Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries • Hacker News Board

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#301

Post by benterix » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #206

azinman2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> NATO is critical for the European powers (those not named Russia).

To be pedantic, Canada is a major non-European NATO member.

And then there are allies, some of them designated by Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

Or, they were, as there is no certainty under his rule.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#302

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

soerxpso wrote: post #293

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.

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.

How many groups do you know in other countries that you refer to by name rather than the name of the country and the general idea that the government of that country must represent at least at some significant level the will of it's people?

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#303

Post by bryanrasmussen » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:53 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #113

alphazard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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.

>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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#304

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:53 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #300

jacquesm wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#305

Post by kyboren » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

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.

NATO came into being to deal with the USSR, which was the preeminent threat to all NATO members. The US wasn't expected just to come save Europe; European states had real military power and the will to bring it to bear against the US's main adversary. In a conflict with the USSR, the US could rely on Europe to fight with them. Very valuable.

Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary. But European states have no real military power--certainly none that can be projected in the Pacific theater--and wouldn't have the will to deploy it even if they did. Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them. So now NATO is basically all risk and cost for the US with no benefit against their main adversary.

I think it's a shortsighted view of American national security imperatives: American security relies as it ever did on security in both Western Europe and Eastern Asia. Abandoning one theater to focus on the other just leaves a giant blind spot.

However, this has led Europe to take its own security more seriously and stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them, something multiple POTUSes have tried more diplomatically to achieve--and failed--for decades.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#306

Post by ben_w » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #206

azinman2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Last time the US won a war without the assistance of any allies (and not against yourself), it was 1848 and you were fighing Mexico.

The US economy is only the largest if you don't adjust for purchasing power, at which point the US and EU are in joint second place way behind China, and separated from each other by a rounding error despite Brexit.

If the US wants to go alone, sure we'd miss you, but it's welcome to go in peace… so long as it doesn't steal Greenland on the way out.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#307

Post by moogly » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

corimaith wrote: post #217

moogly wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Literally every single one of Europe's prized industries are in the crosshairs of China's industrial ambitions.

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#308

Post by slipnslider » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #113

alphazard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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.

>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?

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#309

Post by OrvalWintermute » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

palmotea wrote: post #168

btbuildem wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 frag…

> 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 furt…

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

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#310

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #290

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?

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.

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.