Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 857 posts

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#291

Post by ogogmad »

complianceowl wrote: post #241
afavour wrote: post #42

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 goo…

[flagged]

> 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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#293

Post by soerxpso »

jacquesm wrote: post #216
adventured wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming NATO is somehow critical for the US. It is not. NATO is critical for the European powers (those not named Russia). The US doesn't require it. The US doesn't need to defend Europe any longer. And it's clear the Europeans don't want the US there, so it works out great. Europe can boost its defense spending by ~$300 billion to make up the difference, or not, whatever they choose to do is up to them. The…

This is not a one sided thing. The US has been allowed to do a lot of things under the NATO umbrella that it benefited from (such as: selling a vast quantity of arms). Soft power is a thing and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being to deal with exactly the kind of situation that we are viewing today. To see the US bow out, and in fact threatening allies is duplicitous at best.

I find it interesting how people say "The US" to refer to groups under the US government that are often completely at odds with the interests of the actual US public. There are virtually no Americans who want our government to be acting in the interests of arms manufacturers except the arms manufacturers themselves and the politicians they pay.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#294

Post by beardyw »

eggy wrote: post #243
spamizbad wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!)

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…

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?

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#295

Post by [deleted] »

complianceowl wrote: post #241
afavour wrote: post #42

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 goo…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#296

Post by jacquesm »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #283
jacquesm wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a one sided thing. The US has been allowed to do a lot of things under the NATO umbrella that it benefited from (such as: selling a vast quantity of arms). Soft power is a thing and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being to deal with exactly the kind of situation that we are viewing today. To see the US bow out, and in fact threatening allies is duplicitous at best.

The Euros also underfunded their defense obligations and received huge amounts of US investment in facilities, enabling them to upfund social programs, socialized healthcare and most egregiously 8 - 12 week vacations which are completely unheard of in the US.

You are spending too much time in an echo chamber if you think that those things that are unheard of in the US could not have been done in the US. They could have been, but it would have required a different kind of path than you chose.

The EU has chosen to try to cooperate rather than to be at war all the time and it looks like that may have been a wrong bet but that is mostly because first one (Russia) and now another (USA) party have reneged on the deals that were in place.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#297

Post by JKCalhoun »

hightrix wrote: post #138
whimsicalism wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 seem…

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#298

Post by OrvalWintermute »

justin66 wrote: post #261
epolanski wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#299

Post by maxglute »

adventured wrote: post #107
qgin wrote: post #41

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.

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…

>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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#300

Post by whimsicalism »

jacquesm wrote: post #289
whimsicalism wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN