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

Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#61

Post by aa-jv »

pjc50 wrote: post #25
roenxi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that argument is starting to fall apart. What are the theatres where the US is supposed to be able to put on a strong showing? It doesn't seem to be Europe, they've got war on their doorstep and if anyone thinks the US is helping they should reflect on their reasoning. It doesn't seem to be the Middle East, the US has made the region less safe. They're not going to be able to act effectively against China given…

> What are the theatres where the US is supposed to be able to put on a strong showing? It doesn't seem to be Europe, they've got war on their doorstep and if anyone thinks the US is helping they should reflect on their reasoning I think you have this backwards: the US was helping considerably, and then got taken over by pro-Russian conspiracy theorists. But the bond stuff isn't "tribute" or nationalism; remember, it…

>the US was helping considerably, and then got taken over by pro-Russian conspiracy theorists.

This is such a nonsense conspiracy theory. Anything "non-American" isn't by default pro-Russian, ffs.

Come on people, this nonsense has to die. You can't be that dumb. Nobody believes this excuse any more.

Maybe America is in trouble because Americans are just shit at keeping themselves safe from real harm, and Russia has nothing to do with it.

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#62

Post by re-thc »

XajniN wrote: post #60
jajko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine Amazon's AWS (or MS, Google etc) can be banned in Europe in same way Huawei tech was banned. That will hurt US economy. Even if local alternatives may be lacking now, we can subsidize them for some time so they grow on scale, and thats more than enough for us, we don't need to be cheapest on the market. If we are reliable rest of the world will come to us too. Don't forget US vs EU are 2 mammoth +-compa…

US-related businesses are the only buyers of ASML’s most advanced machines. The 300 million American customers are worth at least 3-4 times as those 400 million in the EU. So, while China has better cards than the US, the EU has no cards at all.

> US-related businesses are the only buyers of ASML’s most advanced machines.

Only because the US requested it i.e. banned China.

And who's US-related again? Oh you mean those that have to pay >30% tariffs? Are you sure they're related?

> So, while China has better cards than the US, the EU has no cards at all.

No? EU can just sell ASML to China instead.

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#63

Post by re-thc »

leovingi wrote: post #55
re-thc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China made that choice in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has progressed ever since So you're saying that China has grew out of manufacturing because a lot of it is moving out of China. In the same way the US has also moved out of manufacturing ages ago. > is now powerful enough to be able to stand up to the United States How do you conclude that the ONLY thing China did is manufacturing? > You have a warped vie…

>China has grew out of manufacturing because a lot of it is moving out of China China's Manufacturing Production [1] and Industrial Production has increased year-on-year for the past 10 years, excluding abnormal events such as Covid, so where are you getting your data? If you meant to say that they are transitioning to a higher level of manufacturing, instead of the sweatshops they were associated with in the 90s, th…

> so where are you getting your data?

Is this how we came up with the "magical" tariffs formula? Look at some data, interpret it in a random way and off we go?

You don't say that [1] shows the average growth was 6.56% in China vs 9.28% in Vietnam [3] vs 10.33% in Bangladesh. So then relatively, it's not exactly "growing" is it?

If China was still explicitly growing manufacturing the numbers would be much higher. Is it actually focused on manufacturing or are there other triggers? E.g. US banned Huawei, so they had to go back home and manufacture. E.g. US is banning AI and other exports so China has to make their own. I'd say US is increasing China's manufacturing rather than China!

[3] https://tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/manufacturing-productio...

[4] https://tradingeconomics.com/bangladesh/manufacturing-produc...

[5] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufactu...

> Hell, you've got a naval empire (the United States) that is currently unable to come even close to the Chinese ship-building capabilities > Sooner or later the US was going to have to deal with this fact

Why? Does the UK need to deal with this "fact" too then? The US has a naval empire that the UK is no where close to in capabilities. Based on your logic, the EU would have to band together to revive the British empire and deal with the US?

I wouldn't want this. The US wouldn't want this either. So what fact is the issue?

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#64

Post by leovingi »

re-thc wrote: post #63
leovingi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China has grew out of manufacturing because a lot of it is moving out of China China's Manufacturing Production [1] and Industrial Production has increased year-on-year for the past 10 years, excluding abnormal events such as Covid, so where are you getting your data? If you meant to say that they are transitioning to a higher level of manufacturing, instead of the sweatshops they were associated with in the 90s, th…

> so where are you getting your data? Is this how we came up with the "magical" tariffs formula? Look at some data, interpret it in a random way and off we go? You don't say that [1] shows the average growth was 6.56% in China vs 9.28% in Vietnam [3] vs 10.33% in Bangladesh. So then relatively, it's not exactly "growing" is it? If China was still explicitly growing manufacturing the numbers would be much higher. Is i…

>relatively

Why are you suddenly, when faced with data that doesn't fit your narrative, using that word when it was nowhere to be found in the original discussion?

