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 goods, a stable financial system... this bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition... recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as a weapon. Tariffs as leverage ..."
Ah no... this is people's money, and they likely came to conclusion the US bonds are inconsistent with the funds goals and risk appetite. Within the first few paragraphs of the article you see this:
> 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
If you're dealing with peoples pensions, even if there are higher growth portion of the funds allocation, you've got to make sure there are portions of the fund that's stable enough to be regularly liquidated to send out regular payments.
Given the whole hoo-ha with trump trying appoint their own guy into the federal reserve, it isn't that surprising the fund managers have decided to decrease their allocation.
One of the strongest reasons to hold onto the dollar is the stability and finances of the U.S. government.
But in the last month, the U.S. President has pushed for a criminal investigation of the Fed chair because he isn’t doing what the U.S. President is asking, has threatened to start a war of conquest against a NATO ally, has simultaneously said increased taxes on imports will reduce the deficit but also that he will distribute it all away, has used import taxes as a geopolitical weapon, has said he runs Venezuela and one of the first things he’s done is injected the US government ahead of all other creditors.
All of this in the first few weeks of 2026. And every one of these actions destroy the very basis of why the world has confidence in the finances of the U.S. govt.
Well if the Fed Chair did commit a crime, it’s probably better that be investigated and resolved. I wouldn’t put my money in a country where the monetary authorities commit crimes with impunity. I’m not sure what your other points have to do with the monetary authority.
Maybe you should look into the context. The investigation is supposedly over lying to Congress about the true cost of the renovation of the federal reserve HQ. Despite being a topic week within the current president's wheelhouse, this is incredibly flimsy even if true. It sure looks like a politically motivated attack because the Fed chair won't let Trump dictate monetary policy - thank God!
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 things, they want to actually do them.
If treasuries were still part of what they believe to be the best strategy, they would still be holding them.
Even if it does, he still has a point. The first pebble that forms an avalanche is often symbolic. The symbol influencing others is how we get the avalanche.
This move by itself doesn't do much. The question is if it will influence others.
The "TACO" trade only works as a pump and dump for insiders for as long as the counterparties allow it to. It does not make sense for the G7 to support the enrichment of the American president for long.
Why would anyone believe that this is the last time a president will use Tariff threats in the next 12 months? it was reasonable to negotiate last year based on the observation that trade imbalances had been a growing issue for the American people. Using trade as a lever for territorial concessions is almost certainly a hard red line.
It is a war we must fight now, and must continue to fight. It is a war against oppression, against autocrats squishing their population for servitude. If nobody steps up to protect Democratic values, and the freedom of the people for self-governance, it is a slippery slope to hell.
If you really needed to fight, what you would have done was build a couple nuclear power plants, build some factories using Russian resources that they were giving you cheap, churn out some weapons and THEN go for war. What it did instead was watch the US blow up it's pipeline, harakiri its own nuclear power reactors, rent mobile Norwegian LNG terminals and make itself completely dependent on American weapons and Energy.
This is all preformative nonsense of EU elites that despise the European public and call Trump daddy to continue riding the Eurocrat gravy train. It's actually good for Europe that this mess is coming to an end. But the price was way too high and unnecessary.
The EU isn't doing any direct fighting in the Russian-Ukranian war, we are however donating and selling things, and being a refuge for those who quite understandably fled in fear of their lives.
Nobody's actually violated our sovreignty yet, we have no casus belli to go to war. But as the phrase the bullet cartridge is named after goes: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
What nonsense. We have plenty of cards to play and if 'having cards to play' is what stood between the USA and the relationship we had - or rather that we thought we had - for the last 70 years stood for something then that should not have been a factor in the first place.
This whole thing is due to one country not playing by the rulebook because they think they're big enough to fuck over the world. Guess what? No single country is big enough for that. Trump is way out of his depth when it comes to statesmanship and has replaced it with brinkmanship, that's not a valid substitute unless what you're looking for a a disaster.
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.
People in the US have been living with the insanity of Trump for so long that they have become numb to it, and don't realize just how crazy and out of bounds every day is now. We continue on, because we have to, but it's hard to reevaluate everything every single day because it's so crazy.
Europe and the rest of the world are making completely rational decisions in response to the utter self-destructive actions taking place by the entire US political system right now.
The US population has been cowed into complacence and numbness, but the rest of the world has not yet, and will take appropriate action.
The people of the USA really remind me of the people of Russia: totally depoliticized. I think in the USA many people are really focused on a pointless culture war yet aren't politically active at all.
> The people of the USA really remind me of the people of Russia: totally depoliticized. I think in the USA many people are really focused on a pointless culture war yet aren't politically active at all.
If anything, the opposite is true. Citizens who've never protested in their lives are now in the streets. Off-year elections have had record turnouts.
154–155 million people voted in the 2024 presidential election; that's 63-65% of eligible voters, the second highest percentage in the past 100 years.
Most Americans took democracy for granted; the possibility of losing it has caused Americans to wake up.
I think it's not so much the people that have been Russified as the institutions themselves. The media, big law firms, big corporations, have all given in to bullying and handed their power over to the authoritarian. Universities are on the cusp of doing so too. Even the Democratic Party has leadership so weak that in the current environment they will only talk about affordability and healthcare.
The media the public consumes only gives them culture war BS to work with, though. It started with Fox News, and that eventually cowed the rest of the media to give in to Fox News framing on every topic, since Fox News was so successful at winning eyeballs.
What we witness seems to be a lack of control due to a vicious feedback loop that eliminates dissenters and reasonable, moderate people from positions of power. The longer it stays active, the worse it becomes. In other authoritarian systems this is not so noticeable because their leaders act more rationally to begin with, although they tend to lose their grip on reality in the long run, too.
That's definitely going on. There's also something that I've heard called "reactionary centrism:" a feedback loop of people who think that truth lies in the middle between the two extremes, and also that assumes that no mainstream position in a political faction can itself be the "extreme." And that if they find that one political faction is doing something that seems extreme to them, that in the interests of fairness and centrism, they must start considering something that the other political faction does as equally extreme.
A lot of pundits that were center-left in past years fall into this trap, and normalize extremely right-wing positions these days because of it. They are stuck in an media and information environment of politics and, lacking many core values to guide them, they navigate to the middle of the media that they consume, assuming that the truth will be there in the middle just like it was in the past.
This is a fundamental problem and one reason we're mired in this culture war. Social friction is caused by jostling based on group membership, and there's no common values-based scaffolding we can use to collaborate in building a better way.
I used to scoff when told to say the pledge of allegiance as a young person. Now, the closing words "liberty and justice for all" sound quite aspirational.
Right vs left makes the assumption there are two sides / options. I have long thought that the 'left' was too extreem socialist - that doesn't mean I think current 'right' is any better.
The far right and left are always going to be homes for extremists, by definition.
And also practicality. Extreme people are highly motivated to push their agenda, and that requires a party. They adapt and find a way to participate, one way or another. Often simply by ramping up awareness of the opponent party's inevitable extremes.
The real question is: how do the moderates in a party operate, and are they currently tolerated and reasonably well represented within the party.
(I am using extreme here to mean a lack of operating in objective reality, or a strong will to divide who "matters" from who doesn't. Usually they go together.)
> You’re assuming the people in charge are sane, rationale, and value past decisions that have worked out.
No, it's an assumption that the people discussing the subject are sane and rational. It's one thing to argue that the US devaluing its wildly overvalued dollar is an effective default. Nobody would disagree with that, that's why we did it - to give us the continual option for rugpulls. But it's simply delusional and unserious to insinuate that the US won't just print paper to pay off nominal debt. It costs the US absolutely nothing.
If the US doesn't do it and defaults, it props up the value of foreign-held treasuries by giving debtors a claim, it doesn't reduce it. We happily let the presses run since 2008, running up the stock market by nearly an order of magnitude, and didn't see a drop of inflation until the last presidential term.
Also, it's extremely weird that European elites think of NATO as some kind of local government. It's simply a US-invented and controlled institution that it used to pressure Russia (the US's competitor in a bipolar world), has had nothing but a corrosive effect in Europe, and now they do the job for free.
Perhaps you're missing context here? The US Congress has established and frequently reaffirms a policy called the "debt ceiling", which requires the government to default on some of its obligations (including debt repayment) soon after reaching a certain nominal amount of debt. In 2023, negotiations to increase this ceiling lasted up until the week before the default would have begun, and 36 Senators still wanted to reject the deal and force the default. To me it does not seem insane or irrational to worry that next time there might be 41 Senators who want to default.
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 US had the world's largest economy six decades before NATO existed. China is growing into a superpower entirely without a NATO-like participation. NATO is primarily beneficial to European stability. The US doesn't need NATO to defend itself at all.
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 members aren't particularly large customers for American weapons. Poland is the largest, but is dwarfed by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Ukraine is receiving a bunch of weapons, but that math isn't so straight forward (they're getting a ton of old stock) and they don't have much choice anyway.
Total US goods exports were $2,083 in 2025. This number is 4% of all of our exported goods for the year, so actually a pretty big number when it comes to national economics. People keep talking like the US can throw away 4% here, 2% there, likes it's nothing. The same people said last week 'Trump is meme'ing about Greenland'. Now they are saying 'the hit to our economy won't be too bad' which is as truthful of a statement as 'meme'ing about Greenland' was and based on the same 'defend Trump' and not reality.
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.
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.
No, that's the logic of a 15 years old playing call of duty.
Europe has spent less on military because after the cold war and still today, it never had any realistic threat. Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine.
The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.
That, and as the main theater for two world wars Europe is - and likely will remain - sick of war. We'd rather avoid it, unless it comes knocking on our door, and then, reluctantly, we'll do what needs to be done.
> The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.
The realistic threat is Russia, which is currently winning a war in Ukraine through sheer attrition and will succeed unless Europe steps up big time.
I hate Trump and would much rather see the world keep on going the way it has been, but Europe's militaries grew around an American core after WWII. A few nations have serious armies (France, for one) but most of Europe is close enough to a US airbase for a small military to work fine.
This misses the point, which is that Europe and the US need each other. Without the US, Europe stands no chance against Chinese and Russian influence. Without Europe, the US cannot stand against China and Russia.
And yet Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.
Which is the direct cause of the current situation. If Europe was so strong and ready, war in Ukraine would be over, Russia was defeated, and US wouldn't even think of doing what it is doing.
>> Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.
It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe and USA to support Ukraine with arms to the victory. They support Ukraine just enough to not loose. It's in their interest to grind russian meat and tanks in Ukraine as long as possible.
The US lacks political will to support Ukraine (mostly) because it's a conflict ten thousand miles away. Europe should have a much more immediate interest in Ukraine not losing.
> Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary.
That is not evident at all in how any US policymaker acts these days. China is stronger than ever, precisely due to US actions. Every day, the US gives up power and throws it away, and China picks it up off the ground for free.
The supposed "China Hawks" are all chicken hawks without anything to back them up.
The ODNI Threat Assesment is the only official stance and is apolitical. China has been top of the list for nation-state threats for more than a decade.
The intelligence community are not US policy makers, and that threat assessment is not policy.
The US intelligence community is correct in its assessment, but US policy is not acting in any way consistent with both the US being the dominant world power and taking that ODNI assessment seriously.
Current US policy makers are instead trying to hide in their shell like a turtle, and greatly restrict US power so that it must not confront or deal with the threat from China.
There is not one single person here. A number see China as the biggest problem and act that way. A number don't, and act that way. The combined looks like a 'chicken hawk' policy though
There is a US policy though, and none of the supposed China Hawks have even voiced a "kee-ahh" in response to US policy empowering and elevating Chinese power.
Way back in September last year, which feels like forever ago, there was this good summary from Politico:
> Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.
