Stocks and Economy_ -
| https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/international-stock-
| marke... - December 9th, 2025
|
| (not investing advice, I am simply very curious and a
| degenerate gambler)
| ptero wrote:
| Warnings about the deficit are spot on. It is a safe bet
| that the country with government that spends 50% more
| than it takes in as taxes will not give above inflation
| return on its government debt. As a side note, most of
| the "Western world" is in the same boat (spending way
| above the long-term ability to pay, so eventually will
| have to default-by-inflation on bondholders).
|
| But I am sure the poster you are responding to was
| criticizing the take about US splintering into parts due
| to armed unrest within the next 5 years. Which sounds
| completely nonsensical to me as well.
| hightrix wrote:
| Do you have any criticisms to the parent comment? As an
| American, they seem pretty spot on to the current climate.
|
| I'd argue we've never been closer to civil war than we are
| today[0], primarily due to trumps regime invading cities
| around the country, kidnapping citizens utilizing a bounty
| program, and killing people in concentration camps.
|
| Ediot: [0] - Since the last civil war. I thought that was
| obvious, but it seems like it isn't.
| treis wrote:
| We've literally had a civil war so I'd say your argument
| is a bit off the mark.
| hightrix wrote:
| Correct, I assumed others would understand I meant since
| the last civil war. Edited the comment to clear up my
| intent. Thank you.
| treis wrote:
| It's still absurd. Today isn't close to what we saw
| during the depression or the 70s or desegregation or the
| Rodney King riot. Besides that, there's no plausible
| fault line in the military or any sort of ethnic or
| religious or regional fault line where two sides could
| form to fight each other.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think we might have surpassed the Rodney King era but I
| wasn't alive then. Broadly agree with you otherwise.
| justin66 wrote:
| This comment:
|
| _A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into
| several independent regions over the course of the next
| ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a
| global perspective._
|
| is nutty.
| Phelinofist wrote:
| It is, but I get the sentiment of these comments. If the
| US infighting they will leave us alone.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| What is "nutty" about it?
|
| For countries outside the US, it would actually not be a
| bad scenario.
|
| Better than having your supreme leader threatening
| invasion, annexation, promoting coups and so on.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| The last Civil War in the U.S. had States banding
| together and separating from the Union.
|
| The closest the U.S. is to a Civil War now is akin to a
| _Cold_ Civil War with, for example, states gerrymandering
| their Representative districts. Or the Pacific states
| joining together for West Coast Health Alliance. Did I
| read rumblings about separate trade deals with foreign
| countries?
|
| Protesters battling ICE in the streets would not, in my
| opinion, count as Civil War. Civil unrest? Sure.
|
| EDIT: this always turns out to be one of my unpopular
| opinions. Oh well.
| u8080 wrote:
| This is truth since it was fact-checked by leading
| independent EU fact-checkers.
| DustinEchoes wrote:
| It's wishcasting. Some people just want to see dead
| Americans.
| jacquesm wrote:
| On the contrary. The ones that want to see dead Americans
| are currently sitting in the Whitehouse. Mostly because
| it won't be them on the receiving end of it and they get
| to plunder the country. Smaller cake, but more for me
| seems to be their motto.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think perhaps multiple people can want to see dead
| Americans. There is definitely a subtext of glee in this
| discussion of modern American civil war imo.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not with the Europeans that I know, they are all
| absolutely aghast at every single murder. It is one of
| the reasons EU countries are reluctant about
| participating in any war, they always hope to avoid it
| (and as a result sometimes get much larger ones...).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Hard for me to see anyone who says an American civil war
| is a best case scenario as not cheering for American
| deaths and I'm skeptical that this was written by an
| American as it sounds far too out of touch and
| 'wishcasty' as someone else said.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't know exactly who you are referring to, which
| article/comment/?? do you refer to?
|
| You are skeptical that it was written by an American, but
| you have no proof that it was not?
|
| Do you know who did write it?
|
| Those guys in the Whitehouse, are they not American?
|
| They are the ones steering you straight off a cliff and
| quite literally anything - including civil war - could
| happen as a result of that.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I'm referring to the initial comment I replied to:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46693230 ie. the
| comment this entire thread has been about.
|
| > you have no proof that it was not?
|
| In other comments on their profile, they refer to
| Americans as if they are someone other than themselves.
| Also, the belief that a civil war splitting up the US is
| likely within the next 5 years seems like a pretty big
| giveaway.
|
| > Those guys in the Whitehouse, are they not American?
|
| As I said, multiple people can want bad things. I'm
| painfully aware of what the current admin is doing to our
| global reputation and what they are risking with their
| current games - and there are still 3 years on the clock.
|
| Take care.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Whether it is likely or not has no bearing on whether
| they want that to happen. I don't want it to happen. I
| still think it is not entirely unlikely. But that's not
| on the observers.
|
| It's going to be a very long three years. Or a very short
| one. That choice is not up to the rest of the world but
| up to the USA.
| Teever wrote:
| America has threatened to invade allies.
|
| From the perspective of these allies it is better that
| American descends into a small civil war and sorts this
| shit out now rather than it keep simmering and escalting
| into a global conflict where more people including more
| Americans die.
| colechristensen wrote:
| It's also stupid. A US civil war which went far enough to
| fragment the country would in actuality be a global WWIII
| and lead to billions of deaths.
| seanw444 wrote:
| And a new global leader, likely in the form of China.
| Which I'm sure everyone would see as an improvement.
| Right?
| colechristensen wrote:
| You have to ask yourself, compared to current US
| leadership, is China actually all that bad?
|
| US is being driven by the personal whims of a
| deteriorating tyrant, Congress is allowing it and the
| courts are only doing a tiny amount of checking his
| power.
|
| You can't just say "despite everything happening we're
| still the good guys and China and Russia are the bad
| guys!"
|
| Osama bin Ladin won. The goals he had when he attacked
| America have been entirely achieved. Americans got stupid
| and became susceptible to the society changing effects of
| terrorism. He got us to destroy ourselves.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Call me a traditionalist but I do think having free/fair
| elections is a massive distinguishing factor.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Having free elections doesn't make you the good guys if
| you elect a tryant to be a tyrant. Republicans are
| getting what they voted for and they STILL want what's
| happening. I've heard them say it.
|
| This leftist idea that everything will just be ok and we
| don't need to do anything because it'll all be fixed in
| the next election needs to stop.
|
| Right now the only people actually protecting the
| republic are the people in the streets because NOBODY
| else is accomplishing anything.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Is that why Texas is gerrymandering their maps again? Is
| it to have "fair" elections?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Why doesn't China gerrymander their maps?
| seanw444 wrote:
| Because they have the most fair elections. Duh.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Changing topics I see
| seanw444 wrote:
| > US is being driven by the personal whims of a
| deteriorating tyrant
|
| Why does Hacker News make Trump sound so much more
| interesting than he really is?
| colechristensen wrote:
| He's sent his personal police force to my city to rip
| people out of their cars and arrest them for being brown,
| not to mention murdering a lady who seconds before was
| smiling and waving officers to go around. In no way is
| this an exaggeration.
|
| He's trying to use economic warfare to annex Greenland.
|
| The most powerful man in the world is a delusional
| dementia patient and egomaniac being allowed to do
| literally anything he wants.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Why? The US is only 5% of the world population. If others
| successfully disentangle themselves before the civil war
| begins they can take steps to isolate themselves. Yes it
| won't be as peaceful of a world but I don't see how it is
| certain to end up in a WWIII scenario.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Do you think the newly minted American Balkans are going
| to be peaceful and well governed? And won't, say, try to
| annex parts of canada, mexico, greenland, central
| american or island nations, etc? Do you think they will
| be lead by well reasoned and insightful peoples that
| won't escalate to a nuclear civil war and that no foreign
| power will try to intervene, take sides, or try to grab
| some real estate as well?
|
| You think the most well funded and capable military in
| the world would sit idle and please itself with keeping
| conflict contained?
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Who are you referring to? Citizens doing this? 70% of the
| country is fat (large portion of that is also dangerously
| obese)
|
| If your scenario plays out they will also be broke so
| that military may not be able to be funded. I wouldnt say
| its impossible but a civil war would break the country
| such that a lot of the aspects that make you fearful also
| cease to exist.
| archagon wrote:
| Nobody wants to see dead Americans. Put away your
| grievance politics.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| We're responding to someone describing a civil war as a
| best case scenario. I have no grievance politics.
| btbuildem wrote:
| We don't live in the meth lab downstairs, we're in the
| apartment above it. It's been wild in the past couple of
| decades, but lately you guys have started taking pot shots
| at the ceiling, so yeah, we're watching.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I don't think an American civil war in the next 5 years
| is at all likely. The rest of your comment I understand -
| not much we can say beyond we're sorry and his support is
| a small (but influential) minority.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| > I don't think an American civil war in the next 5 years
| is at all likely.
|
| The government of Minnesota has readied the national
| guard, the Pentagon put 1500 soldiers on standby to be
| deployed to Minnesota, Trump is threatening to invoke the
| insurrection act, and there's no sign of this conflict
| cooling off.
|
| 5 years is a long time too, I don't see how you believe
| it's not at all likely.
|
| Edit: to be clear, I'm not sure it will lead to the
| fragmentation that the other commenters was claiming. But
| an conflict between federal and state law enforcement/
| military seems likely.
| mythical_39 wrote:
| > I don't think an American civil war in the next 5 years
| is at all likely.
|
| Minnesota might like a word with you
| shagmin wrote:
| I get what you're saying and mostly somewhat agree with
| your point, but it's kind of funny thinking back and
| feeling the complete opposite. People like to argue which
| states would be better off in a civil war, meanwhile I grew
| up in an area where people liked to claim the south is
| going to rise yet again. And we do have a problem with
| militias.
| technotony wrote:
| How would a USA civil be the best scenario globally? Who
| knows what wars that would trigger globally
| g_delgado14 wrote:
| > A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several
| independent regions over the course of the next ~five years
| would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
|
| The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world
| order. You don't think this would trigger a world war?
|
| And if / when the US does topple (whether in 10 years or in
| 1000 years), at the moment it looks like the only viable next
| leaders in the world order are autocratic dictatorships.
|
| How is this a best scenario from a global perspective?
| r_p4rk wrote:
| > The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the
| world order. You don't think this would trigger a world
| war?
|
| They are literally right in the middle of imploding their
| soft power; so maybe you are right about passively giving
| it up when they're actively doing so instead?
| g_delgado14 wrote:
| would you call annexing greenland or invading venezuela
| passive?