>Why? Does the UK need to deal with this "fact" too then?

If the interests of UK and China ever seriously clashed and led to a conflict, yes, they would. I can't believe that military capabilities and force projection in the modern world need to be explained on a website meant for professionals.

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#65

Post by re-thc »

leovingi wrote: post #64
re-thc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so where are you getting your data? Is this how we came up with the "magical" tariffs formula? Look at some data, interpret it in a random way and off we go? You don't say that [1] shows the average growth was 6.56% in China vs 9.28% in Vietnam [3] vs 10.33% in Bangladesh. So then relatively, it's not exactly "growing" is it? If China was still explicitly growing manufacturing the numbers would be much higher. Is i…

>relatively Why are you suddenly, when faced with data that doesn't fit your narrative, using that word when it was nowhere to be found in the original discussion? >Why? Does the UK need to deal with this "fact" too then? If the interests of UK and China ever seriously clashed and led to a conflict, yes, they would. I can't believe that military capabilities and force projection in the modern world need to be explain…

> Why are you suddenly, when faced with data that doesn't fit your narrative, using that word when it was nowhere to be found in the original discussion?

The world is always relative. Otherwise if you want it in absolute terms, the US is the world's 2nd largest global manufacturer. What manufacturing do you need to bring back then?

> If the interests of UK and China ever seriously clashed and led to a conflict, yes, they would

Who clashed with who? The US has no real conflict with China. Most US companies and citizens are happily using China made products before the tariffs. Lots of US companies sell to China. Where's the issue?

Oh you mean what's been said by certain political parties and the media for their own gains?

> I can't believe that military capabilities and force projection in the modern world need to be explained on a website meant for professionals.

Exactly right. As if the military is ONLY about the navy. Then don't slice and dice it as you please. Who says the US is weak? I didn't.

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#66

Post by trilbyglens »

zmmmmm wrote: post #11

It seems to me the core issue at hand is that Trump has made a grave strategic error in terms of who really holds more cards in the trade battle, specifically with China. This bond lever - the threat to abruptly shut off US debt supply - is just one of them. But China can also simply manage far more easily without US imports than the US can manage without Chinese imports. And for any given pain threshold, China can b…

Also, don't forget to factor in the reality that many Chinese people live at and expect a far lower standard of living than Americans do. Americans by in large are some of the most spoiled and entitled people on this planet who think that getting a new TV every year is a necessity for life

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#67

Post by tim333 »

niklasbuschmann wrote: post #8

Many people here were so confident a few days ago that the tariffs were just some 4d chess to get interest rates down, despite this not making any sense.

I'm not sure the current lot are capable of 2d chess. See penguins for example.

Also see "I’d like to apologize to bricks for calling Peter Retarrdo dumber than a sack of bricks. That was so unfair to bricks." - E Musk

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#68

Post by candiddevmike »

procaryote wrote: post #14
niklasbuschmann wrote: post #8

Many people here were so confident a few days ago that the tariffs were just some 4d chess to get interest rates down, despite this not making any sense.

It's interesting that conspiracy theorists nowadays are looking for hidden plans for how the government might be working in our best interest, in spite of appearances

> in spite of appearances

Or disappearances, in some cases

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#69

Post by tim333 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #11

It seems to me the core issue at hand is that Trump has made a grave strategic error in terms of who really holds more cards in the trade battle, specifically with China. This bond lever - the threat to abruptly shut off US debt supply - is just one of them. But China can also simply manage far more easily without US imports than the US can manage without Chinese imports. And for any given pain threshold, China can b…

>strategic error in terms of who really holds more cards in the trade battle, specifically with China.

I'm not sure who has cards is the problem so much as launching an unnecessary trade battle in the first place.

If you really wanted to onshore industrial production you could have announced sane policy in advance to give people time to build factories in the US etc. without a trade war needed.

Re: Bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells

#70

Post by roenxi »

pjc50 wrote: post #27
procaryote wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that conspiracy theorists nowadays are looking for hidden plans for how the government might be working in our best interest, in spite of appearances

The weird thing is how conservatives get to play both the "federal government is inherently evil" and "look at all the stuff we're doing with our power over the federal government" cards at the same time, often for the same events.

Is it weird to be consistent? The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power.

The argument never was nor will be that [this thing] is bad when [the wrong people] do it; the argument is that [this thing] is bad. There isn't an expectation that a right wing government will somehow transcend the realities of government. The ideal social contract with the politicians - from the liberal part of the right wing - is that they do whatever it is that motivates them to take on the job and that is tolerated to some extent - but in exchange they shrink the size and scope of the government bureaucracy.

Obviously the ideal is a distant dream at this point, but the principle lingers. It is the only realistic option.

Post reply on HN