A supposed "China Hawk" is the one writing the policy that hands power to China! Calling them "frauds" is fully appropriate, and even though the author admits he dashed this off in a single day, I find it quite convincing:
Looking at it in terms of the direct near-term military benefit of NATO in a conflict with China is focusing on the wrong thing. The real question isn't how strongly NATO membership would directly benefit the US military in a conflict with China; it's how strongly the act of blowing up the NATO relationship would negatively impact the US ability to deal with China in a future conflict. And those are two extremely different questions.
Are the French going to be parking the Charles de Gaulle alongside American aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait if push comes to shove in the Pacific? I wouldn't entirely discount it. But maybe more importantly, even if they're not, does making an enemy of the EU negatively impact the ability of the US to park American aircraft carriers there? Certainly damage to the Atlantic trade relationship is unlikely to do the US any favors economically, which is important if the US wants to keep funding the Navy. And a potential loss of European controlled military bases has the potential to negative effect the US military's logistics, which is where the real superpower status comes from. Maybe most significantly, how would such a shift in alliances impact the willingness of Pacific allies to support the US, which obviously does have a direct impact on any conflict with China.
>Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them
I note in the current Europe/Ukraine vs Russia fighting there are no US troops, although they did send weapons for which we are grateful
>China as the main adversary
neither China nor Russia are about to bomb the US but in terms of threats to US interests and hybrid warfare we have the full scale war in Ukraine vs only some threats over Taiwan and on the hybrid front I hear rumors the the Russians cultivated a US property developer code name Krasnov and he went on to cause some havoc back in the US.
> stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them,
That's a very uncharitable take. Europe relies on NATO to fight the Russians. Of course it does. There is no alternative, and the US would never allow other credible alliances to form. Because why would they? It's certainly not in their interest.
It's good that Europe spends more in security, and it's good that Europe seems to be serious about Ukraine. However western Europe is something else. If push really would come to shove, there is zero chance Russia could take and hold continental Europe.
The population is larger, the economy is larger by a ridicolous amount, and there are French and British nukes positioned all over. What Europe is mainly lacking military projection in the Pacific and the Middle East, and that's not likely to change.
Indeed. And every initiative in the past to create a 'European army' was strenuously opposed by previous US administrations, who wanted their alliances fragmented. US policymakers have said that any European military integration must avoid the '3 D's: Decoupling (from NATO), Duplication (of NATO command/legistic structures), and Discrimination (against US and Israeli arms vendors).
This has been policy from at least the Clinton administration, and it has worked great to ensure that the US remains the biggest fish in the NATO pond, even if it is not bigger than all the others put together. Now that the current administration is tearing NATO in real time and the President is saying that his 'personal morality' trumps international law and treaties (never mind that ratified treaties stand on the same level as the Constitution, per the Constitution itself), I would imagine that the other members are working around the clock to implement their contingency plans and ramp up domestic military production and other avenues of procurement.
Until recently, most NATO members were not meeting their commitment to spending 2% minimum GDP on defense. They were demonstrably externalizing their defense costs onto the US.
Why do you always respond to substantive posts with feelings and personal attacks?
In the thread you linked to, I pointed out that Denmark is a country the size of Maryland and couldn't meaningfully move the needle in any serious engagement involving the U.S. military. If the U.S. went to war with China, having Denmark in our camp versus not having Denmark in our camp would make literally no difference. Do you disagree with that?
Instead of disagreeing with me, your response was that Danish soldiers died fighting in Afghanistan. That's a response based on feelings and emotions, not analysis. It's completely unresponsive to anything I said.
Surely you are aware that Denmark doesn't come as a little isolated package? Your country, the US, gets a group deal. Your allies in Europe have sent soldiers to die for you very recently. Including, little Denmark.
On the back of pax Americana, supported by your allies, you have continued to live as the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. That system did not arise out of altruism. It was a strategic bargain. Allies accepted US leadership and some constraints on autonomy in exchange for security guarantees and access to the US-led economic order. The US, in return, gained disproportionate influence and long-term economic advantages.
I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
Why do you even feel the need to suggest that Denmark is irrelevant to the US? It is only technically true if Denmark was the only ally you had. I think you're smart enough to know this, so why are you saying it?
> I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
How is it "hand waving?" Whether or not the U.S. has gained "long-term economic advantages" from its leadership of NATO is a key factual question. It's the central premise of your paragraph about "pax Americana." You can't simply assume that fact is true.
The relative gaps in GDP per capita between the U.S., Denmark and the Netherlands, and France and Italy, were basically the same in 2005 as in 1825: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bdvazr/top.... France and Italy have had a rough couple of decades since the financial crisis. But in 2025, Denmark and the Netherlands basically 15-20% behind the U.S., which is exactly where they were in 1825.
So what's your response? If your theory is that the U.S. has enjoyed outsized gains from the U.S.-led economic order, why is it the case that the U.S. is in the same position relative to Western Europe as it was 200 years ago?
Let's just quote you then, for avoidance of doubt:
"Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. "
You either wrote that or someone temporarily borrowed your laptop but as far as I can see there are no third options. Unless of course you have some creative definition of what you consider to be an ally but until only a short while ago the EU was given a pretty concise description of that word by the US and we all agreed on that definition.
This isn't about money or some kind of ridiculous quid-pro-quo, it is about principle.
Why would I need to respond to a random reddit thread and few figures you throw around?
You're wanting to overturn the widely held orthodox view that pax americana worked as intended. I'm sure there is an enormous amount of literature about that you could read. I don't think the onus is on me to come up with proof that you're wrong and the orthodox view is in fact, correct.
That view is orthodox among whom? When I was young, the idea that Americans actually benefit from the empire was a view held by Bush/Cheney neocons and World Economic Forum types. Your average Gore/Kerry voter thought it was a scam to redirect money to the military industrial complex: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/d3te8h5g76htb7k...
> I pointed out that Denmark is a country the size of Maryland and couldn't meaningfully move the needle in any serious engagement involving the U.S. military. If the U.S. went to war with China, having Denmark in our camp versus not having Denmark in our camp would make literally no difference.
Destroying NATO and our relations with the western states that have heretofore been either formal allies or friends-inclined-to-cooperate with the US has much wider consequences than not having Denmark “in our camp”, both on security issues in the narrowest physical sense and on the broad range of softer issues that impact the security landscape, as the almost immediately way the current crisis over Greenland has resulted in overtures from erstwhile allies to China demonstrates pretty dramatically.
Any reasonable substantive analysis of the situation can't possibly limit itself to just the direct benefits of "having Denmark in our camp", especially considering the context of this thread. Would having the support of Denmark be the make or break factor in a war between the US and China? Almost certainly no. Would the second and third order effects of the US ending its alliance with Denmark and/or NATO, and potentially turning them into enemies, by forcibly taking over Danish territory or something similar impact the US ability to fight a war with China? Almost certainly yes.
No, that's a response based in fact. I have no dog in that race, I'm not Danish and strongly believe that following the USA on that particular ill advised adventure was a mistake. But the people that went went because the USA invoked article 5 and that's what allies do.
For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous. You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference between some of the worst trolls on HN and what you are putting out there. The only thing I give you credit for is that you are doing this under your own name rather than hiding behind anonymity like the bulk of the rest but that does not change the nature of what you communicate one bit.
If you want substantive posts you are going to have to stop posting what arguably is the worst kind of flamebait.
You're defining "allies" in terms of legal obligations. But obviously Denmark is legally an ally of the United States. I don't need to spell that out. My post about Denmark being the size of Maryland was clearly about whether Denmark is a meaningful ally in terms of conferring a real military advantage to the United States through the alliance.
> For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous.
I'm neither belittling it nor denying it. It's just completely irrelevant to my point.
> You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference
Because you react emotionally to discussions about uncomfortable facts.
Yes, yes, it technically didn’t but the result was largely the same, and as we all know technically correct is the best kind of correct.
> The final resolution, unanimously adopted by the North Atlantic Council on September 12, was a compromise that only contingently invoked Article 5, dependent on a later determination that the attacks had originated from abroad.[7] According to the final text of the declaration, "if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty".
It's hardly administrative trivia; the thrust of this argument is widely cited as an example of European NATO states helping to defend the US in a time of need. But the article you cited is replete with examples of US ambivalence, if not outright disinterest in a coordinated NATO action:
> On the evening of September 11, 2001, NATO's Secretary General, the Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, contacted United States Secretary of State Colin Powell with the suggestion that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for the alliance to make in response to the attacks earlier that day. Powell indicated the United States had no interest in making such a request to the alliance, but would look favorably on such a declaration were NATO to independently initiate it.
[...]
> In one interagency meeting in which the option of tapping NATO forces for the planned U.S. military campaign was mentioned, U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks reportedly dismissed the idea by saying "I don't have the time to become an expert on the Danish Air Force". In a September 20, 2001 appearance before the North Atlantic Council, United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage bluntly stated that his presence was to convey information only and he "didn't come here to ask for anything".
> Several weeks later, on October 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Council issued a further resolution affirming that the September 11 attack originated from outside the United States. The United States privately dismissed the resolution, with one senior official reportedly commenting "I think it's safe to say that we won't be asking SACEUR to put together a battle plan for Afghanistan".
And indeed, immediately following your cited paragraph:
> No action resulted from NATO's September 12 resolution.
Finally:
> According to the RAND Corporation, NATO hoped that by invoking Article 5 the United States would invite NATO states to participate in its planned military response against Al Qaeda, though no such invitation ultimately materialized and "NATO did not contribute any of its collective assets to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan". American reticence to involve NATO states was due to its perception that NATO's previous intervention in the Kosovo War was an inefficient example of "war by committee". For their part, European states felt U.S. standoffishness in accepting multilateral support was emblematic of American "arrogance".
> In response to a request by the United Nations, NATO later raised and deployed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the objective of stabilizing Afghanistan following the United States invasion of that country. ISAF operated under a NATO flag but was composed primarily of U.S. forces and was at all times under operational command of American officers. It continued operations in Afghanistan until 2014, withdrawing seven years prior to the United States' 2021 retreat and the ensuing Taliban victory.
> Why do you always respond to substantive posts with feelings and personal attacks?
You get the audience that responds to you, mate. If what you want is reasoned debate, you need to apply positive feedback when people come to you with reasoned debate. You’re negatively conditioning the “reasoned debate” population with every ideological screed.
Then there’s the willingness to violate social norms (e.g., zero respect for foreign soldiers who died for your country) and insult or denigrate people on the basis of their culture/religion/status. That probably doesn’t help you find dispassionate debate partners.
Wait—when did I “disrespect” Danish soldiers? I love Danish people. I literally use them as an example of a local optimum in civilizational development. But that doesn’t change the fact that “US + Denmark against China” is basically the same war as “US against China.” In my post I literally spelled out why Denmark is militarily insignificant: it’s got a population the size of Maryland. Obviously this wasn’t a comment on the courage of Danish soldiers.
Grown ups should be able to have a discussion about generalities without getting emotionally invested in them.
You love the Danish people, but you're ok with the US threatening war against them and removing itself from NATO over a piece of land that we don't need?
There is no rationality in your position. Loving people shouldn't lead to attacking them, that's the abuser's mindset, and in that there is no real love.
I feel like I’ve seen commenters called out here for misquoting their interlocutors before, so perhaps it’s worth noting here. (I said “zero respect” earlier, but his emotional appeal works better if I had said “disrespect.”)
So if I'm talking about how Denmark is a militarily irrelevant country because it's the size of Maryland, I need to first do a bunch of throat clearing about how brave Danish soldiers are, pound-for-pound?