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the
| world order.
|
| No, instead they're actively throwing it on a bonfire.
|
| No, I don't know why either.
| StephenHerlihyy wrote:
| The opposition to American hegemony shifted from Europe (ie
| the USSR) to Asia (ie China). To that end, NATO lacks the
| capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific.
| The EU simply does not have the means to project power in
| that way nor do they have the ability to meaningfully
| implement economic policies that would effectively reduce
| Chinese growth.
|
| Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn't really changed
| in the last decade or so. Obama tried to isolate China with
| European help, Trump 1.0 tried to convince Europe to step
| up, Biden showed them we were willing to move on, and now
| Trump 2.0 is following through.
|
| People fail to realize how anti-European this past decade
| has been, and not just under Trump. Europe had significant
| issue with the Inflation Reduction Act. Not to mention the
| war in Ukraine, which while illegal and entirely caused by
| Russia, was capitalized upon by American diplomats to the
| absolute benefite of the US at the expense of Europe.
|
| The overarching plan has been evident for a while, Trump is
| just blatant about it. He lacks the decorum to make someone
| happy about being gifted a lemon. Past administrations have
| had much more tact in that regard.
|
| America does not want direct conflict with China. China
| doesn't want direct conflict with America either. It would
| be catastrophic for both honestly. Neither side would
| emerge cleanly victorious. Both would be limping away
| scarred by the experience. To that end America is just
| trying to let the underlying structural issues play out.
| China and Europe both have some structural issues that need
| addressed. America is gonna build up it's own hemisphere
| and simply wait the rest of the world out.
|
| Is it the best plan? Honestly it might be. The more I see
| of it, the more comfortable I am growing with it. I was
| more worried about it in the Biden days simply because I
| was still under the mindset of Europe being an important
| ally. America was undermining the European economy on
| multiple fronts and it seemed like we were alienating some
| of our closest allies. Ironically what I think a lot of
| people are feeling now.
|
| The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their
| economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily
| and they have been actively undermining America's effects
| to derisk supply chains from China. Trump's broad tariffs
| would have been handled better under someone else, but the
| end result would have been the same out of simple
| necessity. Since COVID America has grown more dependent on
| China due to second order effects. Everytime we close a
| door someone else opens a window to let them back in. And
| it's not just Europe, but Canada, South Korea, others too.
| Honestly Mexico has probably been our best ally in that
| regard.
|
| If you follow the geopolitical sphere most of what's
| happening is not new. Trump hasn't really changed the plan
| - he's just subtle like a brick to the face. He is loud and
| boastful about it where before it was clever and
| subtextual. That is really the only change. Geopoliticallt
| he tries to dominate while Biden and Obama would convince
| people something stupid was what they really wanted.
|
| I don't know if that helps the anxiety at all. I've felt
| it, I've been there. I've yet to see a better plan though.
| Honestly, the next decade is gonna be bumpy, but if you
| look at the long-term trajectory, America is gonna be well
| ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s. We are easily
| in the best strategic position I would say. Once you really
| wrap your mind around the various aspects of it, it's not a
| bad plan. It's not Trump's plan, it's not Biden's plan,
| this plan has roots going back over a decade. I'm sure at
| some point it was just a COA under discussion with multiple
| decision points and alternatives. Could it have worked
| itself out differently? Probably. But given where we are
| it's probably the best plan for now.
| BunsanSpace wrote:
| > The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their
| economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily
|
| What an incredibly ignorant statement. Europe's economy
| in real terms is doing fine, their productivity is
| growing. The US's economy only looks good on paper, but
| outside of the AI bubble, companies aren't growing wages
| are stagnant with inflation.
|
| Europe is also on the verge of federalization. But you
| have to understand getting over two dozen countries with
| vastly different cultures, histories and languages to
| cooperate is a gargantuan task. One the EU has been
| incredibly successful at.
| StephenHerlihyy wrote:
| Over the past 15 years the European economy has grown
| from 16.25 to 18.50 trillion per World Bank. In 2008 the
| combined economic strength of the EU was 110% of the
| United State's. Today it's ~65%. By and large the
| European economy completely missed the mark on the
| Internet/Web3.0 technology revolution. You certainly have
| bright spots like ASML, but those are the exception and
| not the rule. It's reindustrialization efforts are facing
| massive head wins from energy costs and China is
| absolutely wrecking their neo-colonial African holdings.
|
| I hope the EU moves to a more Federalized model of
| governance - it would certainly benefit them. And I agree
| that it won't be easy. I am not sure California and Texas
| would agree to the model the United States has today. I
| can't even imagine what it would be like for Germany and
| France. But they have some serious issues to address.
| These are some foundational changes that are unlikely to
| happen in the next year or two.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The ratio in money between the revenues in Europe and
| those in USA is rather misleading.
|
| With the same amount of money you can do much more in
| Europe. Even in the few domains where USA had a
| traditional advantage, like the prices of electronic
| devices, e.g. computers, things have changed a lot
| recently.
|
| Prompted by another discussion thread on HN, I have
| compared yesterday some prices for computers and
| associated components in USA and in Europe. Now the
| prices in USA are 30% to 40% higher, in sharp contrast
| with how the price ratio was in the previous years, when
| prices were lower in USA.
|
| The real economic strength of Europe vs. USA is much
| greater than the values of GDP expressed in USD, and
| including some meaningless indicators, would seem to
| imply.
| BunsanSpace wrote:
| Adjust GDP per hours worked, you will find Europe has
| eclipsed the US in terms of productivity.
|
| The US has the benefit of the government borrowing insane
| amounts of money to juice it's economy, by being the
| world hegemony. That advantage has evaporated and you see
| the current capital going to unproductive industries.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Europe is also on the verge of federalization.
|
| Hopefully. It needs to do something about veto powers and
| the fact that Orban exists.
| chimprich wrote:
| > To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully
| impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not
| have the means to project power in that way
|
| This has been repeated elsewhere in this story. What's
| your thinking here? I assume you mean the non-US members
| of NATO, but you seem to have forgotten two G7 members if
| you're equating NATO - US with the EU.
|
| The remaining members include two nuclear-armed states,
| five or so aircraft carriers, submarines, several large
| air forces, navies, etc. What would make them unable to
| project force into the Pacific?
| StephenHerlihyy wrote:
| Yes, Britain and France have aircraft carriers but they
| are old, small and likely to be sunk by modern hyper-
| sonics. Europe's inability to project power is well
| documented though. Most of the 2025 literature is more
| related to overland mobility in Europe, since that is the
| piece Europe is currently working to fix, but the
| European militaries are not designed for global
| engagement. Most American documents on the topic don't
| even really mention NATO's involvement against China.
| Here's some stuff to consider though. Here is a decent
| primer:
|
| https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/two-theater-tragedy-a-
| relu...
| chimprich wrote:
| > Yes, Britain and France have aircraft carriers but they
| are old, small and likely to be sunk by modern hyper-
| sonics
|
| You clearly don't have any idea what you're talking
| about.
|
| The UK's two aircraft carriers were commissioned in 2017
| and 2019 and carry 60 and 48 aircraft respectively.
| palmotea wrote:
| > The US economy is in a very precarious state, tensions
| along political ideology lines are high, and it would not
| take much more than a worsening of economic conditions plus a
| catalyst event to kick off armed unrest within the country.
|
| Do you remember the situation that precipitated the Nazi
| takeover of Germany? Wasn't it hyperinflation and economic
| collapse? And you think it would be a good idea to push the
| US _further_ in that direction?
|
| You'll get worse, not better.
|
| > A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several
| independent regions over the course of the next ~five years
| would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
|
| Are you serious? That's an _utterly_ insane idea. The best
| scenario from a global perspective is the US regains its
| stability. Europe is in no position to defend itself
| militarily, it relies on US support via NATO. I believe
| similar is true of Japan and other countries. A US civil war
| would only help Russia and China (Russia would gobble up
| Ukraine and who knows what else, China would take Taiwan and
| dominate /subjugate the rest of Asia, like Japan, in some
| fashion that non-Chinese nations wouldn't be happy with).
|
| Also US polarization isn't regional (e.g. a big part is
| urban/rural). There's no "fragmentation into independent
| regions" that would really solve the problem.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The rest of the world is not going to be bullied into
| submission by one guy. If you can't take care of your own
| problem then eventually the world will turn away from you.
| This has the obvious potential of spiraling out of control
| but Trump is first and foremost the responsibility of the
| US population. The rest of the world will pick up the
| pieces. But he needs to be kept inside the lines or he'll
| run into people who are not just going to say 'yes' to his
| every whim.
| palmotea wrote:
| But "not getting bullied" is and entirely different thing
| than thinking a US civil war would be a good thing for
| the world or "reduce the global threat" (which is just
| bonkers).
|
| Like, we're all amateurs on a web forum, but it's best to
| avoid monomaniacal, first-order thinking.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Nobody hopes for that other than some guys that think
| that crashing the US lets them pick up the pieces like it
| happened with the USSR but on a much larger scale.
|
| If you honestly believe that the EU wants the US to
| descend into civil war then you you have your parties
| grossly mixed up.
