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

371–380 of 857 posts

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#371

Post by ben_w »

jacquesm wrote: post #342
ben_w wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is effectively a defection, which in game theory may make sense but we're talking about a lot of lives and the established world order here. You mess with that at your peril, the idea that you can just pretend we're playing a game of Risk here is idiotic. But once you get past a certain point momentum takes over. We may already be there, maybe not quite, but this is about as dangerous as it has been in a very lo…

I agree, but due to the revealed preference of the current rhetoric and how this becomes a defacto method of departure, rather than the choice to depart itself.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#372

Post by baby_souffle »

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.

> 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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#373

Post by whimsicalism »

archagon wrote: post #365
DustinEchoes wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s wishcasting. Some people just want to see dead Americans.

Nobody wants to see dead Americans. Put away your grievance politics.

We're responding to someone describing a civil war as a best case scenario. I have no grievance politics.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#374

Post by orwin »

kyboren wrote: post #305
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.

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…

France have tactical nukes. If Russia ever tried to really invade, a warning shot will be fired, and then no invasion.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#375

Post by jimnotgym »

mythical_39 wrote: post #86
epistasis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. q…

Another case of, 'well they would say that, wouldn't they'

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#376

Post by JKCalhoun »

busterarm wrote: post #338
JKCalhoun wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canada needs cheaper cars than US manufacturers want to provide. So does the U.S.

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.

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#377

Post by SR2Z »

epolanski wrote: post #331
kyboren wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them. As an European: nobody has this expectation, unless you're using some strange subreddit comment as a source of information.

Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable.

That's changing, but for many years European nations did not spend very much on their militaries. A large part of why is the protection of NATO and US bases in various countries.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#378

Post by xorcist »

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 a rootkit, a foothold for lateral movement in a literal sense, for the US in Europe. Is is not "critical" for anyone, in some theoretical sense, but it has proven very effective over the better part of a century to keep European military in check and guaranteed not to form any other alliances than with the US.

The EU itself was viewed critically from Washington until it could be proven that it had no intention of becoming a military alliance. So while it could be true that the US does not need NATO in a strict sense, the idea that it has not been net beneficial to the US is absurd. No Danish soldiers would have died in middle eastern wars if it wasn't for NATO.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#379

Post by notahacker »

xienze wrote: post #142
afavour wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 partic…

> 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".

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#380

Post by floatrock »

jimnotgym wrote: post #253
adventured wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

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

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.

Post reply on HN