Who cares about reputation? He's spent countless hours advocating for telcos and neutering the FCC without disclosing the significant income he earned or his work as a telco lobbyist, so why start now?
That's news to me. Citation needed, and as much as I detest Rayiner and what he stands for I think that if you make statements like that you should do it under your real account.
I've never worked as a lobbyist. I'll also point out that nobody who works for Google/Meta/etc. "discloses" that fact, even though those companies have a vested financial interest in commoditizing broadband as layer below their services: https://gwern.net/complement. Folks on HN have a strong financial industry in turning telecom infrastructure into “dumb pipes” so their employers can capture the quasi-monopoly profits at the next level up.
Also, the accusation I post on HN for self interest is hilarious. If that was true I’d pretend to be a liberal.
NATO was a thing in 1960. France and the UK spend lower proportions of their GDP than in 1960 not because of an increase in the amount of white-knighting America does on their behalf but because they are no longer administering global empires (France was in active conflict at the time), and because per capita spend isn't a great way of measuring ability to project military power either particularly not post Cold-War; the US has also cut it and is still relatively more powerful than it was in 1960.
The US military industrial complex primarily does invest domestically and sells more overseas than it buys. It employs millions of US citizens, sells more US tech than it buys and subsidised the creation of dual use technology the wider US economy does rather well out of, including an early version of the internet we're interacting over. And if it's too big or too wasteful, that's a decision made entirely by the US, which fights the wars which - for better or worse - the US wants to fight (it's actually Europe throwing lives at American wars; last time the UK actually had to defend its own territories US support was restricted to sharing intel and selling us some missiles). Same goes for the bases in Europe. The Trump administration is furiously trying to sanewash Trump's acquisitiveness into an imperative to have more bases close to Russia on European territory - if its that important, kind of hard to argue there hasn't been a benefit to any of the other bases over the past 80 years...
His comments align much more closely with the plurality of 2024 voters than do yours.
> Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.
> Americans are split about the U.S. capturing Maduro — with many still forming opinions — according to a poll conducted by The Washington Post and SSRS using text messages over the weekend. About 4 in 10 approved of the U.S. military being sent to capture Maduro, while roughly the same share were opposed. About 2 in 10 were unsure. Republicans broadly approved of the action, while Democrats were largely opposed to it.
> Nearly half of Americans, 45%, were opposed to the U.S. taking control of Venezuela and choosing a new government for the country. About 9 in 10 Americans said that the Venezuelan people should be the ones to decide the future leadership of their country.
> In December, a Quinnipiac poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters opposed U.S. military action in Venezuela. Republicans were more divided: About half were in support, while about one-third were opposed and 15% didn’t have an opinion.
This is the usual claptrap Euros and Eurosimps come up with when Americans gripe about subsidizing Europe's defense.
"Soft power" isn't putting money back in Americans' pockets, and the primary beneficiaries of NATO clearly didn't like us very much even before Trump's return, when Biden was still president and the aid flowed freely to Kyiv: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u...
> Sweden: 47% had a favorable opinion of the US.; Germany: 49%; France: 46%; The Netherlands: 48%
This is the "soft power" that Americans should rue having lost under Trump? A continent of entitled ingrates, who constantly crow about their generous welfare states ("six months paid vacation!") they enjoy partially through neglect of defense, and condescendingly lecture us ("As a European...") about how everything we do is wrong, who apparently don't like us very much even when we do come to their defense?
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.
You are spending too much time in an echo chamber if you think that those things that are unheard of in the US could not have been done in the US. They could have been, but it would have required a different kind of path than you chose.
The EU has chosen to try to cooperate rather than to be at war all the time and it looks like that may have been a wrong bet but that is mostly because first one (Russia) and now another (USA) party have reneged on the deals that were in place.
Austria has 30 days leave after 25 years service (other wise 25 days) - so that is 6 weeks, plus 13 public holidays. So some people get around 8 weeks there.
Here in the UK, I get 29 days leave, I buy 5 more, plus get 8 bank holidays - so 42 days leave - or 8 weeks. Plus volunteering days and training days... but that isn't that common.
Australia has 6 weeks of leave at similar service levels, plus 11 public holidays. Turns out many countries have figured out how to not work themselves to death.
> Who has 8 week vacations, let alone 12? No European country I’m aware of, but I didn’t check all…
All teachers and most politicians. Teachers do enjoy the same vacation as students: schools aren't open during vacation. Two months of vacation + 6 additional weeks of vacation during the year + a few special one-day holidays.
As for politicians: my stepfather was working at a national parliament but only when there would be official questions and only when these would be in his native tongue (country had two official languages). And when the country would be without a government, he'd have as much as 500 days (500 days: you read correctly, and it didn't happen once but twice) of vacations. It's only if there was a super urgent matter where the parliament would be opened that he'd have to work: so he'd quickly hop on a plane and go back to his native country.
So "who": some public servants. Not all but some public servants definitely do enjoy 8 to 12 weeks of vacation and even much more than that.
At the expense of working, taxpaying, citizens.
EDIT: for the 500 days... He would not know beforehand it'd be 500 days. He'd just know there was no government anymore. So he was fully paid but basically had to do jack shit until there'd be a government again. Which nobody could tell when it'd happen. But you read correctly: half a thousand days+. You all read that correctly. His vacation on the sunny french riviera paid by the taxes of the people.
If this were true, and if you want to give credit to Trump for EU defense spending increases, then (1) why is Trump asking for a dramatic increase in US military funding and (2) when will the US savings on defending the EU be spent on US workers?
1. Obviously the Trump admin is requesting an increased military budget because of looming global conflict. We don't want to get caught with our pants down.
Russia obviously bears the moral blame for starting this war, but Putin clearly was tempted by Western weakness. Had European states kept large and effective militaries and credibly threatened to employ them in Ukraine's defense, we probably wouldn't be where we are right now. So in some not insignificant measure, historical European underspending has contributed to the need right now for dramatically increased spending across the entire alliance.
2. I disagree with GP and agree with your cynicism there. US domestic policy failures are in no way caused by foreign intransigence of any kind. IIRC we spend more on health care per capita than (almost?) any other nation yet rank nowhere near the top in health outcomes. That's on us.
And I think it's important to correctly identify the root cause of our broken domestic policies, because I suspect fixing that issue will fix more governance failures than just healthcare.
Oh, right. I forgot that European states have no agency or responsibility and are innocent victims of big bad America. Mea culpa.
I wrote "Western" rather than "European" specifically because I believe American weakness has played a role, too. But would it really make it better if Russia invaded Europe solely because of American weakness? That European states are so weak and helpless that they hardly even factor into Putin's calculus?
> 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.
It's hard to detect sarcasm through the screen but in case you're being serious and just repeat what Trump says, he does this because Americans are not stupid and are asking, why Europeans can enjoy free healthcare, education and 4-week holidays and we cant? The answer "because we sponsored them" makes no sense but finds fertile ground in the hearts of some people.
We would fund nationwide health care and more robust social programs if it weren't for all the money we are spending on defense is simply not something the US right-wing and centrists ever put out there. When they fought those things it was with the ideological argument that they were intrinsically wrong. OMG Socialism!
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?
We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.
We the people are responsible for the government we get.
Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.
If elections were held today, regardless of who the candidates were, the GOP candidates would receive roughly half the votes. Just like they always do. It's not like there's a regime in place totally at odds with the broader will of the people. It's only at odds with about half of the people.
It gets annoying how americans try and wash their hands of everything their government does. You live in a democracy. Freedom comes with responsibility. The average american voter is at least partially to blame.
C'mon, what a lame excuse. Well then, show us that democracy works and vote for a goverment which doesn't? If I follow your reasoning, you've just demonstrated that democracy is a failure, because the US government acts in the interests of arms manufacturers since a very long time, no matter if Dems or Reps are in power.
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.
I wish europe was out of NATO. It does nothing to defend europe, bring us in wars we didn't ask for, and manufacture crisis European still suffer from (Syria refugee). It force its "allies" to buy defective weapons that are basically spyware, and still spy on them just in case. It force other allies to spill their blood in the middle East.
The only "good" thing it did was breaking Sarajevo's siege in the mid 90s, but event then it isn't actually clear if the Serb wouldn't have backed off anyway at the end of the month because they couldn't progress due to the UN presence. Still saved a few hundred civilian lives, in exchange for a thousand of proto-nazi, so i can't say it was bad.
No one will attack any EU country anyway, as long as france doens't change its nuclear doctrine, which, i will state here once again, include a "warning shot".
I am an American, so my view of the situation over there is not...well informed. But I have wondered whether the EU couldn't set itself up as the New NATO. All European (unless Canada decides to join you), and omitting some of the old NATO provisions that are causing problems, like the ability of one member country to veto everyone else (I'm looking at you, Hungary). Would it work? Or is the EU infrastructure to weak to do that?
The issue is that this kind of authoritarian military organization needs a clear leader, and without that, cannot function properly. That leader used to be the US. Even under Trump 1 (and even though i disagree with the decision), forcing NATO member to think about the 3% rule was ultimately something someone have to do (my preference would have been to lower the threshold), and that someone was the US. I also think it would need a pre-2008 France, who refused to be under the integrated command, to build a sort of trust and respect between members.
Ultimately though, the Irak invasion shattered the trust and status quo, and i agree 100% with people saying NATO must die. Alliance that are more than a reactive defensive pact and force member into attacking unrelated countries should disappear. Just get nukes, and pray you won't have to use them.
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.
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 long time.
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.
It's a decision either way, whether announced or not doesn't really make a difference.
There was some measure to ensure that Trump could not take the US out of NATO, he seems have been trying to find some alternative that has the same effect and he may well have found it.
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.
Just a reminder that NATO troops have always been rallied by Washington and on top of that the US is the only country to have ever invoked article 5.
The European allies have put their money and more importantly blood into these conflicts.
Yes, we can all look at a geographical map and state that the USA is blessed geographically by being split by two oceans from anything major in the world and thus conclude that the US does not need Europeans to defend its borders.
In essence you're completely ignoring how US allies in form of NATO allowed US to thrive as the global military power by providing a deep web of support, logistics, bases, ports, intelligence and allowing the US to have a huge influence it has consistently leveraged for decades to its own benefit or needs. And that includes financial reasons (like buying US weaponry).
If US wants to pull out of NATO it is what it is, but this whole nonsense of NATO benefitting only the European allies when it's always Washington asking for other's blood and bases and logistics is just it: nonsense.
> Following the September 11 attacks, the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson telephoned Colin Powell and said that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for NATO to make. The United States indicated it had no interest in making such a request itself; however, it would not object to the council taking such action on its own.[55][56]
The US does not benefit from a stronger, more unified Europe. Thanks to NATO, "the west" has effectively become an empire in all but name, with the US having enough influence to be the de facto leaders of this empire.
If US pulls back from NATO, and Europe builds up military power to compensate, then the US loses this de facto leadership seat of an empire.
Today, the US appears in parallel to be doing two things:
1. Causing fragmentation in Europe, by promoting right-wing nationalist politics in the EU
2. Threatening to drastically reduce their role in NATO
At the very least we can both agree that these two efforts are completely in contradiction with each other, and it's very unlikely that Europeans will want to go for more fragmentation without the military power of the US on their side, right?
it's true that if the bet of creating fragmentation in the EU works out, then the destruction of NATO might also work out, because the US would not have created another military power with a hostile attitude to balance them.
If that bet is actually being made by Putin, hmm, I'm worried, but then again the implementation of the anti-NATO project is being run by Trump, so I think the EU just might come out on top. The whole Greenland thing for example, seems like an EU solidifying step, at the same time as it is NATO destroying.
Just one example: Elon Musk (at that time part of US government) tried to directly influence German elections by prominently featuring AfD (German right-wing extremists).