| palmotea wrote:
| > If you honestly believe that the EU wants the US to
| descend into civil war then you you have your parties
| grossly mixed up.
|
| I don't think it does, but I'm not responding to them.
| I'm responding to someone who made a bonkers comment up-
| thread.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think they're seeing that against the alternative: a
| global war. Which is definitely one of the other options
| on the table right now.
| palmotea wrote:
| > I think they're seeing that against the alternative: a
| global war. Which is definitely one of the other options
| on the table right now.
|
| Except that's not an either-or alternative. Even if the
| US had a civil war and somehow disappeared, other
| belligerent actors would be free to start conflicts that
| had been held back by US pressure. You still have your
| "global" war. Like if the US disintegrates _right now_ ,
| Europe can kiss _all_ of Ukraine goodbye, and probably
| the Baltics, too.
|
| And even if somehow the US was the only problem (it's
| not), there's a decent chance that the end result of a
| civil war is a non-fragmented and even more belligerent
| US.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| Russia was already slated to gobble up Ukraine.
|
| Previously, it was content to treat UKR as a puppet, but
| after a color revolution and their man in Kiev was deposed,
| their hand was forced.
|
| We're only now seeing it as an overt tug of war between the
| Great Powers
| btbuildem wrote:
| History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, something like that?
| I think we are indeed watching the fascist takeover, and
| economic collapse is under way -- it's just when you watch
| a giant fall, they seem to fall oh ever so slowly, the
| scale distorts the speed until it's right there, then it's
| "suddenly" a cliff drop.
|
| I agree with you, one dimension of the cultural split is
| urban / rural. The other dimension is actual culture as
| based on history -- deep south, southwest, cascadia,
| breadbasket, eastern seaboard -- these areas have different
| enough cultural heritage you could see them as separate
| regions if you squint hard enough. But the key deciding
| factor are the centers of military power -- where the major
| air, navy, and nuclear bases are. Overlay that over the
| cultural map, and you get the Independent Regions. The
| urban centers would define the voronoi centers of the
| subregions, with rural areas becoming more of no-mans-land,
| roving-bands boundary scenarios.
|
| I mean yes it all sounds fantastical, but most
| unprecedented things do until they come to pass. There's so
| many patterns and echoes that gently indicate that this
| unfortunately may indeed be the way.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US
| is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar.
|
| Which is exactly what this administration is doing. What do
| you expect to happen when the POTUS and DOJ overtly pressure
| the sitting Chairman of the Federal Reserve to cut Fed Funds
| rates and print more money, thus creating more inflation in
| direct violation of a crystal-clear Congressional mandate? Do
| you think that's good for the U.S. as a destination for safe
| assets, or a "reserve currency"?
| lingrush4 wrote:
| No, it's pure symbolism. Countries don't purchase US
| treasuries to be charitable to the US. This hurts Denmark
| just as much as it hurts the US. And in relative terms,
| Denmark is going to feel the pain from this way more than the
| US since the US economy is 70x bigger than Denmark's.
| overfeed wrote:
| You could measure this by looking at the Pensions fund
| performance vs US treasuries over the next decade or so.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US
| is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar.
|
| I really don't understand why people keep saying that despite
| the fact that Stephen Miran, Trump economic advisor, made it
| an _explicit goal_ to devalue the dollar:
|
| > The root of the economic imbalances lies in persistent
| dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of
| international trade
|
| https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese.
| ..
|
| They _want_ the dollar 's value to go down. You don't make
| someone change course by doing what they want as a
| punishment.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| It's symbolism unless planting a stooge to lower interest rates
| below any economic justification in April causes a significant
| slide on the dollar's value. In which case its a great
| investment move.
| alphazard wrote:
| > It's symbolism.
|
| It's not. This is where the financial rubber meets the road,
| actions have consequences, and the rest of the world is looking
| at the US as increasingly unlikely to pay above inflation on
| its debts.
|
| The people managing the pension funds (if they are acting in
| good faith) really want to generate yield, and really want to
| preserve capital for the Danish people. They don't want to
| symbolically do those things, they want to actually do them. If
| treasuries were still part of what they believe to be the best
| strategy, they would still be holding them.
| epolanski wrote:
| There's no chance US will default on its debts, all it has to
| do is to print more money.
|
| Inflation may spirale, but it's going to be a US citizens
| problems (as well as US bond holders) in terms of inflation
| and budget cuts.
| mym1990 wrote:
| It will also be a global problem and not just US citizens,
| as the dollars underpins a vast amount of global wealth and
| trade.
| epolanski wrote:
| Of course it would have consequences, but US has had
| multiple huge waves of inflations and very high interest
| rates, we've all survived.
| Retric wrote:
| The US has never dealt with hyperinflation.
| adventured wrote:
| The US isn't going to get hyperinflation. It's going to
| get a Japan style heat death. More and more wealth
| concentrated into low yielding debt, rather than invested
| into growth, while purchasing power is chewed up by
| persistent currency debasement. Japan never did suffer
| real deflation (that was a lie), it suffered massive
| inflation: they debased the Yen to garbage levels,
| drastically chopping down the standard of living of the
| typical Japanese person, wiping out their wealth, eroding
| the value of their output per capita. Only in a twisted,
| failed Keynesian experiment could one confuse such epic
| scale inflation with deflation. What they thought was
| deflation was an economic heat death due to their
| productive capital being tied up in low yield debt.
| Retric wrote:
| "There's no chance US will default on its debts, all it
| has to do is to print more money."
|
| Trying to inflate away 40+ Trillion in debt would
| directly result in hyperinflation.
|
| > they debased the Yen to garbage levels
|
| Look at Yen to USD exchange rates and it's clear they
| didn't. "From 1991 to 2003, the Japanese economy, as
| measured by GDP, grew only 1.14% annually, while the
| average real growth rate between 2000 and 2010 was about
| 1%," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades Meanwhile
| the USD exchange rate in Jan 1988 was 127 vs 140 in 1998
| vs 107 in 2008. It went up and down all through the 20
| years of poor economic growth, but something else was
| clearly the issue.
| ptero wrote:
| It did not go into a hyperinflation after the WW2, when
| the US debt load as a share of GDP was even higher than
| today; and deflated in the same way US is likely to do it
| now (bond rates forced _way_ below inflation with yield
| control).
|
| I am not saying that the process will be pleasant for the
| US or its citizens. But it is not without precedent and
| is _extremely_ unlikely to cause hyperinflation. My 2c.
| Retric wrote:
| The post WWII economic boom outgrew the debt thus
| dramatically decreased the debt to GDP ratio.
|
| The US is unlikely to find itself the only industrialized
| nation without massively damaged infrastructure again
| anytime soon.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Actually I think this is their plan... :(
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Have you been to Japan? Salaries are low, but stuff is
| crazy cheap (even after the past year of inflation).
| People are still feeling whiplash from the fact that
| prices can change at all. Many menus and items have
| prices that have barely changed since the early 1990s,
| and most of those changes were to add sales taxes to the
| menu.
|
| The exchange rate of the yen has dropped recently by a
| lot, but the inflation experience there has been the
| exact opposite of America's.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Good thing our productive capital is safely all tied up
| into quickly depreciated AI infra then.
| mcny wrote:
| I don't think it is that easy though. If you are simply
| trying to pay off existing debt sure, but we constantly
| need new debt as well so there is a limit to how much money
| we can print.
| epolanski wrote:
| You obviously cut the budget and raise taxes.
| Retric wrote:
| If that was actually being considered you don't need to
| default in the first place.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "Not that easy" & EPolanski replies with 2 things the US
| Congress almost never does
| azinman2 wrote:
| You're assuming the people in charge are sane, rationale,
| and value past decisions that have worked out. It's quite
| clear with the now likely permanent damage to NATO this
| isn't the case.
| epistasis wrote:
| This is precisely it.
|
| People in the US have been living with the insanity of
| Trump for so long that they have become numb to it, and
| don't realize just how crazy and out of bounds every day
| is now. We continue on, because we have to, but it's hard
| to reevaluate everything every single day because it's so
| crazy.
|
| Europe and the rest of the world are making completely
| rational decisions in response to the utter self-
| destructive actions taking place by the entire US
| political system right now.
|
| The US population has been cowed into complacence and
| numbness, but the rest of the world has not yet, and will
| take appropriate action.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| What we witness seems to be a lack of control due to a
| vicious feedback loop that eliminates dissenters and
| reasonable, moderate people from positions of power. The
| longer it stays active, the worse it becomes. In other
| authoritarian systems this is not so noticeable because
| their leaders act more rationally to begin with, although
| they tend to lose their grip on reality in the long run,
| too.
| epistasis wrote:
| That's definitely going on. There's also something that
| I've heard called "reactionary centrism:" a feedback loop
| of people who think that truth lies in the middle between
| the two extremes, and also that assumes that no
| mainstream position in a political faction can itself be
| the "extreme." And that if they find that one political
| faction is doing something that seems extreme to them,
| that in the interests of fairness and centrism, they must
| start considering something that the other political
| faction does as equally extreme.
|
| A lot of pundits that were center-left in past years fall
| into this trap, and normalize extremely right-wing
| positions these days because of it. They are stuck in an
| media and information environment of politics and,
| lacking many core values to guide them, they navigate to
| the middle of the media that they consume, assuming that
| the truth will be there in the middle just like it was in
| the past.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's a very astute observation, thank you.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > You're assuming the people in charge are sane,
| rationale, and value past decisions that have worked out.
|
| No, it's an assumption that the people discussing the
| subject are sane and rational. It's one thing to argue
| that the US devaluing its _wildly overvalued_ dollar is
| an effective default. Nobody would disagree with that,
| _that 's why we did it - to give us the continual option
| for rugpulls._ But it's simply delusional and unserious
| to insinuate that the US won't just print paper to pay
| off nominal debt. It costs the US absolutely nothing.
|
| If the US doesn't do it and defaults, it _props up_ the
| value of foreign-held treasuries by giving debtors a
| claim, it doesn 't reduce it. We happily let the presses
| run since 2008, running up the stock market by nearly an
| order of magnitude, and didn't see a drop of inflation
| until the last presidential term.
|
| Also, it's extremely weird that European elites think of
| NATO as some kind of local government. It's simply a US-
| invented and controlled institution that it used to
| pressure Russia (the US's competitor in a bipolar world),
| has had nothing but a corrosive effect in Europe, and now
| _they do the job for free._
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Perhaps you're missing context here? The US Congress has
| established and frequently reaffirms a policy called the
| "debt ceiling", which requires the government to default
| on some of its obligations (including debt repayment)
| soon after reaching a certain nominal amount of debt. In
| 2023, negotiations to increase this ceiling lasted up
| until the week before the default would have begun, and
| 36 Senators still wanted to reject the deal and force the
| default. To me it does not seem insane or irrational to
| worry that next time there might be 41 Senators who want
| to default.
| spamizbad wrote:
| > There's no chance US will default on its debts
|
| Until Trump says he's going to, then his boosters will
| declare its a genius maneuver and actually its Joe Biden's
| fault (Joe made him do it!)
| eggy wrote:
| Do you the think the EU and its individual country
| members from 1949 to present carried their fair share of
| the NATO spending ($55 to $60T), or troops and equipment
| deployments, or did they "default" on their side of the
| treaty? The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to
| 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025. That's 9.8T in 8 years (2018
| included). Our soldiers, not theirs, carried the weight.
| If you go per capita, The US has spent an overage of $13
| to $16T in 2025 dollars. Let's credit the account for
| that and see who owes who...
| beardyw wrote:
| The intention of NATO is mutual support.
|
| Did you forget that the one and only Article 5 call to
| date on NATO to members was for the USA following 9/11?
| kyboren wrote:
| 1. "The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense
| provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative,
| without a request by the United States, and occurred
| despite the hesitation of Germany, Belgium, Norway, and
| the Netherlands." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NA
| TO_Article_5_contingenc...
|
| 2. "I helped pass the bucket when you were putting out
| that brush fire, and now you tell me you won't run into
| my burning house to save my children?!"
|
| 3. Mutual support is more like "I'll help you with your
| main adversary and you'll help me with mine". What we
| have now is "Fuck no I won't help you with your main
| adversary, we oughta stay out of it--wait, how dare you
| suggest you won't fight my main adversary for me?!"
| beardyw wrote:
| Comment modified to "for the USA".
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| > did they "default" on their side of the treaty?
|
| I'm pretty sure they all answered the call when the US
| invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, no?
|
| > The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to
| 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025.
|
| Are you suggesting that the US has paid over $1 trillion
| into NATO each year? That would be difficult because the
| US military budget has never crossed $1 trillion. The DoD
| budget is going to be $900.6 billion in FY2026. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.meritalk.com/articles/senate-passes-
| fy26-defense...
| spamizbad wrote:
| You're counting the entire US military budget as "NATO
| spending" which is not a useful way to look at things. We
| only contribute roughly $800M to NATO's shared budget
| (about 16%)[1]
|
| [1]https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-
| contributes-16-nato-an...
| epolanski wrote:
| Also, from what I recall, the reason why US military
| budget appears so high is also because pensions for
| retired personnel (the highest invoice) are included in
| the military budget, whereas they are not e.g. in Italy
| where it's a different budget.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Why are we counting US spending on dumbass wars?
| adrian_b wrote:
| The share of the European countries in supporting NATO
| has been higher than the official numbers.
|
| For instance, when the East-European countries have been
| admitted into NATO they were forced to pay dearly for
| this, with many billions of $ for various lucrative and
| overpriced contracts assigned to some well-connected US
| companies (e.g. Bechtel), either for various
| infrastructure projects or for military acquisitions.
|
| Those billions of $ do not appear in the US budget, but
| they have enriched certain US businessmen.
|
| It is normal for a regular US citizen to believe that
| NATO has not been beneficial for himself/herself, because
| this is true, but what regular citizens are not aware of
| is that NATO has been a great source of profits for some
| US citizens who are more equal than the others.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| US doesn't really pay back the principle -- States usually
| roll over. So there is a concern that the future batch of
| US treasury is less reliable. Plus there is also the risk
| of a depreciating USD.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| If the US invades Greenland, and is at war with Denmark,
| will it still pay its debts to a Dane?
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm quite sure that debts are paid _in any case_ because
| not paying them would be a disaster for the bond issuer.
|
| The procedure in times of war, at least by the US
| treasury is to put the payments in a blocked account that
| is then given to the citizen of the opposing country post
| war.
|
| This is also why russian assets in US/EU banks, e.g., are
| only frozen: doing any other thing with them would
| instantly trigger the entire world to liquidate their
| holdings. Would Saudis or Indians or Danes hold assets
| that can be confiscated for geopolitical reasons?
| dh2022 wrote:
| Not quite... US can freeze certain assets. It did that
| for Iran for example. It froze the assets for a few
| decades (from 1979 until 2016). In 2016 it paid back the
| principal and interest:
| https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-
| iran-an...
| jacquesm wrote:
| We're at a crossroads: If you don't behave like you will
| pay your debts then people are going to assume that you
| will not. Before you know it you won't be able to pay your
| debts even if you wanted to.
| amarant wrote:
| At this point, nobody trusts the US to pay anything. I
| don't have an opinion on whether they'll be able to pay
| their debts, but that's largely irrelevant. I wouldn't bet
| on them actually paying anything. You can't trust America
| justin66 wrote:
| As far as I know, Trump is unique among American leaders in
| having mused stupidly in public about not paying all
| holders of US Treasury debt.
|
| But I'm sure he would not do anything crazy. That's just
| inconceivable.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| The Chinese still owe the US for railroad bonds.
|
| A year or two of NATO countries increased contribution
| doesn't make up for decades of underinvestment ripoffs.
| ben_w wrote:
| This "solution" looks like the same problem to people
| holding the debt.
|
| Ergo, they increasingly do not want to hold that debt.
| sorokod wrote:
| There is no chance US will need to take Greenland by force
| ( financial or military) , all it has to do is to increase
| the number of troops already stationed there by agreement.
|
| Yet here we are.
| tokai wrote:
| >all it has to do is to increase the number of troops
|
| Demonstrably wrong as Trump announced tariffs on the
| countries sending troops to Greenland.
| vharuck wrote:
| I think the above poster was trying to say, "there is no
| _reason_ " for the US to claim Greenland. We have a
| treaty that allows us to build our military bases on the
| territory. If we want to do security stuff there, we
| already can.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The reason is that Trump wants to recolor the map and
| make the US bigger that it is, and be known as the one
| who did it. Nothing deeper than that.
|
| Ironically, that will make some projects harder,
| especially if US laws such as NEPA start being applied on
| the Greenland territory. Hello environmental lawsuits
| from all sides.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >problems..as well as US Bond holders
|
| right, why would you want to hold US treasury bonds
| especially if the value of the US dollar is being
| destroyed? Even if I believed that the US wouldn't default
| on its debts, or come up with flimsy arguments why it
| shouldn't have to pay all of them
|
| https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trump-says-us-might-
| have-...
|
| it just doesn't seem like a super-smart investment at the
| moment.
| flowerthoughts wrote:
| If you sell the bonds, you'll end up with a lot of USD.
| If you try to sell that... You run into liquidity issues.
| Would probably cause a spike in gold prices as a default
| non-USD position. Oh, wait...
| slipnslider wrote:
| >all it has to do is to print more money.
|
| Isn't that considered a "technical" default since you
| basically burned every debt holder by inflating your way
| out of debt? Almost like a TKO vs KO in boxing?
| jacquesm wrote:
| It is and for that reason it does not work.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > There's no chance US will default on its debts,
|
| Why not? It has happened* before therefore it can/will
| happen again.
|
| * (more or less). I would count significant debt
| restructure (1790) or replacing promised gold with paper
| (1860-1930, 1970) or even a significant delay (1979) as a
| default... even if it was temporary in 1979.
| epolanski wrote:
| None of those were defaults. The US has never defaulted
| on its debt, as never did Germany or Italy (speaking of
| state issued bonds, not war reparations).
| testing22321 wrote:
| Defaulting on the debt would be a great "emergency" that
| requires elections to be cancelled...
| outside1234 wrote:
| Thankfully elections are more or less impossible to
| cancel since they are scheduled by the states
| IX-103 wrote:
| Are you disagreeing with the parent post or agreeing with
| them? I first read your comment as if it was disagreeing
| with them but then noticed the parenthetical "(as well as
| US bond holders)" in your comment, which seems to support
| parent's position.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Dollar inflation _is_ a way for the US to default on its
| debts.
|
| "Here are the dollars we owe you. They're worth half as
| much as the ones you paid us."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plays-down-
| consequenc...
|
| Now, Trump is an opportunist and in the psat his talk of
| default has been a way to throw rhetorical stones at his
| political opponents and keep himself in the news while he
| was out of office. Back in office, he has sought to project
| some kind of commitment to fiscal responsibility and
| financial stability.
|
| But let's be real here, he's making threats against a
| fellow NATO member on the daily and openly saying he wants
| to annex territory. If he gets it into his head that the
| Danes or the EU are being mean to him and hurting his fee-
| fees, he's fully capable of responding in irrational
| fashion and has a toxic personality cult that will back him
| up. Be honest, if I took this month's headlines and took a
| time machine a year into the past, would 2025 you have
| believed my warnings about what would be happening 1 year
| into the second Trump admin?
