91–100 of 115 posts
Just so I understand how this works… interest rates on these bonds are going up because of low demand for the bonds? How does this translate to interest rates set by the fed? Do these have to go up to match? .4%?
When bond prices fall, interest earned on them rises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 soc…
In my experience it’s exactly this. The principle vanishes quickly, because none of those “small government” people were really so. The primary small government faction in the US is conservatives. They’ve been, for a few decades now, VERY large government. Bordering on fascist.
They just lie, because it’s easy and none of their constituents care. You have better odds of hell freezing over than conservative constituencies holding their representatives accountable. When you’re in that situation, you’d be stupid not to lie.
To expand on this, shrinking the bureaucracy isn’t shrinking the government. Because, if you had read the agenda in project 2025, you’d know that the intention is to then concentrate those powers in the president.
That’s not smaller gov, that’s bigger. You’re creating a monarch.
We should form a "Super West". Instead of a divorce between the US and EU and others, the exact opposite should happen: an unbreakable union with shared values, investments, legislation and protections.
Such a unified block could then intelligently "tax" China for industries we consider to be strategic. You can't do this without a unified West. Right now the US is pushing its (former) western allies towards China.
I think a unified block with intelligent protections can sustain an advanced West and create conditions where the working class and middle class is not facing an endless race to the bottom.
This block could also address a pressing issue of global capitalism, the formation of untouchable monopolies and billionaires. End tax loopholes and yes, I'll say it: cap billionaires. Increase minimum wages and offer more job protection. A unified regulation rather than individual countries undermining common interests.
I'm sure that these classic progressive values are unpopular on this forum but I genuinely believe that these values created the middle class in the first place. And the middle class is being eroded and the working class is close to dead.
We should not mimic the race to the bottom (which leads to a birth rate 25% of replacement), we should recreate the post war West. A ordinary person should be able to start a family, own a home, etc. If we can't do that, nothing matters.
The way to achieve that is cooperation, strict shared values and regulations and a whole lot of technology.
The West's trajectory where life kept getting better stopped in the 90s. We need to bring it back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's almost no repayment risk - the government will pay the dollars stipulated. There is an inflation risk - that the dollars will be worth less.
Do a walk through of what you're implying there - you're suggesting the US is going to lump trillions of dollars worth of inflation losses onto the voting public to protect foreign investors. At a time when the public are extremely twitchy and sensitive to price rises. There is a clear risk that the US will instead lump trillions of losses on foreign investors and attempt to protect the purchasing power of their vote…
There is a common misconception that most US debt is held by foreign investors, but that is wrong - 80% of treasuries are held domestically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> despite this not making any sense. Most commentary, for and against, has been exclusively on the economics, and from that perspective it makes little to no sense. But I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that there are relevant "national security" motivations, or to put it bluntly, a greater freedom to wage war - or at least to put oneself in a position where the threat of it would be more realistic. Decoupl…
> It's a commonplace of international relations, and intuitively obvious, that the more integrated are the economies of two countries, the less likely they are to start wars with each other This is indeed a common way of thinking and intuitively obvious but I think it has also been proven wrong by the war in Ukraine. We sanctioned Russia as hard as we could and it 3 years later they're still there. Withholding some n…
In the case of Russia, while there were subtantial sanctions, it was still trading natural gas to the EU, and I believe they still are. China and India also helped Russia (and themselves) tremendously by buying huge quantities of discounted hydrocarbons, and I think it's plausible that there were indications before the war that such deals would be available.
As an aside about drones, a striking number of new companies established over the last handful of years in several European countries are military drone specialists. By now it's quite obvious why. In the future I guess there'll be a new slew of companies specializing in counter-drone tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> despite this not making any sense. Most commentary, for and against, has been exclusively on the economics, and from that perspective it makes little to no sense. But I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that there are relevant "national security" motivations, or to put it bluntly, a greater freedom to wage war - or at least to put oneself in a position where the threat of it would be more realistic. Decoupl…
> the strategic cost-benefit analysis Is there anything pointing to this supposed thorough analysis really being done behind the doors? Genuinely asking, because for now in my opinion from POTUS communications I don’t make me think there is and this comment is another instance of trying to make something irrational rational.
If the tariffs remain in place then one result that is guaranteed is that they will reduce trade between the US and the rest of the world, and reduce the most with the most tariffed countries. Whether that's rational or irrational I guess is the question I'm asking, and I'm looking for reasoned opinions either way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I'm afraid the President's critics aren't always capable of critical reading. Consider: > Ten-year Treasury yields have risen 39 basis points to 4.38% this week alone as prices tumble. Ok, but the recent high point for 10-year yields was 4.79% on January 13. Why is this 4.38% alarming? And why is a brief intraday spike above 4.5% (in a foreign market) newsworthy? This reads like someone was looking for bad news to re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> error in terms of who really holds more cards in the trade battle, specifically with China. This isn't 1v1 though. Maybe there was a time when US vs the rest would work, but now? The problem is this isn't about import / exports of physical goods. Once tariffs and bans happen on digital goods, services, etc the US is toast. Has Trump forgotten about them? China is already onto things like US films. Game studios, Dis…
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…
I'm surprised that with the current shenanigans around DOGE and security that Europe hasn't banned them as I don't see how they can be considered GDPR compliant if the data can be plundered whenever Trump and his menagerie decide that they want to look for dissenting opinions.
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…
Possibly true. China has had net positive tariffs against the USA for decades though. Obama tried to use the WTO to label them as a currency manipulator. Trump tried some tariffs the first time around but they just raised theirs higher to keep the imbalance. Not saying the current strategy is a good one. But America has lost the entire supply chain, racked up huge debts, and a dollar that encourages more and more con…
The linked article is LITERALLY pointing out that the "something" you want to "happen" is in fact making exactly the problem you're talking about WORSE.
I don't get it, I just don't get it. We're all getting poorer, very rapidly, on every imaginable axis: higher domestic prices, lower international demand, higher interest rates (the linked article), lower asset valuation in US dollars, loser US dollar value globally. Literally everything is worse. And you're still digging for some kind of coin that might have some shine on the other side that you missed.
There are several things at play. 1) Trump is playing a storyline. The Market place of ideas in America has one side which is under a monopoly. It sets its own prices, decides what information enters and exits, decides what the market SHOULD look like. It manages half the voting population. This is why “Trump does what he says” resonated. Previous lawmakers played the role on TV, but in back room deals, acted as if r…
Perhaps, though I don't see how you're going to get them without changing or violating the Constitution. And changing the Constitution would mean acceptance by those you're trying to get rid of.
Bluntly, the only way this could happen is a civil war - a real, shooting civil war, with bullets and dead bodies. I'm not yet at the point of cheering for that, much as I dislike the current status quo.
> Republican senators and congressfolk are threatened by the voting base if they break with Trump, which they wont anyway.
Then I don't see how a special election in 2025 would help. You say we need a special election to get rid of these folks, but you also say that these folks would be threatened by the voting base if they break with Trump - which to me means that they won't be threatened by the voting base if they stick with Trump.
So I don't think your point 4 offers any hope at all.