Last February, JD Vance had a meeting with the AfD leader in Munich, after delivering a stupefying speech at the Munich Security Conference where he accused European nations of failing to defend free speech, calling out Germany in particular. He complained that the AfD was being ostracized and called for it to end. Marco Rubio followed up by calling the designation of the AfD as a right-wing extremist party as "tyranny in disguise."
Actions like these where US leadership is heavily distorting the facts make it much easier for the AfD to present themselves as a legitimate political movement allegedly being wrongfully suppressed by the “authoritarian” incumbents. The AfD currently scores 25% in representative nationwide polls, higher than any other political party in Germany. In some federate-state elections they scored over 30%, in one of them again higher than any other party. You can’t just ignore them as “crazy“.
We're at a crossroads: If you don't behave like you will pay your debts then people are going to assume that you will not. Before you know it you won't be able to pay your debts even if you wanted to.
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
If you sell the bonds, you'll end up with a lot of USD. If you try to sell that... You run into liquidity issues. Would probably cause a spike in gold prices as a default non-USD position. Oh, wait...
At this point, nobody trusts the US to pay anything. I don't have an opinion on whether they'll be able to pay their debts, but that's largely irrelevant. I wouldn't bet on them actually paying anything. You can't trust America
I'm quite sure that debts are paid in any case because not paying them would be a disaster for the bond issuer.
The procedure in times of war, at least by the US treasury is to put the payments in a blocked account that is then given to the citizen of the opposing country post war.
This is also why russian assets in US/EU banks, e.g., are only frozen: doing any other thing with them would instantly trigger the entire world to liquidate their holdings. Would Saudis or Indians or Danes hold assets that can be confiscated for geopolitical reasons?
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.
None of those were defaults. The US has never defaulted on its debt, as never did Germany or Italy (speaking of state issued bonds, not war reparations).
The US isn't going to get hyperinflation. It's going to get a Japan style heat death. More and more wealth concentrated into low yielding debt, rather than invested into growth, while purchasing power is chewed up by persistent currency debasement. Japan never did suffer real deflation (that was a lie), it suffered massive inflation: they debased the Yen to garbage levels, drastically chopping down the standard of living of the typical Japanese person, wiping out their wealth, eroding the value of their output per capita. Only in a twisted, failed Keynesian experiment could one confuse such epic scale inflation with deflation. What they thought was deflation was an economic heat death due to their productive capital being tied up in low yield debt.
Have you been to Japan? Salaries are low, but stuff is crazy cheap (even after the past year of inflation). People are still feeling whiplash from the fact that prices can change at all. Many menus and items have prices that have barely changed since the early 1990s, and most of those changes were to add sales taxes to the menu.
The exchange rate of the yen has dropped recently by a lot, but the inflation experience there has been the exact opposite of America's.
“There's no chance US will default on its debts, all it has to do is to print more money.”
Trying to inflate away 40+ Trillion in debt would directly result in hyperinflation.
> they debased the Yen to garbage levels
Look at Yen to USD exchange rates and it’s clear they didn’t. “From 1991 to 2003, the Japanese economy, as measured by GDP, grew only 1.14% annually, while the average real growth rate between 2000 and 2010 was about 1%,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades Meanwhile the USD exchange rate in Jan 1988 was 127 vs 140 in 1998 vs 107 in 2008. It went up and down all through the 20 years of poor economic growth, but something else was clearly the issue.
It did not go into a hyperinflation after the WW2, when the US debt load as a share of GDP was even higher than today; and deflated in the same way US is likely to do it now (bond rates forced way below inflation with yield control).
I am not saying that the process will be pleasant for the US or its citizens. But it is not without precedent and is extremely unlikely to cause hyperinflation. My 2c.
There is no chance US will need to take Greenland by force ( financial or military) , all it has to do is to increase the number of troops already stationed there by agreement.
I think the above poster was trying to say, "there is no reason" for the US to claim Greenland. We have a treaty that allows us to build our military bases on the territory. If we want to do security stuff there, we already can.
The reason is that Trump wants to recolor the map and make the US bigger that it is, and be known as the one who did it. Nothing deeper than that.
Ironically, that will make some projects harder, especially if US laws such as NEPA start being applied on the Greenland territory. Hello environmental lawsuits from all sides.
Are you disagreeing with the parent post or agreeing with them? I first read your comment as if it was disagreeing with them but then noticed the parenthetical "(as well as US bond holders)" in your comment, which seems to support parent's position.
US doesn’t really pay back the principle — States usually roll over. So there is a concern that the future batch of US treasury is less reliable. Plus there is also the risk of a depreciating USD.
I don't think it is that easy though. If you are simply trying to pay off existing debt sure, but we constantly need new debt as well so there is a limit to how much money we can print.
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?
Do you the think the EU and its individual country members from 1949 to present carried their fair share of the NATO spending ($55 to $60T), or troops and equipment deployments, or did they "default" on their side of the treaty? The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025. That's 9.8T in 8 years (2018 included). Our soldiers, not theirs, carried the weight. If you go per capita, The US has spent an overage of $13 to $16T in 2025 dollars. Let's credit the account for that and see who owes who...
I'm pretty sure they all answered the call when the US invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, no?
> The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025.
Are you suggesting that the US has paid over $1 trillion into NATO each year? That would be difficult because the US military budget has never crossed $1 trillion. The DoD budget is going to be $900.6 billion in FY2026. [0]
The share of the European countries in supporting NATO has been higher than the official numbers.
For instance, when the East-European countries have been admitted into NATO they were forced to pay dearly for this, with many billions of $ for various lucrative and overpriced contracts assigned to some well-connected US companies (e.g. Bechtel), either for various infrastructure projects or for military acquisitions.
Those billions of $ do not appear in the US budget, but they have enriched certain US businessmen.
It is normal for a regular US citizen to believe that NATO has not been beneficial for himself/herself, because this is true, but what regular citizens are not aware of is that NATO has been a great source of profits for some US citizens who are more equal than the others.
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 burning house to save my children?!"
3. Mutual support is more like "I'll help you with your main adversary and you'll help me with mine". What we have now is "Fuck no I won't help you with your main adversary, we oughta stay out of it--wait, how dare you suggest you won't fight my main adversary for me?!"
You're counting the entire US military budget as "NATO spending" which is not a useful way to look at things. We only contribute roughly $800M to NATO's shared budget (about 16%)[1]
Also, from what I recall, the reason why US military budget appears so high is also because pensions for retired personnel (the highest invoice) are included in the military budget, whereas they are not e.g. in Italy where it's a different budget.
Now, Trump is an opportunist and in the psat his talk of default has been a way to throw rhetorical stones at his political opponents and keep himself in the news while he was out of office. Back in office, he has sought to project some kind of commitment to fiscal responsibility and financial stability.
But let's be real here, he's making threats against a fellow NATO member on the daily and openly saying he wants to annex territory. If he gets it into his head that the Danes or the EU are being mean to him and hurting his fee-fees, he's fully capable of responding in irrational fashion and has a toxic personality cult that will back him up. Be honest, if I took this month's headlines and took a time machine a year into the past, would 2025 you have believed my warnings about what would be happening 1 year into the second Trump admin?
The senate has abdicated the power to declare war, like what else is left in terms of real power? There is no seperation of powers any more, its everything the founders feared coming true
Treasuries are not the best way to do this. Almost any investment is better than yeeting a substantial portion of your net worth into Treasuries or a savings account.
> really want to preserve capital
Fiat currency, or bonds that promise payouts in fiat currency, are excellent for short-term capital preservation and terrible for long-term capital preservation, as every government that uses fiat currency has succumbed to the temptation to print more of it whenever it seems expedient.
Gold or Bitcoins are far better for preservation of capital.
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 fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
> Danish pension fund AkademikerPension said on Tuesday it would sell off its holding of U.S. Treasuries, worth some $100 million,
> AkademikerPension has in total 164 billion Danish crowns ($25.74 billion)
So they are moving about 0.4% of their investment.
Not pure symbolism, but $100 million is really nothing when we're talking about US treasuries. In the past decade, China has reduced their holding by about $600B.
Can. Won't. There is no safer place to stash money in the world. Nobody buys treasuries for the fun of it. They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term.
That's your opinion, which you are of course welcome to.
People buy treasuries because they expect a return. If a party is threatening to get into a shooting war with you your expectations of a return drop significantly. This then causes that party to protect their investment, the last one to defect will hold the bag. The US is signalling on all wavelengths that it is no longer the safest place to stash money, long term or otherwise.
The US was a safe place with consistent returns for decades.
Now the US has increased risk. It isn't a calculation of "where do we put $100B", it's a calculation of "what is the balance of managing risk and returns".
Canada and Australia are low risk, but don't have the returns of the US. Brasil, Argentina, have higher risk.
The allocations get spread across different risk profiles, and the money gets spread across different investments. Of course, this is on the assumption the majority of this money stays in Treasuries. These large funds have options beyond that. It's a mathematical calculation where every asset in the world is an option. $100B can be spread around pretty easily I'd think.
You are so far out from understanding why pension funds put money in foreign government paper that I'm not sure where to begin explaining it. But the key is simply portfolio diversification. Institutional investors have access to a very large number of options on where, how and for how long they want to park their money that it isn't some kind of forced move to put their money in US Treasuries.
It's just a way to hedge their bets. In the larger scheme of things $100B isn't all that much (it may be to you, but even a small trading desk of a mid sized bank or multinational, say Royal Dutch Shell, or such) have access to that kind of money. They are not going to take the chance that Donald Trump on Monday morning, after eating a bad burger the night before, decides to unleash the might of the US military on their territory and be left holding the bag.
One downside of running a trade deficit with the rest of the world is that they have you by the short and curlies; if they dump your paper you will have to buy it back as fast as they can dump it to avoid a crash of your currency. That can get expensive really quickly.
> They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term.
Only historically. The calculus is rapidly changing. If the US can't even respect sovereign territory of friendly countries, it doesn't inspire trust that they would repay debt.
The assumption that treasuries is safe depends upon the guarantor (the US government) being reliable. Currently this is ahistorically far from being the case and therefore people are investigating other places to park capital.
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 think you're missing the criticism, which is not just that an armed civil war is extremely unlikely even given everything happening in the US, if it did happen, it would not splinter the US regionally.
The divide here is urban vs rural. There's no way to turn that into a set of successor regions.
If armed conflict does happen, it'll be much more amorphous, terrifying, and random, concentrated in the cities, and resemble things like the Tulsa massacre at a larger scale.
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.
> I don't think an American civil war in the next 5 years is at all likely.
The government of Minnesota has readied the national guard, the Pentagon put 1500 soldiers on standby to be deployed to Minnesota, Trump is threatening to invoke the insurrection act, and there's no sign of this conflict cooling off.
5 years is a long time too, I don't see how you believe it's not at all likely.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not sure it will lead to the fragmentation that the other commenters was claiming. But an conflict between federal and state law enforcement/ military seems likely.
Do you have any criticisms to the parent comment? As an American, they seem pretty spot on to the current climate.
I'd argue we've never been closer to civil war than we are today[0], primarily due to trumps regime invading cities around the country, kidnapping citizens utilizing a bounty program, and killing people in concentration camps.
Ediot: [0] - Since the last civil war. I thought that was obvious, but it seems like it isn't.
A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
I don't think it's all that nutty, considering that large regional blocs in the United States basically voted against all this and have less than zero desire to be dragged along for the ride, having our lives ruined for someone else's insanity.
We’ve apparently abandoned the meaning of the word “best,” for staters.
> For countries outside the US, it would actually not be a bad scenario.
I really don’t think I can help you, but the two obvious crazy ideas encompassed here are that civil wars never turn into wider regional conflicts and that losing a major trading partner never tanked an economy. Or that the ideological conflict here won’t possibly spread anywhere else (did you not even notice Vance and Musk’s support of afd ?) Good luck with all that.
The last Civil War in the U.S. had States banding together and separating from the Union.
The closest the U.S. is to a Civil War now is akin to a Cold Civil War with, for example, states gerrymandering their Representative districts. Or the Pacific states joining together for West Coast Health Alliance. Did I read rumblings about separate trade deals with foreign countries?
Protesters battling ICE in the streets would not, in my opinion, count as Civil War. Civil unrest? Sure.
EDIT: this always turns out to be one of my unpopular opinions. Oh well.
I think you misunderstand who participates in a civil war, at least initially. It's not always the citizens, in this case it's the state militia and the federal government. We are dangerously close to that.
I agree that it's silly to say "we're as close as we ever have...", but the rest of GPs point stands. Things are bad, and just because you're not seeing it and are rich enough to not care doesn't mean it's not happening.
It's still absurd. Today isn't close to what we saw during the depression or the 70s or desegregation or the Rodney King riot. Besides that, there's no plausible fault line in the military or any sort of ethnic or religious or regional fault line where two sides could form to fight each other.
On the contrary. The ones that want to see dead Americans are currently sitting in the Whitehouse. Mostly because it won't be them on the receiving end of it and they get to plunder the country. Smaller cake, but more for me seems to be their motto.
I think perhaps multiple people can want to see dead Americans. There is definitely a subtext of glee in this discussion of modern American civil war imo.
Not with the Europeans that I know, they are all absolutely aghast at every single murder. It is one of the reasons EU countries are reluctant about participating in any war, they always hope to avoid it (and as a result sometimes get much larger ones...).
Hard for me to see anyone who says an American civil war is a best case scenario as not cheering for American deaths and I'm skeptical that this was written by an American as it sounds far too out of touch and 'wishcasty' as someone else said.
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 guys in the Whitehouse, are they not American?
As I said, multiple people can want bad things. I'm painfully aware of what the current admin is doing to our global reputation and what they are risking with their current games - and there are still 3 years on the clock.
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.
From the perspective of these allies it is better that American descends into a small civil war and sorts this shit out now rather than it keep simmering and escalting into a global conflict where more people including more Americans die.
Why? The US is only 5% of the world population. If others successfully disentangle themselves before the civil war begins they can take steps to isolate themselves. Yes it won't be as peaceful of a world but I don't see how it is certain to end up in a WWIII scenario.
Do you think the newly minted American Balkans are going to be peaceful and well governed? And won't, say, try to annex parts of canada, mexico, greenland, central american or island nations, etc? Do you think they will be lead by well reasoned and insightful peoples that won't escalate to a nuclear civil war and that no foreign power will try to intervene, take sides, or try to grab some real estate as well?
You think the most well funded and capable military in the world would sit idle and please itself with keeping conflict contained?
Who are you referring to? Citizens doing this? 70% of the country is fat (large portion of that is also dangerously obese)
If your scenario plays out they will also be broke so that military may not be able to be funded. I wouldnt say its impossible but a civil war would break the country such that a lot of the aspects that make you fearful also cease to exist.
You have to ask yourself, compared to current US leadership, is China actually all that bad?
US is being driven by the personal whims of a deteriorating tyrant, Congress is allowing it and the courts are only doing a tiny amount of checking his power.
You can't just say "despite everything happening we're still the good guys and China and Russia are the bad guys!"
Osama bin Ladin won. The goals he had when he attacked America have been entirely achieved. Americans got stupid and became susceptible to the society changing effects of terrorism. He got us to destroy ourselves.
Or why GOP legislatures in states like Wisconsin or North Carolina remove powers from Governor, AG and other elected positions only when Democrats win but not when Republicans do?
Having free elections doesn't make you the good guys if you elect a tryant to be a tyrant. Republicans are getting what they voted for and they STILL want what's happening. I've heard them say it.
This leftist idea that everything will just be ok and we don't need to do anything because it'll all be fixed in the next election needs to stop.
Right now the only people actually protecting the republic are the people in the streets because NOBODY else is accomplishing anything.
He's sent his personal police force to my city to rip people out of their cars and arrest them for being brown, not to mention murdering a lady who seconds before was smiling and waving officers to go around. In no way is this an exaggeration.
He's trying to use economic warfare to annex Greenland.
The most powerful man in the world is a delusional dementia patient and egomaniac being allowed to do literally anything he wants.
> Osama bin Ladin won. The goals he had when he attacked America have been entirely achieved. Americans got stupid and became susceptible to the society changing effects of terrorism. He got us to destroy ourselves.
I think one of the effects of American narcissism and stupidity is not understanding that Osama bin Laden's primary goal was to replace the Saudi royal family with a Caliphate of his design, and no, he never actually accomplished that. He wasn't about us.
I get what you're saying and mostly somewhat agree with your point, but it's kind of funny thinking back and feeling the complete opposite. People like to argue which states would be better off in a civil war, meanwhile I grew up in an area where people liked to claim the south is going to rise yet again. And we do have a problem with militias.
Maybe you'd trust Blackrock's CEO instead? I live in the US and I have rotated away from US equities and treasuries to derisk from volatility of poor governance (both this administration and long term fiscal policy).
I don’t disagree that our fiscal situation is unsustainable. I’m curious specifically about the people envisioning (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
> I’m curious specifically about the people envisioning (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
The MN governor has called up their National Guard to help local law enforcement. The Pentagon is readying troops as well, presumably to help federal officials (ICE).
If both sides think they are following lawful orders, and neither side will give, what do you think will happen? (I have no answers.)
Further, there are folks that want a conflict because the West has become too decadent or something, and some conflict is needed to toughen up (?):
Federal supremacy will win, the MN governor will not tell local LE directly to prevent federal agents enforcing federal law. I understand that law is not popular among many right now, but that is how it will play out.
There will not be civil war unless the military truly comes to assist in a Trump attempt to take power in 2028, which I think is very unlikely.
Why is it that every normalizing "this is fine" commenter inevitably drops into nonsense about "enforcing federal law" after a few short comments? The problem in Minnesota isn't federal law enforcement enforcing federal law, rather it's federal law enforcement "officers" abusing their immunity to act as lawless terror squads, including attacking protestors, backed up by a demented chief executive who has no respect for our American ideals of individual liberty or limited government.
The US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded [1]. The US has one of the highest per capita of gun ownership and less than a million soldiers on US soil [2] [3]. Federal supremacy is based on the concept of the US military winning a conflict when they haven't won one since WW2. Force projection via military hardware and popping into Venezuela to extract its leader is a far different proposition than urban combat where your home and family is on the same soil.
I very much hope civil war is unlikely, but the federal government is vastly undermanned if a conflict occurs on US soil.
(have four siblings who have decades in combined military tours across all service branches except the coast guard, and I leverage them as a resource collectively in these matters)
> The US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded
Denmark and the UK (to mention just two countries) also lost men fighting alongside America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Look how they are being repaid.
Here is a rather sobering video from a British perspective: The Prime Minister responding to JD Vance by simply reading out in Parliament, the names of British soldiers who died supporting American operations.
In what world are Iraq / Afghanistan good "comps" for the US military's performance in a civil war? Those countries had a virtually endless supply of young men who wanted to die for their cause, due to religious fanaticism, and were willing to do anything to make that happen. Who is going to fulfill that role in this hypothetical civil war? The US military was also faced with 10,000 km long supply lines and extremely rugged terrain where no one had any local knowledge.
To note, I believe it's possible the ~1500 troops staging to Minnesota are not to assist with ICE operations, but to be air lifted via the 133rd Airlift Wing to Greenland. If interested in pursuing this, task some commercial satellite imaging.
If Trump decides to go pull the plug on invading Greenland an uses the 11th Airborne, McBride would, I would assume, at a minimum, be relieved of his duties with the 11th Airborne and sent back to Canada, with either a subordinate ops staff officer or the Deputy Commanding General (Support) or some combination filling in for the duties of the Deputy Commanding General (Operations).
Depending on the details of timing of the operation and the US-Canada diplomatic situation as a result, what happens after he is relieved might not be as simple as a return to Canada, he might conceivably even end up as a POW.
In longitudinal surveys, typically, about 5% of folks elect the "some men want to watch the world burn" option. I cannot speak to the glee component you mention, I know these people exist, but they are a minority. I can speak to the ongoing political polarization that treats national politics as a sport and is avoiding course correcting fiscal policy trajectory. And this fiscal policy is going to lead to widening wealth inequality, a continuation of a K shaped economic recovery, and pushing the electorate to more extreme options besides the voting booth. No one is "winning", there is no moderate middle ground any more, and I don't see how this trajectory will change. Thanks Gingrich (who set us on this path decades ago)!
> > the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
When your material needs are satisfied then only ideological battles remain to be won.
And having lots of material stuff you have plenty to throw at the enemy.
It's already happening. People are willing to forego their material needs and harm the country and themselves to 'own' and defeat the other side.
The only hope is that the ideological wars become so scattered and around so many topics and centers of power that it's not 70m people vs. 70m people or that the ideological wars are slow that people realize that they come with a loss of quality of life and material wealth and rebalance towards the latter instead of pursuing the 'owning the other side' doctrine
I think effectively all empirics go against this notion, the only real counterexample I can think of is the Troubles. People living comfortable lives don't want to die and the ideology usually routes around that: look how morality has been evolving wrt the notion of 'sacrifice for the common good' - and we expect people will sacrifice their lives for their perception of the common good? doubt it
> > People living comfortable lives don't want to die
Trump is the prime example , why did he decide to abandon the lifestyle afforded by his 500 million dollar net worth to pursue a job where 27% of his predecessors where shot at? Abandoning comfortable life to risk death.
Why don't rich celebrities quit after the first death threat letter, when they already have a huge bag of money?
The material wealth at the extremes is a recipe for unstable and unpredictable behavior , not for calm and collected behavior. People engage in ego battles and fall in love with their ideas and are willing to go to war for them as in a world of abundance they are the only thing that matters in order to 'win'.
The most abstract things (interest rates ring a bell) become personal because ideas about them were conceived in self reflection during the infinite hours of thinking and wondering free time afforded by material abundance, killing off ideas becomes akin to killing part of self and becomes unacceptable to the ego.
What could easily happen much sooner than 5 years is an incident that gives Trump an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act, and send federal troops - not just National Guard - into blue US cities. Things could go a lot of different ways after that, but something resembling civil war - or a smaller-scale guerilla war - is very much in the realm of possibility.
Be wary of normalcy bias, it's a big part of what lets the Trump admin get away with what its doing. People think "oh that can't happen"... until it does.
Warnings about the deficit are spot on. It is a safe bet that the country with government that spends 50% more than it takes in as taxes will not give above inflation return on its government debt. As a side note, most of the "Western world" is in the same boat (spending way above the long-term ability to pay, so eventually will have to default-by-inflation on bondholders).
But I am sure the poster you are responding to was criticizing the take about US splintering into parts due to armed unrest within the next 5 years. Which sounds completely nonsensical to me as well.
>Fink is still a big believer in the U.S. economy and argues things are looking mostly constructive at this point. He feels the bull story is still intact, but its durability matters a lot more.
So do you believe him? Let me guess: you'll pick and choose the parts
I agree with his statement you quote. I believe that the US still has some growth ahead purely out of existing demographics and population, but that due to go forward geopolitics and global trade reconfigurations, more growth will be had internationally than in the US over the next 5-10 years (and this is the same guidance I share with the HNW individuals I advise from geopolitical safety and portfolio strategy perspectives). Where has most growth been in the US recently? The Mag 7, AI, data centers, etc. Will this growth last? No one knows. What happens when it stops? Sadness.