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm seeing it all and I still can't believe it. The most
| unbelievable to me is that the Senate and Congress seem
| to have no red lines at all.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| The senate has abdicated the power to declare war, like
| what else is left in terms of real power? There is no
| seperation of powers any more, its everything the
| founders feared coming true
| rjzzleep wrote:
| The EU threw all its baskets into a war it didn't need to
| fight, destroyed its energy independence, it's weapons, it's
| airdefense and huge parts of its air force. I don't think
| they have a lot of cards to play.
|
| There an interesting analysis on whether the EUs threats on
| financial markets actually bear any meaning here:
|
| https://x.com/Kathleen_Tyson_/status/2013314168250675456
|
| Edit: March 2022 peace deal that Boris Johnson sabotaged
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/.
| ..
| jacquesm wrote:
| What nonsense. We have plenty of cards to play and if
| 'having cards to play' is what stood between the USA and
| the relationship we had - or rather that we thought we had
| - for the last 70 years stood for something then that
| should not have been a factor in the first place.
|
| This whole thing is due to _one_ country not playing by the
| rulebook because they think they 're big enough to fuck
| over the world. Guess what? No single country is big enough
| for that. Trump is way out of his depth when it comes to
| statesmanship and has replaced it with brinkmanship, that's
| not a valid substitute unless what you're looking for a a
| disaster.
| cuu508 wrote:
| What war are you referring to?
| jonkoops wrote:
| It is a war we must fight now, and must continue to fight.
| It is a war against oppression, against autocrats squishing
| their population for servitude. If nobody steps up to
| protect Democratic values, and the freedom of the people
| for self-governance, it is a slippery slope to hell.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| If you really needed to fight, what you would have done
| was build a couple nuclear power plants, build some
| factories using Russian resources that they were giving
| you cheap, churn out some weapons and THEN go for war.
| What it did instead was watch the US blow up it's
| pipeline, harakiri its own nuclear power reactors, rent
| mobile Norwegian LNG terminals and make itself completely
| dependent on American weapons and Energy.
|
| This is all preformative nonsense of EU elites that
| despise the European public and call Trump daddy to
| continue riding the Eurocrat gravy train. It's actually
| good for Europe that this mess is coming to an end. But
| the price was way too high and unnecessary.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| What are you doing here then? Shouldn't you be in the
| trenches or in a factory making artillery rounds?
|
| Or who is "we"?
| ben_w wrote:
| Not op, but:
|
| Paying taxes to fund an army.
|
| The EU isn't doing any direct fighting in the Russian-
| Ukranian war, we are however donating and selling things,
| and being a refuge for those who quite understandably
| fled in fear of their lives.
|
| Nobody's actually violated our sovreignty yet, we have no
| casus belli to go to war. But as the phrase the bullet
| cartridge is named after goes: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| The markets certainly don't think it's symbolism.
| lumost wrote:
| The "TACO" trade only works as a pump and dump for insiders
| for as long as the counterparties allow it to. It does not
| make sense for the G7 to support the enrichment of the
| American president for long.
|
| Why would anyone believe that this is the last time a
| president will use Tariff threats in the next 12 months? it
| was reasonable to negotiate last year based on the
| observation that trade imbalances had been a growing issue
| for the American people. Using trade as a lever for
| territorial concessions is almost certainly a hard red
| line.
| csense wrote:
| > really want to generate yield
|
| Treasuries are not the best way to do this. Almost any
| investment is better than yeeting a substantial portion of
| your net worth into Treasuries or a savings account.
|
| > really want to preserve capital
|
| Fiat currency, or bonds that promise payouts in fiat
| currency, are excellent for short-term capital preservation
| and terrible for long-term capital preservation, as every
| government that uses fiat currency has succumbed to the
| temptation to print more of it whenever it seems expedient.
|
| Gold or Bitcoins are far better for preservation of capital.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Burma Shave moment on the last line.
| bell-cot wrote:
| It's only symbolism if you believe that there's a 0% chance of
| US/Denmark hostilities. Otherwise - _d 'oh, yes_, you don't
| want to risk being stuck holding IOU's from your enemy, which
| he is rather likely to dishonor.
| moogly wrote:
| In a "might makes right" world, Europe clearly needs more
| might, and then it makes sense to improve relations with China;
| not a lot of options.
| alephnerd wrote:
| The EU can't mend ties with China without giving up on
| Ukraine as China's FM Wang Yi has stated [0] on multiple
| occasions [1]. Additionally, in the Chinese foreign policy
| space, the EU is viewed as weak [2], and largely through the
| lense of the US-China rivalry (which is how the US views the
| EU as well now).
|
| [0] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/33168
| 75/ch...
|
| [1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-russia-
| discuss-ukr...
|
| [2] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/pa
| ge.ht...
| sekai wrote:
| > The EU can't mend ties with China without giving up on
| Ukraine as China's FM Wang Yi has stated [0]
|
| At the end of the day China cares more about Europe than
| Russia. Because that's where the real money is.
| alephnerd wrote:
| At the end of the day, their Foreign Minister and their
| entire foreign policy apparatus has consistently stated
| they will prioritize Russia over the EU for national
| security reasons (Central Asia, North Korea, Japan).
|
| The EU signing an FTA with India on Jan 27th is also a
| negative sign for China-EU relations.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Foreign Ministries of all countries are known to speak
| the unvarnished truth at all time
| wewxjfq wrote:
| Actions speak louder than words and China is supporting
| Russia.
| coolspot wrote:
| > China cares more about Europe than Russia. Because
| that's where the real money is.
|
| "Real money" aka resources are very obviously in Russia,
| not Europe.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Then we just need to wait until the Ukraine situation is
| over in one way or another. China doesn't give a shit about
| Russia except as a (pathetic) counterweight to the US, I
| think. I mean they probably care about Russia's natural
| resources, too, but somebody is going to sell them,
| including to China, no matter what. It's the biggest thing
| that Russia has going for it economically (cf. the resource
| curse).
| alephnerd wrote:
| > China doesn't give a shit about Russia except as a
| (pathetic) counterweight to the US, I think
|
| China needs to keep close ties with Russia due to
| national security interests in Central Asia and North
| Korea. Additionally, Russia maintains its autonomy by
| retaining military and economic ties with India and
| military deployments and listening bases in Vietnam and
| North Korea, which adds pressure on China to have to
| collaborate with Russia.
|
| > ...counterweight to the US...
|
| Chinese foreign policy is almost entirely viewed through
| the lens of the US-China rivalry. Europeans underestimate
| this to their peril. And to China, an unaligned Europe is
| still not pro-China enough.
| moogly wrote:
| Well then us Europeans are fucked regardless I guess.
|
| > Beijing did not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine
| because it feared the United States would then shift its
| whole focus to Beijing
|
| How does this statement make sense though? I don't see the
| A -> B. The US pretty clearly does not want to see a
| Russian loss either, and seems more fine with Ukraine
| losing.
|
| It should depends on how much the US wants Europe?
|
| If the US does not want more of Europe, and Russia wins,
| the US could let Russia take over Europe -> focus shifts to
| China.
|
| If the US wants more of Europe, and Russia wins -> focus
| would be off China.
|
| If the US does not want more of Europe, and Russia loses ->
| it's mostly whatever, but perhaps focus shifts to China.
|
| If the US wants more of Europe, and Russia loses -> focus
| would be off China.
|
| Perhaps I'm just really daft.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > How does this statement make sense though? I don't see
| the A -> B. The US pretty clearly does not want to see a
| Russian loss either, and seems more fine with Ukraine
| losing.
|
| Despite Trump, the US (and rivals of China like South
| Korea and Japan) have continued to supply the Ukrainian
| armed forces and their allies like Poland and Romania.
|
| A protracted Russia-Ukraine War with the balance of power
| in favor of Russia means the US, SK, and JP remain bogged
| supplying Ukraine and it's allies like Poland and
| Romania, instead of diverting stock to the Asian front.
|
| Additionally, China and Russia are increasingly
| collaborating to respond against Japan should a conflict
| occur [0] and North Korea is already an active
| participant in the Russia-Ukraine War.
|
| > It should depends on how much the US wants Europe?
|
| The issue is both the US and China view the EU as a
| regional power that can be pushed around - not as an
| entity that can retain strategic autonomy.
|
| This is the crux of the EU's current diplomatic malaise -
| neither the US nor China view the EU as an equal, but
| rather, as a junior partner.
|
| > Perhaps I'm just really daft
|
| I won't say daft, but the issue is Europeans view
| themselves as deserving of being on the same table as the
| Americans and Chinese. Neither the Americans or Chinese
| see it that way now.
|
| In order for the EU to build strategic autonomy, some
| very painful steps need to be taken which simply aren't
| being taken (as Draghi pessimistically pointed out a
| couple months ago) [1].
|
| Additionally, periphery regions of the EU have
| increasingly started operating independently of the rest
| of the EU - as with China's CSPs with Spain [2] and
| Hungary [3]; Israel+India's defense alliances with Greece
| [4] and Cyprus [5] against Turkiye; and Poland coming out
| against committing resources to defend Greenland [6] - so
| a unified EU response is steadily degrading as members
| decide to take defense matters into their own hands.
|
| Basically, if a naval standoff between Greece and Turkiye
| was to arise in the next 6 months in the Aegean Sea,
| would the rest of the EU sanction Turkiye (and thus lose
| a major defense partner in Ukraine [7][8][9] and the
| Baltics [10]) or ignore Turkiye (and thus destroy the EU
| and NATO defense commitment).
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-russia-
| discuss-ukr...
|
| [1] - https://www.france24.com/en/tv-
| shows/business/20250916-mario...
|
| [2] - http://en.cppcc.gov.cn/2025-11/13/c_1140641.htm
|
| [3] - https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202405/10/content_W
| S663d3b83...
|
| [4] - https://geetha.mil.gr/kyklos-synomilion-staff-
| talks-kai-ypog...
|
| [5] - https://www.bankingnews.gr/amyna-
| diplomatia/articles/851003/...
|
| [6] - https://www.reuters.com/world/poland-will-not-send-
| soldiers-...
|
| [7] - https://ukrainesarmsmonitor.substack.com/p/ukraine-
| turkiye-s...
|
| [8] - https://www.cats-network.eu/publication/ukraine-
| turkey-strat...
|
| [9] - https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/en/Diialnist/3345.html
|
| [10] - https://www.turkishminute.com/2026/01/13/nato-
| asks-turkey-to...
| moogly wrote:
| > Despite Trump, the US (and rivals of China like South
| Korea and Japan) have continued to supply the Ukrainian
| armed forces and their allies like Poland.
|
| Military supplies have not slowed, that's true, the major
| difference since Biden is that European nations are now
| paying for it, but diplomacy and sanctions-wise, interest
| is waning for every month, it seems. Trump is even
| derailing the Davos summit. That was supposed to be
| primarily about Ukraine, but now it's about Greenland.
|
| > A protracted Russia-Ukraine War with the balance of
| power in favor of Russia means the US, SK, and JP remain
| bogged supplying Ukraine and it's allies like Poland and
| Romania, instead of diverting stock to the Asian front.
|
| I'll confess I didn't consider ROK and JP. That's a fair
| point. Poland and Romania are supply hubs, so I would've
| worded that "via Poland and Romania" and not made it seem
| like they are supplied for their own benefit.
|
| > The issue is both the US and China view the EU as a
| regional power that can be pushed around - not as an
| entity that can retain strategic autonomy. > [...]
| neither the US nor China view the EU as an equal, but
| rather, as a junior partner.
|
| There's no disagreement from me there, and I don't think
| I claimed that. Europe trying to improve relations with
| China would be with cap in hand.
|
| > [...] the issue is Europeans view themselves as
| deserving of being on the same table as the Americans and
| Chinese. Neither the Americans or Chinese see it that way
| now.
|
| Certainly many (not all) Europeans have been arrogant and
| babied with blinders on, and pretended not to have been
| glorified vassal states to the US via _Pax Americana_. I
| think that view is quickly changing. What irks me the
| most is that I still hear people talk about kicking out
| the US from NATO, not understanding that without the US,
| _there is no NATO_.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Trump is even derailing the Davos summit. That was
| supposed to be primarily about Ukraine, but now it's
| about Greenland
|
| The Intel Chiefs meeting about Ukraine is still happening
| [0]
|
| > so I would've worded that "via Poland and Romania" and
| not made it seem like they are supplied for their own
| benefit.
|
| Poland [1][2][3] and Romania [4] are also choosing to buy
| Korean weaponry instead of European.
|
| > Europe trying to improve relations with China would be
| with cap in hand
|
| It's difficult because the EU can't go cap in hand to
| China as long as
|
| 1. Anti-China leaders like Babis (CZ) remain in power,
|
| 2. Deals with Chinese rivals such as the FTA with India
| (Jan 27th), French modernization of the Vietnamese Armed
| Forces, the GCAP project with Japan, and Eastern European
| defense procurement from SK and Japan continue,
|
| 3. the EU remains committed to the "rules-based order"
| (ie. the existing status quo including de facto
| sovereignty for Taiwan),
|
| 4. EU member states continue to have American boots on
| the ground in the Baltics, Romania, Poland, Germany, and
| Turkiye
|
| 5. The EU does not sign a comprehensive FTA with China
|
| China will always view the EU as not aligned with China.
| Both China and the US have adopted a "either you are with
| us or against us" foreign policy.
|
| > What irks me the most is that I still hear people talk
| about kicking out the US from NATO, not understanding
| that without the US, there is no NATO.
|
| It's a conundrum.
|
| I think the only way an American NATO commitment will
| remain is if all NATO countries publicly commit to
| providing a security umbrella in East Asia.
|
| Similarly, the EU will always be viewed as a rival of
| China's as long as 1-5 are not resolved in China's favor.
|
| The EU can potentially build it's own space in a multi-
| polar world, but it will require making some very
| politically unpopular decisions around rearmament at the
| expense of social services; aligning with other regional
| powers such as Israel, India, UAE, KSA, Vietnam, Japan,
| SK, Brazil, Argentina, etc despite domestic political
| backlash; and having to back down to the US or China
| depending on the issue.
|
| [0] - https://www.intelligenceonline.com/europe-
| russia/2026/01/19/...
|
| [1] - https://www.chosun.com/english/industry-
| en/2025/06/11/REUTAK...
|
| [2] - https://www.chosun.com/english/industry-
| en/2024/08/19/GY7PG4...
|
| [3] - https://www.chosun.com/english/national-
| en/2022/12/08/6DXIBF...
|
| [4] - https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/defense/202
| 40710/kor...
| tokai wrote:
| >Despite Trump, the US
|
| Not true. US is not giving any material support. Only
| intel.
| graemep wrote:
| > Well then us Europeans are fucked regardless I guess
|
| Yes, in some ways. Europe is a LOT less important than it
| used to be a few decades ago. A much smaller proportion
| of the world's economy, population, or military power.
| atwrk wrote:
| Wang explicitly said that support for Russia in the war is
| about diverting the US focus from China. If the US shows it
| doesn't care about Ukraine's future (and Wang told the
| truth), then I doubt Chinas support will stay as is for
| long. At most it will be a bargain in the coming EU-China
| negotiations.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Russia continues to be a significant player in North
| Korea and Central Asia as well, and this requires Russia-
| China cooperation. Additionally, if a hot conflit between
| the US+PH+JP+TW and China happens, China will have to
| utilize Russian supply and logistics chains to a certain
| extent (eg. the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe railway).
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear
| armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent.
|
| It's hard to see any country wanting to get into conventional
| war with China, regardless of size of army and airforce -
| even the US is not going to do it unless actually attacked.
| At the end of the day if China seizes Taiwan (something Trump
| has made more likely by his seizing of Venezuala, now talking
| about Greenland, Cuba ..), then the US will just complain,
| create trade sanctions and/or tarrifs etc.
| boricj wrote:
| > The US and France are both nuclear armed, including
| nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence
| deterrent.
|
| Except for France's ASMP-A nuclear warning shot (which is
| not a tactical option by the way), all other independent
| European nuclear options (French or British SSBNs) are not
| only strategic, but they imply wiping entire countries off
| the map. All options also depend on whether the French
| President or the British Prime Minister decides that this
| course of action is warranted.
|
| If Trump indeed invades Greenland, shoving a French-made
| nuclear fireball in front of an American carrier battle
| group off the coast of Greenland would probably not be our
| first option. Besides the massive political cost of
| breaking the nuclear taboo, if kinetic actions are deemed
| necessary, deterrent also comes in conventional varieties.
|
| Also, while the British nuclear deterrent might be
| operationally independent, it relies on American-supplied
| Trident missiles.
| orwin wrote:
| I'm pretty sure ASMPA-R is precise enough to be
| considered tactical, and the fallout small enough to
| easily consider its firing over blue water. Yes, the
| number of French tactical (sorry, "pre-strategic") nuke
| is limited (around 50), but i think that's enough of a
| detterent.
| boricj wrote:
| It's not about the precision, it's the yield. We've
| divested our tactical options back in the 1990s because
| our nuclear policy is one of strict sufficiency and all
| our nukes are above a hundred kilotons of TNT. That
| doesn't leave a lot of room to thread any needle.
|
| Also, our nuclear doctrine says that it's a nuclear
| warning shot, meaning that the next step on the ladder is
| French-delivered Armageddon by SSBNs. We're not supposed
| to keep lobbing them in case of a persistent problem.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| I was really thinking of a standalone Europe's deterrence
| against attack by Russia or China, not using them against
| the US!
| boricj wrote:
| If you asked De Gaulle, it'd be deterrence against
| anyone.
| corimaith wrote:
| Literally every single one of Europe's prized industries are
| in the crosshairs of China's industrial ambitions.
| Beretta_Vexee wrote:
| But none of its citizens nor territories for the moment.
| moogly wrote:
| What "prized industries" are still there other than
| automakers? They're already boned, they just haven't
| accepted it.
|
| China now leads the world on R&D and hard science, and is
| already making strides in chip design and chip making. How
| far off do you think a Chinese ASML is? Two decades at
| most? Or more like one?
|
| And what would be the solution? I think we've all learned
| that protectionism doesn't work.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > What "prized industries" are still there other than
| automakers?
|
| Automation Engineering, Materials Engineering,
| Biopharmaceuticals, Automotive Engineering (already
| mentioned), and Genomics.
|
| China has made tremendous gains, but that should not
| undermine the fact that the fundamentals still exist
| within the EU, but Europeans on the Internet seem to
| vaccilate between chest-thumping Euro-nationalism (which
| is dead in the water and easily disprovable) or defeatism
| (which doesn't make sense and is also easily
| disprovable).
|
| > How far off do you think a Chinese ASML is
|
| 1. ASML's EUV/DUV IP is owned and airgapped from the rest
| of ASML by the US DoE's JV with ASML called Cymer
|
| 2. Around 5-7 years, which is a loss from a Chinese
| NatSec standpoint and shows the Sullivan doctrine is
| still intact (keep China 1-2 generations behind the
| collective west in semiconductor fabrication
| capabilities).
|
| > And what would be the solution? I think we've all
| learned that protectionism doesn't work.
|
| The EU never actually tried protectionism or industrial
| policy. When most other countries and trade blocs were
| flouting the WTO, the EU kept trying to prop it up in
| order to negotiate with the US.
| Devasta wrote:
| "How did you go bankrupt? Two ways: gradually and then
| suddenly."
|
| --Ernest Hemingway
| wtcactus wrote:
| With Trump pressuring the independence of the central bank,
| this doesn't seem symbolism at all.
|
| It might very well be that the USA will face a period of high
| inflation soon if we continue down this path of high government
| spending and no independent central bank to put a break on it.
|
| And I can't even understand why this obsession of lowering
| interest rates in the USA. The economy is doing great, there's
| no shortage of investment money going around. There's really no
| reason to lower in the interest rates before we tackle the
| leftover inflation that still comes from the COVID measures.
|
| It's Trump's personal insecurities playing again and not
| allowing anyone to tell him "no". What a child.
| wnevets wrote:
| Trump is making China great again
| vld_chk wrote:
| If this is a symbolism, then why 30YR Treasuries are YTH
| despite FED rate cuts throughout the year?
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _It 's all a sliding slope until it reaches a breaking point
| and falls off like a cliff._
|
| "How did you go bankrupt?"
|
| "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
|
| * https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/102579-how-did-you-go-
| bankr...
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Far more important, I'd say, are the European countries having
| already got together to discuss joint sanctions/tariffs against
| the USA (their nominal NATO partner) if Trump moves to seize
| Greenland.
|
| Macron has also said that he wants no part of Trump's (billion
| dollar entrance fee) "peace board" that he's going to be
| pushing at Davos.
|
| A divorce from the USA would certainly hurt Europe, but it will
| also hurt the USA and it's ability to defend itself if it loses
| access to European intelligence and ability to have forward
| located military bases and refueling locations.
|
| The Republican's are really shooting themselves, and the US, in
| the foot here by not standing up to Trump and therefore
| indicating that all this craziness is Trump rather than an
| enduring US policy that they support. Even if they flip flop
| when Trump is out of office, the rest of the world is never
| going to trust the US again.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Precisely. If the USA wants to be trusted at all it needs to
| act _now_ or it will be too late. This is the precipice and
| without action from Congress & the Senate the rest of the
| world will make up their own mind about the country as a
| whole. This is probably one of the most expensive moments in
| history.
| HaZeust wrote:
| One of the most expensive moments in history _so far_
| jacquesm wrote:
| Fair, but since we can't look into the future that's an
| obvious thing. Every maximum is always a maximum 'so
| far'.
| HaZeust wrote:
| It's more of a Simpsons reference haha, sorry.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfpPArfDTGw
| jacquesm wrote:
| The Simpsons have passed me by. The same with the
| Teletubbies. I know they exist but I don't feel compelled
| to go and watch any of it. Life's too short.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Life's too short to punch down on what others like, too;
| but here we are.
|
| Take care.
| kwanbix wrote:
| It's crazy to see how Trump has made the U.S. look like a worse
| partner than China, or at least just as bad.
| complianceowl wrote:
| The EU and Canada is upset because of Trumps use of force to
| remove a dictator and acquire land via direct negotiations with
| Greenland natives. Their response? Develop a deeper
| relationship with a communist country and dictator who has
| literal concentration camps, slave-like working conditions for
| a large segment of its workers, complete disregard for the
| environment by polluting its oceans and swaths of government-
| sponsored fishing boats that empty the oceans of its fish via a
| complete disregard for abiding by commercial fishing
| regulations; subsidizes one of the most ruthless and oppressive
| regimes known to man -- North Korea, and uses the North Koreans
| to harvest organs for use in China.
|
| I get it: Trump is a degenerate person, not a role model, and
| extremely brash, but people's hate for him has completely
| blinded them of basic reasoning. No, Trump is not Hitler or
| anything remotely close.
|
| As Americans, we need to stop calling every political opponent
| that we disagree with Hitler.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| I think we should all be _more_ shocked the US kidnapped the
| leader of another country.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| That previous US leaders permitted Western Hemisphere
| nations to get so in bed with rival hegemonies for so long
| is the shocking thing.
|
| Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?
| ogogmad wrote:
| > The EU and Canada is [sic] upset because of Trumps use of
| force [...] to acquire land via direct negotiations with
| Greenland natives
|
| A lie. Opinion polls suggest 85% of Greenlanders oppose the
| territory joining the US.
|
| > As Americans
|
| Would you bloody stop? Most of us here aren't Americans.
| histriosum wrote:
| You clearly DON'T "get it".. obviously Trump is different
| than Hitler, but to say he's nothing remotely close is some
| serious handwaving.
|
| ICE is acting a LOT like the Gestapo.
|
| Trump is telling obvious lies and his supporters simply
| parrot it as fact. That was a big part of Hitlers power, the
| propaganda machine that made it acceptable for otherwise
| intelligent people to pretend to believe the obvious lies.
|
| Trump is aggressively threatening to expand the empire, under
| similar dubious security reasons.
|
| How much does history need to rhyme before you actually
| notice?
| intothemild wrote:
| You're right. Trump isn't Hitler...
|
| Hitler's dead.
| complianceowl wrote:
| Because of course, alternatively, if Hitler was alive, then
| it would be possible for two different people, to be
| Hitler? You actually think you had a one-liner there,
| didn't you bud?
| mordnis wrote:
| I envy your willingness to debate here. It's a pretty
| hostile place for a position you're defending.
| complianceowl wrote:
| 100%. It goes to show you that intelligence is not always
| deployed with integrity.
| qwertox wrote:
| It's like Trump and his followers are not aware how fragile
| this entire system is, and if they are aware, they don't seem
| to be aware of the risks, and that the most likely outcome is
| that the world is in a less good condition than before. A big
| child that got the wish granted to play president.
| billy99k wrote:
| It is symbolism. Canada thinks partnering up with a government
| that actually murders it's minorities and has some of the worst
| human rights violations in recent history is a good thing. How
| can you possibly support this and somehow think the US is
| worse?
|
| If Taiwan thinks they will get support from these countries
| that are now heavily invested in China, they need to think
| again.
|
| Will there be protests? or are they reserved for the evil US.
|
| "American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, a
| stable financial system... this bargain no longer works. Let me
| be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a
| transition... recently, great powers have begun using economic
| integration as a weapon. Tariffs as leverage ..."
|
| This is all political and a result of personal views against
| Trump. Canada has its own issues. They allowed foreign
| investors to swoop in and purchase up all of the housing, which
| raised the prices. Combined with overbearing regulations, means
| most young people will never get a house.
|
| It's all theater because the people in charge don't have the
| will to actually make the uncomfortable choices to improve the
| Canadian economy. Instead? they are using the US as an excuse.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > If Taiwan thinks they will get support from these countries
| that are now heavily invested in China, they need to think
| again.
|
| Please explain in detail how you think the Canadian military
| would deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
|
| Taiwan needs a joint force in the Pacific, not individually
| committed nations. If "America First" policy extends to
| Taiwanese diplomacy, the island is as good as gone.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > It's symbolism. But it's important symbolism. Far more
| notable, I think, is Macron saying this morning that Europe
| needs more investment from China. Canada signing a deal with
| China to allow their cars to be sold in the country.
|
| The better move would be to invest internally. China wants a
| hegemony, whether they acknowledge it out loud or not. As
| Europe and Canada start seeking Chinese investment, the Chinese
| _will_ seek something in return. They 're not doing this out of
| the goodness of their hearts.
|
| I'd also like to think that the American/Western investment in
| places like China and Russia are part of how we got to where
| we're at now. It became apparent for Western capital that human
| rights aren't necessarily compatible with economic growth and
| can even run contrary to it. Eventually that mindset permeates
| a society, and it has in the US. A large plurality of the
| population thinks that a billionaire strongman is necessary to
| remain competitive in the global marketplace. This mindset
| didn't show up overnight, it was a slow burn.
|
| Some of it was fueled by the demographic transitions of the
| last fifty years, some by American economic anxiety - which was
| caused by American/Western investment in China - and the rest
| of the West has the same problems in those departments that the
| US has to one extent or another. The European/Canadian welfare
| state that provided protection from some of the economic
| anxiety that was seen in the US must get its funding from
| somewhere, and you get it from taxing economic expansion.
| Economic expansion relies on at least some population growth.
| Right now, you don't see native population growth in most
| Western countries. They _have_ to have people immigrate in to
| stay competitive. In pretty much all of these countries, you
| 've seen at least some friction between the "native" population
| and immigrants. You'll see more of that in the future, and
| that's how the Canadian/European Trump will show up. Doubly so
| in Europe, because their nation-states are partially defined in
| terms of ethnicity.
| filloooo wrote:
| The problem is that the EU and China are both looking for
| export markets to fund their economic growth, unless EU blows
| up it's welfare system and prints money like the US, the two
| are competitors.
|
| But doing that would undermine Euro's credibility, as the EU is
| a loose union of countries with their distinct interests and
| politics, also member countries would compete on outspending
| each other as the Euro would have been essentially free money,
| a Euro debt crisis on turbocharge.
|
| So, the EU can never print like the US. The EU and China will
| be rivals.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| The article has a quote from the investment director saying it
| is not symbolism. "The decision is rooted in the poor U.S.
| government finances, which make us think that we need to make
| an effort to find an alternative way of conducting our
| liquidity and risk management"
| creativeSlumber wrote:
| > It's all a sliding slope until it reaches a breaking point
| and falls off like a cliff.
|
| Would it be a gradual decline or a step change after some
| point?
