Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries • Hacker News Board

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#381

Post by isodev » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #136

epistasis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

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…

> 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…

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#382

Post by drawfloat » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:23 PM UTC

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.

They’re unheard of in Europe too, you’ve read too many internet comments and lost touch with reality.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#383

Post by graemep » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #239

foobarian wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and economically within the western sphere.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#384

Post by blackoil » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:24 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.

It is supposed to be a "liberal democracy". "You" have killed millions to promote this idea and now trying to disown it.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#385

Post by epistasis » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #119

epistasis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 leaders…

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…

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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#386

Post by monero-xmr » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #370

monero-xmr wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single most accurate and astute comment on the entire page. Not everyone can be a net exporter, of course…

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.

[flagged]

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#387

Post by moogly » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #205

moogly wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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 me…

> 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.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#388

Post by beardyw » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

kyboren wrote: post #366

beardyw wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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_NATO_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 bur…

Comment modified to "for the USA".

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#389

Post by jleyank » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:27 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…

6 decades before NATO was formed, Britain was the largest economy and financial empire. The US was up-and-coming but had not yet had its war with Spain to demonstrate their arrival. Nato was formed "To keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out" (per Ismay). The first clause is now inoperative. The second clause is being reversed by the various Euro states and the third, unfortunately, remains.

There was also a benefit to the US maintaining NATO - it could nudge/encourage/guide other countries into doing things it wanted done (such as Afganistan). This soft power is being discarded with NATO.

Re: Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries

#390

Post by littlestymaar » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #73

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…

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 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.