> A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war?
And if / when the US does topple (whether in 10 years or in 1000 years), at the moment it looks like the only viable next leaders in the world order are autocratic dictatorships.
How is this a best scenario from a global perspective?
> The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war?
They are literally right in the middle of imploding their soft power; so maybe you are right about passively giving it up when they're actively doing so instead?
The opposition to American hegemony shifted from Europe (ie the USSR) to Asia (ie China). To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way nor do they have the ability to meaningfully implement economic policies that would effectively reduce Chinese growth.
Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn’t really changed in the last decade or so. Obama tried to isolate China with European help, Trump 1.0 tried to convince Europe to step up, Biden showed them we were willing to move on, and now Trump 2.0 is following through.
People fail to realize how anti-European this past decade has been, and not just under Trump. Europe had significant issue with the Inflation Reduction Act. Not to mention the war in Ukraine, which while illegal and entirely caused by Russia, was capitalized upon by American diplomats to the absolute benefite of the US at the expense of Europe.
The overarching plan has been evident for a while, Trump is just blatant about it. He lacks the decorum to make someone happy about being gifted a lemon. Past administrations have had much more tact in that regard.
America does not want direct conflict with China. China doesn’t want direct conflict with America either. It would be catastrophic for both honestly. Neither side would emerge cleanly victorious. Both would be limping away scarred by the experience. To that end America is just trying to let the underlying structural issues play out. China and Europe both have some structural issues that need addressed. America is gonna build up it’s own hemisphere and simply wait the rest of the world out.
Is it the best plan? Honestly it might be. The more I see of it, the more comfortable I am growing with it. I was more worried about it in the Biden days simply because I was still under the mindset of Europe being an important ally. America was undermining the European economy on multiple fronts and it seemed like we were alienating some of our closest allies. Ironically what I think a lot of people are feeling now.
The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily and they have been actively undermining America’s effects to derisk supply chains from China. Trump’s broad tariffs would have been handled better under someone else, but the end result would have been the same out of simple necessity. Since COVID America has grown more dependent on China due to second order effects. Everytime we close a door someone else opens a window to let them back in. And it’s not just Europe, but Canada, South Korea, others too. Honestly Mexico has probably been our best ally in that regard.
If you follow the geopolitical sphere most of what’s happening is not new. Trump hasn’t really changed the plan - he’s just subtle like a brick to the face. He is loud and boastful about it where before it was clever and subtextual. That is really the only change. Geopoliticallt he tries to dominate while Biden and Obama would convince people something stupid was what they really wanted.
I don’t know if that helps the anxiety at all. I’ve felt it, I’ve been there. I’ve yet to see a better plan though. Honestly, the next decade is gonna be bumpy, but if you look at the long-term trajectory, America is gonna be well ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s. We are easily in the best strategic position I would say. Once you really wrap your mind around the various aspects of it, it’s not a bad plan. It’s not Trump’s plan, it’s not Biden’s plan, this plan has roots going back over a decade. I’m sure at some point it was just a COA under discussion with multiple decision points and alternatives. Could it have worked itself out differently? Probably. But given where we are it’s probably the best plan for now.
> To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way
This has been repeated elsewhere in this story. What's your thinking here? I assume you mean the non-US members of NATO, but you seem to have forgotten two G7 members if you're equating NATO - US with the EU.
The remaining members include two nuclear-armed states, five or so aircraft carriers, submarines, several large air forces, navies, etc. What would make them unable to project force into the Pacific?
Yes, Britain and France have aircraft carriers but they are old, small and likely to be sunk by modern hyper-sonics. Europe's inability to project power is well documented though. Most of the 2025 literature is more related to overland mobility in Europe, since that is the piece Europe is currently working to fix, but the European militaries are not designed for global engagement. Most American documents on the topic don't even really mention NATO's involvement against China. Here's some stuff to consider though. Here is a decent primer:
> The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily
What an incredibly ignorant statement. Europe's economy in real terms is doing fine, their productivity is growing. The US's economy only looks good on paper, but outside of the AI bubble, companies aren't growing wages are stagnant with inflation.
Europe is also on the verge of federalization. But you have to understand getting over two dozen countries with vastly different cultures, histories and languages to cooperate is a gargantuan task. One the EU has been incredibly successful at.
Over the past 15 years the European economy has grown from 16.25 to 18.50 trillion per World Bank. In 2008 the combined economic strength of the EU was 110% of the United State's. Today it's ~65%. By and large the European economy completely missed the mark on the Internet/Web3.0 technology revolution. You certainly have bright spots like ASML, but those are the exception and not the rule. It's reindustrialization efforts are facing massive head wins from energy costs and China is absolutely wrecking their neo-colonial African holdings.
I hope the EU moves to a more Federalized model of governance - it would certainly benefit them. And I agree that it won't be easy. I am not sure California and Texas would agree to the model the United States has today. I can't even imagine what it would be like for Germany and France. But they have some serious issues to address. These are some foundational changes that are unlikely to happen in the next year or two.
The ratio in money between the revenues in Europe and those in USA is rather misleading.
With the same amount of money you can do much more in Europe. Even in the few domains where USA had a traditional advantage, like the prices of electronic devices, e.g. computers, things have changed a lot recently.
Prompted by another discussion thread on HN, I have compared yesterday some prices for computers and associated components in USA and in Europe. Now the prices in USA are 30% to 40% higher, in sharp contrast with how the price ratio was in the previous years, when prices were lower in USA.
The real economic strength of Europe vs. USA is much greater than the values of GDP expressed in USD, and including some meaningless indicators, would seem to imply.
Someone has downvoted for unknown reasons my posting, even if what I have written are just true facts, not some personal opinion.
Perhaps the downvoter has not believed that the prices have become so bad in USA, but then he/she should have checked the prices instead of downvoting.
After another HN poster has said yesterday that he has just bought a computer in Europe and the same computer was more expensive by 37.5% in USA, I thought that this is unbelievable, so I have also checked myself the prices.
I have just bought an ASUS NUC computer in Europe at a price equivalent with $490 and the same computer is on Newegg at $679, i.e. more expensive by 38.5%, a value very close to that reported by the other poster.
Moreover, I have equipped that computer with an 1 TB SSD and 32 GB DDR5, at a hugely increased price in comparison with last summer, i.e. the DDR5 modules are more than 3 times more expensive now (thanks to the US companies hoarding memory devices). Even so, the total cost in Europe was equivalent with slightly less than $900 while the same configuration on Newegg was slightly less than $1200.
Q.E.D.
In past years the opposite was true, i.e. computers and related components were cheaper in USA, even if the difference was not so great as it is now in the reverse direction.
Therefore it is clear that the dollar is overvalued, its true value is much less in comparison with the euro than the official exchange rate says. For most non-electronic things, the prices were lower in Europe even before. So the GDP of USA is also not as big as it is claimed.
Adjust GDP per hours worked, you will find Europe has eclipsed the US in terms of productivity.
The US has the benefit of the government borrowing insane amounts of money to juice it's economy, by being the world hegemony. That advantage has evaporated and you see the current capital going to unproductive industries.
> The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar.
Which is exactly what this administration is doing. What do you expect to happen when the POTUS and DOJ overtly pressure the sitting Chairman of the Federal Reserve to cut Fed Funds rates and print more money, thus creating more inflation in direct violation of a crystal-clear Congressional mandate? Do you think that's good for the U.S. as a destination for safe assets, or a "reserve currency"?
> 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 further in that direction?
You'll get worse, not better.
> A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.
Are you serious? That's an utterly insane idea. The best scenario from a global perspective is the US regains its stability. Europe is in no position to defend itself militarily, it relies on US support via NATO. I believe similar is true of Japan and other countries. A US civil war would only help Russia and China (Russia would gobble up Ukraine and who knows what else, China would take Taiwan and dominate/subjugate the rest of Asia, like Japan, in some fashion that non-Chinese nations wouldn't be happy with).
Also US polarization isn't regional (e.g. a big part is urban/rural). There's no "fragmentation into independent regions" that would really solve the problem.
The rest of the world is not going to be bullied into submission by one guy. If you can't take care of your own problem then eventually the world will turn away from you. This has the obvious potential of spiraling out of control but Trump is first and foremost the responsibility of the US population. The rest of the world will pick up the pieces. But he needs to be kept inside the lines or he'll run into people who are not just going to say 'yes' to his every whim.
But "not getting bullied" is and entirely different thing than thinking a US civil war would be a good thing for the world or "reduce the global threat" (which is just bonkers).
Like, we're all amateurs on a web forum, but it's best to avoid monomaniacal, first-order thinking.
Nobody hopes for that other than some guys that think that crashing the US lets them pick up the pieces like it happened with the USSR but on a much larger scale.
If you honestly believe that the EU wants the US to descend into civil war then you you have your parties grossly mixed up.
> I think they're seeing that against the alternative: a global war. Which is definitely one of the other options on the table right now.
Except that's not an either-or alternative. Even if the US had a civil war and somehow disappeared, other belligerent actors would be free to start conflicts that had been held back by US pressure. You still have your "global" war. Like if the US disintegrates right now, Europe can kiss all of Ukraine goodbye, and probably the Baltics, too.
And even if somehow the US was the only problem (it's not), there's a decent chance that the end result of a civil war is a non-fragmented and even more belligerent US.
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, something like that? I think we are indeed watching the fascist takeover, and economic collapse is under way -- it's just when you watch a giant fall, they seem to fall oh ever so slowly, the scale distorts the speed until it's right there, then it's "suddenly" a cliff drop.
I agree with you, one dimension of the cultural split is urban / rural. The other dimension is actual culture as based on history -- deep south, southwest, cascadia, breadbasket, eastern seaboard -- these areas have different enough cultural heritage you could see them as separate regions if you squint hard enough. But the key deciding factor are the centers of military power -- where the major air, navy, and nuclear bases are. Overlay that over the cultural map, and you get the Independent Regions. The urban centers would define the voronoi centers of the subregions, with rural areas becoming more of no-mans-land, roving-bands boundary scenarios.
I mean yes it all sounds fantastical, but most unprecedented things do until they come to pass. There's so many patterns and echoes that gently indicate that this unfortunately may indeed be the way.
No, it's pure symbolism. Countries don't purchase US treasuries to be charitable to the US. This hurts Denmark just as much as it hurts the US. And in relative terms, Denmark is going to feel the pain from this way more than the US since the US economy is 70x bigger than Denmark's.
> 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
Shocking how the US has pushed all global allies into putting more trust in China. And by shocking I mean the thing where everyone saw it come screaming a mile off.
The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent.
It's hard to see any country wanting to get into conventional war with China, regardless of size of army and airforce - even the US is not going to do it unless actually attacked. At the end of the day if China seizes Taiwan (something Trump has made more likely by his seizing of Venezuala, now talking about Greenland, Cuba ..), then the US will just complain, create trade sanctions and/or tarrifs etc.
> The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent.
Except for France's ASMP-A nuclear warning shot (which is not a tactical option by the way), all other independent European nuclear options (French or British SSBNs) are not only strategic, but they imply wiping entire countries off the map. All options also depend on whether the French President or the British Prime Minister decides that this course of action is warranted.
If Trump indeed invades Greenland, shoving a French-made nuclear fireball in front of an American carrier battle group off the coast of Greenland would probably not be our first option. Besides the massive political cost of breaking the nuclear taboo, if kinetic actions are deemed necessary, deterrent also comes in conventional varieties.
Also, while the British nuclear deterrent might be operationally independent, it relies on American-supplied Trident missiles.