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| OK you asked for it Denmark. I'm selling all my legos.
| jacquesm wrote:
| There are times when jokes are inappropriate, this is such a
| time.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| https://archive.is/iU6PQ
| csantini wrote:
| So much American exceptionalism is just the Dollar
| exceptionalism.
|
| Without the G7 piling up dollars, there is no American
| exceptionalism.
| csantini wrote:
| At some point the US will lose the Dollar, and it will turn out
| that US productivity is just like everyone else's.
| hwhehwhehegwggw wrote:
| What do you mean? All the best companies the world have seen
| recently is in US though. Google, Apple, Nvidia to name a
| few. What am I missing in your argument?
| snapcaster wrote:
| They're implying that the US is exceptional due to its
| access to cheap credit, not due to some inherent
| superiority. Your comment listing off successful american
| companies seems to agree with him if anything. Maybe you
| misread the comment and got a little defensive?
| raincole wrote:
| Dollar is the exception because the US is the exception
| (partially from luck, partially from its inherited geographical
| advantage), not the other way around.
| tim333 wrote:
| The US has a lot of other things going for it. Rule of law,
| enterprise, most of the biggest companies in tech,
| entertainment and the like.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| Someone should tell the orange guy that we can also stop
| respecting our obligations. It's a two way street. It would be a
| shame if something happened to your ITAR-protected secrets, for
| example. The US would lose a lot of leverage if they cannot use
| European military bases. Let's see how fast Trump goes to bed
| with Putin...
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I don't think that Trump could get into bed with Putin. He
| could get out of bed with Putin.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| Oh, I know. Let's see how fast he tries to make Putin the
| good guy on Fox News. What are these rednecks going to do
| when MAGA goes into bed with Ruzzians! Cold War warriors
| gonna flip out.
|
| Just impeach the guy already. His mental capabilities aren't
| far off Biden's at the end.
| KPGv2 wrote:
| > What are these rednecks going to do when MAGA goes into
| bed with Ruzzians! Cold War warriors gonna flip out.
|
| I'm assuming you're from outside the US, because literally
| everyone in the US is well-acquainted with MAGA wearing
| shirts like "better Russian than a Democrat"
| jacquesm wrote:
| You are already not respecting your obligations. It's a two way
| street.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| "I want a Nobel prize". Who asked for help in fucking Iraq
| up, and got it? Who needed help in Afghanistan, and got it?
| Oh yeah, we're not respecting. We're not respecting the
| orange bully toddler clown, my fellow dear human being. One
| day like this, another day the opposite. Just impeach the
| imbecile so we can all do productive stuff. Where are you
| going to sell your shit saas when you push us off the cliff?
| The Ruzzians? Putin, or the guy after him, is going to do you
| the same way he did Europe. He's going to lure you, then snap
| two decades later. But dream on, dreamer.
|
| "You are already not respecting your obligations" is rich
| from a guy with a Dutch phone number. You have some split
| personality right there. Make your mind up about where you
| are.
| epolanski wrote:
| I personally have dumped every single US security I held in the
| last 2 years, US bonds have been the latest to go in the last
| week.
|
| Mind you I'm a small investor (my portfolio is 100k-ish euros).
| I'm still exposed to US securities through ETFs though, as I have
| 3 different ones holding US companies, but that I ain't gonna
| sell them.
|
| But for new capital I may as well provide it to others.
| oxqbldpxo wrote:
| If they are doing it, I'm doing it also.
| lateforwork wrote:
| This quote from Trump is very revelatory:
|
| "I'm a real estate developer, I look at a corner, I say, 'I've
| got to get that store for the building that I'm building,' etc.
| It's not that different. I love maps. And I always said: 'Look at
| the size of this. It's massive. That should be part of the United
| States.'"
|
| Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/trump-
| greenla...
| anabab wrote:
| Ah, it is all Mercator's fault
| notahacker wrote:
| Feels like the exception to the rule that Mercator has no
| impact. Probably not coincidence it involves the head of
| state whose arguments that Northern California could water
| Southern California appears to stem from belief that water
| flowing from north to south is going downhill all the way :)
| thrance wrote:
| Insane that you're getting downvoted for simply quoting POTUS
| now.
| dwa3592 wrote:
| It's a pretty respectable fund and will make other pension funds
| rethink their strategies.
| mmaunder wrote:
| For context foreign total holdings are around 9T and domestic
| around 30T. Uk and japan are the largest foreign holders at
| around 1.7T between them. This is a 100M divestment.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Side topic: I absolutely hate these large "Allow Ads" screen -
| you can't even go back on iPhone Safari , which hides the
| interface unless the user pulls down the whole page - which you
| can't because you can only pull down the Allow Ads page.
| eggy wrote:
| It's not like the EU can go to China for the $64 to $94bn in
| mineral fuels and oils (LNG, crude oil) they import from the U.S.
| Or the aerospace products and parts $35-46bn they import. Or the
| $45-$52bn in pharmaceuticals and medicines and advanced biologics
| (unless they go all in on generics, but this is only part of that
| sum). The list goes on and on. Germany trying to reboot their
| nuclear energy infrastructure, but it's a bit too late to help
| this winter, and they're the third largest consumer in the world
| after the US and and China. India is 8th.
|
| The US imports a lot from Mexico, 15.5% of the total $3.36
| trillion of US import, right here in the Americas. The EU about
| imports are about 18.5%.
|
| Merz's mother-of-all-deals needs to have India lower its imposed
| tariffs on Germany of 100-150% on autos, which would cut against
| India if the new FTA goes through by Q2 2026.
|
| May you live in interesting times is a wish or curse coming to
| fruition...
| danny_codes wrote:
| Not in one year no, but in 5-10 years, certainly. Solar is
| cheaper than coal in China today and they blew through their
| capacity targets. I was just there and the EV adoption is
| phenomenal. The buses, even some heavy trucks are EV.
|
| If this pace keeps up for 10 years I don't see how methane will
| be useful in the energy sector. Let's face it, we're investing
| in a dying industry. In 20 years our kids (or grandkids) will
| laugh at any country burning methane to make electricity.
| im3w1l wrote:
| This sundering of US-European relationship feels like watching a
| trainwreck in slowmotion. It's all so stupid and avoidable. Is
| there really nothing that can be done?
| kevin061 wrote:
| Democracy. The people have spoken. Americans wanted this.
| petesergeant wrote:
| The Supreme Court can rule Trump's ability to unilaterally
| impose tariffs illegal (and they'll be ruling one way or the
| other very very soon).
| anabab wrote:
| Are there mechanisms in place that will prevent them from
| delaying this decision until, say, 2029?
| petesergeant wrote:
| Not really. They can say "we shouldn't have taken this"[0],
| they can decide the case in a way that doesn't really offer
| any precedent (eg: these are the wrong plaintiffs to have
| brought the case), or they can remand it back to a lower
| court for more info. Prediction markets seem to think
| there's a 70% chance they'll strike down the tariffs
| though.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissed_as_improvidently
| _gra...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Of course there is. Less than 500 Americans can stop your
| nightmare tomorrow morning. If they just do their jobs.
| forty wrote:
| Feels like the right direction, pull all European money from the
| US, hope that financial and economical consequences convince US
| citizens to deal with their president as he deserves. It will
| decrease profits short term but certainly will have less negative
| impact than letting that guy in power.
| lingrush4 wrote:
| Talk about a pipe dream. This is a far less significant penalty
| than what has been applied to Russia and absolutely nothing has
| happened to Putin.
|
| Europe could apply all the same sanctions to the US that it has
| applied to Russia and Trump would still serve out his full
| term.
| forty wrote:
| There are differences though. First the US is still a
| democracy, so unhappy voters matter (and there are the
| midterms which is an opportunity to express unhappiness).
| Second the ties between Europe and US are greater than they
| were between Europe and Russia, so probably this could have
| more impact.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Keep in mind that there are many such 10 to 100 billion funds and
| they can move very fast if they have to. If the feeling is that
| the value of the USD is going to be lower in the near future they
| will divest and before you know it the threat becomes reality
| simply because it is predicated on a belief. Kill the belief and
| the actions will follow automatically. This could be the first
| and it could be the only or it could be the first of many.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| The Monroe Doctrine stated, under Polk, that the Euros should not
| interfere with territorial expansionism of the US in the Western
| hemisphere, even if it came at their expense.
|
| The Roosevelt Corollary stated likewise the US would police any
| Latin American country's mismanagement.
|
| Yet, all these people are proclaiming a certain person a
| warmonger instead of completely in line with historical US
| policy.
| shevy-java wrote:
| This really should be EU-wide or even globally. We can not afford
| the TechBros anymore - they act not only like evil but also as
| parasites.
| bflesch wrote:
| I keep repeating myself: Back up your iCloud pictures via
| privacy.apple.com and move your mails away from M365. Worst case
| these things get blocked/deleted.
|
| I moved my mails from M365 to a 2EUR Hetzner cloud server in one
| day, it's quite easy with docker-compose apps like mailcow. Plus
| you have encryption and less errors when using thunderbird.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Canada quietly did the same move a few months ago
| fifilura wrote:
| Wait until the Norwegians do the same.
|
| Regularly claimed to be the worlds largest stock market investor.
|
| "The fund is the largest single owner in the world's stock
| markets, owning almost 1.5 percent of all shares in the world's
| listed companies."
|
| https://www.nbim.no/en/about-us/norges-bank-investment-manag...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
| skrebbel wrote:
| I currently hold some Vanguard ETFs. Any tips on similar broad
| "world economy" type funds that don't use dollars?
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| My local coin store was busier today than I've ever seen it
| (visit about once a quarter, for about a decade). Lots of people
| transacting silver -- so much so that the buyback fees were about
| 50% _more_ than usual -- and yet people were primarily turning
| silver /USD into gold (myself included).
|
| When you consider that historically our US fiat has been 65:1
| (Au:Ag), it's scary to see the ratio back around the levels when
| Bretton Woods was implemented (50:1, 1930s-1960s). It's even
| scarier to see the rapid rate we are approaching _to-when USD was
| gold-backed (22:1)_ , considering that _less than two years ago_
| it was over 100:1 .
|
| ----
|
| What else is a fiat-based country supposed to do after creating
| all these unfunded pensions/liabilities ?-- !?..then to inflate
| away the guaranteed difference..?!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-20 23:00 UTC)