I'm pretty sure ASMPA-R is precise enough to be considered tactical, and the fallout small enough to easily consider its firing over blue water. Yes, the number of French tactical (sorry, "pre-strategic") nuke is limited (around 50), but i think that's enough of a detterent.
It's not about the precision, it's the yield. We've divested our tactical options back in the 1990s because our nuclear policy is one of strict sufficiency and all our nukes are above a hundred kilotons of TNT. That doesn't leave a lot of room to thread any needle.
Also, our nuclear doctrine says that it's a nuclear warning shot, meaning that the next step on the ladder is French-delivered Armageddon by SSBNs. We're not supposed to keep lobbing them in case of a persistent problem.
The EU can't mend ties with China without giving up on Ukraine as China's FM Wang Yi has stated [0] on multiple occasions [1]. Additionally, in the Chinese foreign policy space, the EU is viewed as weak [2], and largely through the lense of the US-China rivalry (which is how the US views the EU as well now).
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 the US does not want more of Europe, and Russia wins, the US could let Russia take over Europe -> focus shifts to China.
If the US wants more of Europe, and Russia wins -> focus would be off China.
If the US does not want more of Europe, and Russia loses -> it's mostly whatever, but perhaps focus shifts to China.
If the US wants more of Europe, and Russia loses -> focus would be off China.
> Well then us Europeans are fucked regardless I guess
Yes, in some ways. Europe is a LOT less important than it used to be a few decades ago. A much smaller proportion of the world's economy, population, or military power.
> 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 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.
Additionally, China and Russia are increasingly collaborating to respond against Japan should a conflict occur [0] and North Korea is already an active participant in the Russia-Ukraine War.
> It should depends on how much the US wants Europe?
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.
This is the crux of the EU's current diplomatic malaise - neither the US nor China view the EU as an equal, but rather, as a junior partner.
> Perhaps I'm just really daft
I won't say daft, but 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.
In order for the EU to build strategic autonomy, some very painful steps need to be taken which simply aren't being taken (as Draghi pessimistically pointed out a couple months ago) [1].
Additionally, periphery regions of the EU have increasingly started operating independently of the rest of the EU - as with China's CSPs with Spain [2] and Hungary [3]; Israel+India's defense alliances with Greece [4] and Cyprus [5] against Turkiye; and Poland coming out against committing resources to defend Greenland [6] - so a unified EU response is steadily degrading as members decide to take defense matters into their own hands.
Basically, if a naval standoff between Greece and Turkiye was to arise in the next 6 months in the Aegean Sea, would the rest of the EU sanction Turkiye (and thus lose a major defense partner in Ukraine [7][8][9] and the Baltics [10]) or ignore Turkiye (and thus destroy the EU and NATO defense commitment).
> 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.
> Trump is even derailing the Davos summit. That was supposed to be primarily about Ukraine, but now it's about Greenland
The Intel Chiefs meeting about Ukraine is still happening [0]
> so I would've worded that "via Poland and Romania" and not made it seem like they are supplied for their own benefit.
Poland [1][2][3] and Romania [4] are also choosing to buy Korean weaponry instead of European.
> Europe trying to improve relations with China would be with cap in hand
It's difficult because the EU can't go cap in hand to China as long as
1. Anti-China leaders like Babis (CZ) remain in power,
2. Deals with Chinese rivals such as the FTA with India (Jan 27th), French modernization of the Vietnamese Armed Forces, the GCAP project with Japan, and Eastern European defense procurement from SK and Japan continue,
3. the EU remains committed to the "rules-based order" (ie. the existing status quo including de facto sovereignty for Taiwan),
4. EU member states continue to have American boots on the ground in the Baltics, Romania, Poland, Germany, and Turkiye
5. The EU does not sign a comprehensive FTA with China
China will always view the EU as not aligned with China. Both China and the US have adopted a "either you are with us or against us" foreign policy.
> 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.
It's a conundrum.
I think the only way an American NATO commitment will remain is if all NATO countries publicly commit to providing a security umbrella in East Asia.
Similarly, the EU will always be viewed as a rival of China's as long as 1-5 are not resolved in China's favor.
The EU can potentially build it's own space in a multi-polar world, but it will require making some very politically unpopular decisions around rearmament at the expense of social services; aligning with other regional powers such as Israel, India, UAE, KSA, Vietnam, Japan, SK, Brazil, Argentina, etc despite domestic political backlash; and having to back down to the US or China depending on the issue.
Wang explicitly said that support for Russia in the war is about diverting the US focus from China. If the US shows it doesn't care about Ukraine's future (and Wang told the truth), then I doubt Chinas support will stay as is for long. At most it will be a bargain in the coming EU-China negotiations.
Russia continues to be a significant player in North Korea and Central Asia as well, and this requires Russia-China cooperation. Additionally, if a hot conflit between the US+PH+JP+TW and China happens, China will have to utilize Russian supply and logistics chains to a certain extent (eg. the Chongqing–Xinjiang–Europe railway).
Then we just need to wait until the Ukraine situation is over in one way or another. China doesn't give a shit about Russia except as a (pathetic) counterweight to the US, I think. I mean they probably care about Russia's natural resources, too, but somebody is going to sell them, including to China, no matter what. It's the biggest thing that Russia has going for it economically (cf. the resource curse).
> China doesn't give a shit about Russia except as a (pathetic) counterweight to the US, I think
China needs to keep close ties with Russia due to national security interests in Central Asia and North Korea. Additionally, Russia maintains its autonomy by retaining military and economic ties with India and military deployments and listening bases in Vietnam and North Korea, which adds pressure on China to have to collaborate with Russia.
> ...counterweight to the US...
Chinese foreign policy is almost entirely viewed through the lens of the US-China rivalry. Europeans underestimate this to their peril. And to China, an unaligned Europe is still not pro-China enough.
EU-China trade only represents around 13% of total trade between China and partners, and is easily substitutable by China by a mix of ASEAN (most of whom have an FTA or GATT FTA with the EU), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Russia (RU-China trade has a higher dollar value than DE-CN trade, which itself is 2x FR-CN or NL-CN trade), or even India.
As long as (eg.) France continues to support Dassault, Safran, and Thales - all of whom continue to support Indian [0][1] and Vietnamese [2][3] military modernization against Chinese aggression, CN-EU ties will never recover [4].
And that's just the tip of the iceberg depending on EU member state. Germany [5][6], Netherlands [6][7], and other individual EU states have similarly crossed Chinese redlines over the past year.
The DGSI is also actively prosecuting French nationals with ties to PLA adjacent institutions (public, private, and SoEs) for potential espionage risks [8]. Selon vos relations, vous pourriez également figurer sur cette liste, surtout après ce qui s'est passé en Nouvelle-Calédonie [9].
At the end of the day, their Foreign Minister and their entire foreign policy apparatus has consistently stated they will prioritize Russia over the EU for national security reasons (Central Asia, North Korea, Japan).
The EU signing an FTA with India on Jan 27th is also a negative sign for China-EU relations.
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.
China has made tremendous gains, but that should not undermine the fact that the fundamentals still exist within the EU, but Europeans on the Internet seem to vaccilate between chest-thumping Euro-nationalism (which is dead in the water and easily disprovable) or defeatism (which doesn't make sense and is also easily disprovable).
> How far off do you think a Chinese ASML is
1. ASML's EUV/DUV IP is owned and airgapped from the rest of ASML by the US DoE's JV with ASML called Cymer
2. Around 5-7 years, which is a loss from a Chinese NatSec standpoint and shows the Sullivan doctrine is still intact (keep China 1-2 generations behind the collective west in semiconductor fabrication capabilities).
> And what would be the solution? I think we've all learned that protectionism doesn't work.
The EU never actually tried protectionism or industrial policy. When most other countries and trade blocs were flouting the WTO, the EU kept trying to prop it up in order to negotiate with the US.
Interesting how the handful of comments I made that are pro-EU and shore up European strategic autonomy get downvoted, yet any comments I make that undermine European strategic autonomy in a manner that is aligned to that of think tanks at Fudan is upvoted...
Far more important, I'd say, are the European countries having already got together to discuss joint sanctions/tariffs against the USA (their nominal NATO partner) if Trump moves to seize Greenland.
Macron has also said that he wants no part of Trump's (billion dollar entrance fee) "peace board" that he's going to be pushing at Davos.
A divorce from the USA would certainly hurt Europe, but it will also hurt the USA and it's ability to defend itself if it loses access to European intelligence and ability to have forward located military bases and refueling locations.
The Republican's are really shooting themselves, and the US, in the foot here by not standing up to Trump and therefore indicating that all this craziness is Trump rather than an enduring US policy that they support. Even if they flip flop when Trump is out of office, the rest of the world is never going to trust the US again.
On the one hand I do want someone (or a group of someones) to stick it to the US and "teach it a lesson". I see the US as a bully, and I want to see the bully get punched in the nose.
On the other, I don't wish harm to the US (mostly the people). Also because the US backed against a corner can have potentially devastating consequences for the rest of the world.
Precisely. If the USA wants to be trusted at all it needs to act now or it will be too late. This is the precipice and without action from Congress & the Senate the rest of the world will make up their own mind about the country as a whole. This is probably one of the most expensive moments in history.
The Simpsons have passed me by. The same with the Teletubbies. I know they exist but I don't feel compelled to go and watch any of it. Life's too short.
I'm not sure if I would like it or not, I just haven't been exposed beyond mentions such as yours and the occasional still, and I have a lot on my plate (not enough to forego HN though ;) ).
The article has a quote from the investment director saying it is not symbolism. "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"
It's only symbolism if you believe that there's a 0% chance of US/Denmark hostilities. Otherwise - d'oh, yes, you don't want to risk being stuck holding IOU's from your enemy, which he is rather likely to dishonor.
I believe this is actually the center of the matter. Trump surely does not represents all the Americans, but I believe he is currently acting in a so aggressive way because America has a problem, that is: for years governments of other countries are selling more and more US bonds (because the United States look progressively less able to pay back), and given the US huge debt, this would mean an incredible problem for a country that for decades spent ways more than it was possible or wise (and, this spending also helped to fuel the IT strong position the country achieved). So, now, in order to have compelling arguments to ask for certain conditions, Trump is acting in this way, since in order to have something that others don't want to give to America, America needs to be a problem the other countries. This is a way to amplify your position in the world, that is otherwise not as strong as in the past. We used to watch Russia doing something like that, and could not expect to see this from USA. But things evolve...
Way worse. I live in China but I'm French and I was saying to my gf yday night, to my own surprise: "China has never humiliated, insulted or threatened in such a gross, childish, pointless way. We might be better off supporting a Taiwan reintegration and abandon Ukraine to Russia for an Eurasian alliance, than let the US talk to us like that - even frigging Putin never crossed the line to mockery as often as Trump and his goons".
Maybe I overreact, but what a change of opinion from my grandad who saw the US land in Normandy... This credit we gave them is running out and I'd rather have a cold calculating dictator that tells me the population is too stupid to vote (common feeling in China) than an unstable mercurial dictator whining he didn't get a pretty prize.
And if Trump wants to talk about boats 500 years ago, how long does he think we've been in friendly contact with Russia and China ?
It's like Trump and his followers are not aware how fragile this entire system is, and if they are aware, they don't seem to be aware of the risks, and that the most likely outcome is that the world is in a less good condition than before. A big child that got the wish granted to play president.
The problem is that the EU and China are both looking for export markets to fund their economic growth, unless EU blows up it's welfare system and prints money like the US, the two are competitors.
But doing that would undermine Euro's credibility, as the EU is a loose union of countries with their distinct interests and politics, also member countries would compete on outspending each other as the Euro would have been essentially free money, a Euro debt crisis on turbocharge.
So, the EU can never print like the US. The EU and China will be rivals.
With Trump pressuring the independence of the central bank, this doesn't seem symbolism at all.
It might very well be that the USA will face a period of high inflation soon if we continue down this path of high government spending and no independent central bank to put a break on it.
And I can't even understand why this obsession of lowering interest rates in the USA. The economy is doing great, there's no shortage of investment money going around. There's really no reason to lower in the interest rates before we tackle the leftover inflation that still comes from the COVID measures.
It's Trump's personal insecurities playing again and not allowing anyone to tell him "no". What a child.
It's symbolism unless planting a stooge to lower interest rates below any economic justification in April causes a significant slide on the dollar's value. In which case its a great investment move.
Canada needs cheaper cars than US manufacturers want to provide. US brand cars have all been going higher dollar and further up market in recent years.
Quebec is famous for the "Quebec Special". Cars with manual everything. No AC. Manual windows. Completely stripped down to be as affordable/disposable as possible. Also the roads are absolute shit, they never wash off the salt, there used to be no inspections and title-washing is common practice there.
Is this a thing? I have never heard about that, living in QC for the last 20 years and owned and rode dozens of cars. The car salesman looked at me as a rare species when I wanted a manual Soul. I have never seen an no AC or manual windows car here.
The Hyundai my parents have been driving for the past 7 years does not have AC nor automatic windows :). They live in Montreal, and hate the lack of AC during the summer, but it is what it is - car is cheaper without AC.
Sorry, I'm old. I last lived in Canada 20 years ago. Times do change, but yes this very much used to be a thing. Base model/optionless imports still are, however.
Everything I said about the roads and title washing still applies.
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.
They are certainly going to get them! Apparently zero tariffs on Chinese made EVs coming into Canada, so they will have EV's of at least same quality as Tesla, but half price (e.g. see Marques Brownlee's recent Xiaomi review).
> 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.
The better move would be to invest internally. China wants a hegemony, whether they acknowledge it out loud or not. As Europe and Canada start seeking Chinese investment, the Chinese will seek something in return. They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
I'd also like to think that the American/Western investment in places like China and Russia are part of how we got to where we're at now. It became apparent for Western capital that human rights aren't necessarily compatible with economic growth and can even run contrary to it. Eventually that mindset permeates a society, and it has in the US. A large plurality of the population thinks that a billionaire strongman is necessary to remain competitive in the global marketplace. This mindset didn't show up overnight, it was a slow burn.
Some of it was fueled by the demographic transitions of the last fifty years, some by American economic anxiety - which was caused by American/Western investment in China - and the rest of the West has the same problems in those departments that the US has to one extent or another. The European/Canadian welfare state that provided protection from some of the economic anxiety that was seen in the US must get its funding from somewhere, and you get it from taxing economic expansion. Economic expansion relies on at least some population growth. Right now, you don't see native population growth in most Western countries. They have to have people immigrate in to stay competitive. In pretty much all of these countries, you've seen at least some friction between the "native" population and immigrants. You'll see more of that in the future, and that's how the Canadian/European Trump will show up. Doubly so in Europe, because their nation-states are partially defined in terms of ethnicity.
>the Chinese will seek something in return. They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
of course they aren't but it's also obvious what they want. Design a new global order where they have a seat at the table and get to determine standards, processes and technologies. That's the point of investing in telecommunications, cars, and so on. But what they don't want is annex European territory.
China is still ambitious enough to imagine itself as creating new international orders rather than just creating disorder, and so they'll likely make for a better partner for any civilized country than powers that descend into 19th century colonial neo-imperialism run by people who may as well come straight out of the Warhammer universe.
> But what they don't want is annex European territory.
They've more-or-less directly supported Russia's ambitions in Ukraine. If they don't want to annex your territory but are willing to support someone who does in the bloodiest war on the continent since the end of WWII, is there really a difference? They know they aren't in a place to project power over Europe, but they have a partner that absolutely is. I'd keep a close eye on how forgiving European countries have to be of Russia in order to curry favor with the Chinese in the coming years.
> so they'll likely make for a better partner for any civilized country than powers that descend into 19th century colonial neo-imperialism run by people who may as well come straight out of the Warhammer universe.
The problem is, deep down, none of that means anything to the ruling class of any European nation. If it did, Russia doesn't get the chance to do anything of consequence internationally after their incursion into South Ossetia in 2008. There would be no ambiguity regarding the future of Taiwan vis-a-vis control under the PRC. There wouldn't be investment deals now.
Wang Yi, when he was in Brussels earlier last year was pretty blunt and said that if China wanted Russia to win the war would be over and given the scale of China's defense and industrial sector that's probably true. They don't actually recognize Russia's territorial gains. From their perspective, this is the middle position. They simply can't afford Russia to lose, they're dealing with their own US problem.
And mind you I'm not very sympathetic what we in Germany call "Russlandversteher" but it's also become clear, the war in Ukraine not withstanding, that Russia isn't an existential military threat. There'll come a time, maybe after Putin is gone, when there's an opportunity to have a security architecture that covers the whole continent. A Europe with Russia even though it's impossible now wouldn't be this vulnerable. And at some point this has to be resolved because it's untenable long term.
Kissinger wrote a book in 1994 Diplomacy where he pointed out that the biggest threat to European independence is over-reliance on the US, not China or Russia simply because of the predominance of the US militarily and economically. And if the US continues to be this beligerent, unlike Russia it is an existential threat.
> Wang Yi, when he was in Brussels earlier last year was pretty blunt and said that if China wanted Russia to win the war would be over and given the scale of China's defense and industrial sector that's probably true. They don't actually recognize Russia's territorial gains. From their perspective, this is the middle position.
I'm sure that's of incredible comfort to the citizens of Ukrainian cities that have missiles raining down upon them; missiles that contain electronics that were made by China as a direct result of Western embargoes. It's the middle position, helping a belligerent tyrant slaughter civilians, in a quest to be tzar in everything but name.
> They simply can't afford Russia to lose, they're dealing with their own US problem.
Of course they can. Same with North Korea. If they'd sworn off those two nations a decade - or more - ago, they'd just be sitting there with sweet Western investment cash and far less American antagonism. But they need those two nations to cause problems, to break rules, and to generally paint the world order as a farce. Otherwise, what vacuum are they to fill? They'd just be a bigger Japan: existing in an America-centric world order, comfortable, downsizing, and utterly without incident. That's not going to give the CCP the external threats it needs to justify its totalitarianism.
> that Russia isn't an existential military threat.
> Kissinger wrote a book in 1994 Diplomacy where he pointed out that the biggest threat to European independence is over-reliance on the US
Ah, that old ghoul. The very embodiment of interests over values. Hopefully a Cambodian child is dropping bombs on Kissinger's village somewhere.
Regardless, his assessment is flawed. The US begged, for decades, other NATO members to take defense seriously after the creation of the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War. With the exception of former Warsaw Pact countries that wanted to make damned sure the Russians stayed out, that seemed to fall on deaf ears until relatively recently. During the pustule's time in office, there has been discussion of moving the strategic focus from Germany, which was not particularly warmly received in the area around Ramstein. [0]
As for whether or not the Russians are an existential threat, well, for now, no. Despite Trump's best efforts, at least as of this writing, Article 5 still exists and any sort of mass movement towards NATO territory by Russia would likely quickly decay into a thermonuclear war that would involve the entirety of the American and Russian strategic arsenals. Life on this planet as we know it would be over. Get rid of that - and the pustule seems like he wants to - and there would be no effective counter against Russian WMD forces, because they would have an advantage over France and the UK in such a conflict. The likelihood of Russia becoming an existential threat increases if NATO's current configuration breaks apart.
Any time someone has thermonuclear warheads pointed at your cities, they're an existential threat. I'll leave it to you to guess whether the US or Russia has more targets in central and western Europe.
>they'd just be sitting there with sweet Western investment cash and far less American antagonism
no they wouldn't, we know this because we here in Europe are facing American antagonism and a trade war right now and we're American allies. The Chinese on this have been vindicated, not only has the United States been waging a trade war on China, it's now waging a trade war with threats of annexation on her allies. They were right and we were naive.
I'm not claiming China is morally spotless or doesn't clash with us on countless of issues, but they act rationally, long term in their own interest, and their view of the world is being vindicated by the week at this point. If I was China I'd keep Russia and North Korea around as a buffer too if I saw what the US pulls on their friends.
Mind you Denmark is a country that lost soldiers for the US when Article 5 was invoked. The US is the only country to actually invoke it. They were so absurdly pro-American they spied on us for the US[1]. And this is what you get for it? If that's how the biggest military power and up until now guarantor of global order acts, yeah people are going to hedge their bets quickly. Russia is weirdly enough small fish in comparison.
The EU and Canada is upset because of Trumps use of force to remove a dictator and acquire land via direct negotiations with Greenland natives. Their response? Develop a deeper relationship with a communist country and dictator who has literal concentration camps, slave-like working conditions for a large segment of its workers, complete disregard for the environment by polluting its oceans and swaths of government-sponsored fishing boats that empty the oceans of its fish via a complete disregard for abiding by commercial fishing regulations; subsidizes one of the most ruthless and oppressive regimes known to man -- North Korea, and uses the North Koreans to harvest organs for use in China.
I get it: Trump is a degenerate person, not a role model, and extremely brash, but people's hate for him has completely blinded them of basic reasoning. No, Trump is not Hitler or anything remotely close.
As Americans, we need to stop calling every political opponent that we disagree with Hitler.
> acquire land via direct negotiations with Greenland natives
"Greenland does not want to be controlled by the US. Greenland does not want to be owned by the US." - Jens-Fredrik Nielsen, Greenland PM
This view is shared by ~95% of Greenlanders.
You can't unilaterally enter "direct negotiations" with people to purchase their belongings. The active and willing participation of both parties is a key element of a genuine negotiation.
From my point of view in Europe, the trail that Trump is following by persecuting opponents, disregarding and abusing law, deploying a pretorian guard and defending territorial expansionism is in the history books, and is a template followed by Hitler, but by no means only by Hitler. China has no track record of being an expansionist bully that threatens everybody except other bullies, like the USA is doing right now.
I never thought of seeing a comic book type dystopia unrolling before my eyes, but that's what I'm seeing and I'm worried because I have children.
You clearly DON’T “get it”.. obviously Trump is different than Hitler, but to say he’s nothing remotely close is some serious handwaving.
ICE is acting a LOT like the Gestapo.
Trump is telling obvious lies and his supporters simply parrot it as fact. That was a big part of Hitlers power, the propaganda machine that made it acceptable for otherwise intelligent people to pretend to believe the obvious lies.
Trump is aggressively threatening to expand the empire, under similar dubious security reasons.
How much does history need to rhyme before you actually notice?
The Gestapo had the backing of the courts and the laws as well. Your argument is not as strong as you seem to think.
Also -- it's fairly well documented at this point that ICE is often without a warrant, and is detaining and in some instances deporting US citizens. These aren't one offs, and looking at what's going on in MN makes that pretty clear.
Because of course, alternatively, if Hitler was alive, then it would be possible for two different people, to be Hitler? You actually think you had a one-liner there, didn't you bud?
It is symbolism. Canada thinks partnering up with a government that actually murders it's minorities and has some of the worst human rights violations in recent history is a good thing. How can you possibly support this and somehow think the US is worse?
If Taiwan thinks they will get support from these countries that are now heavily invested in China, they need to think again.
Will there be protests? or are they reserved for the evil US.
“American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, a stable financial system... this bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition... recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as a weapon. Tariffs as leverage ..."
This is all political and a result of personal views against Trump. Canada has its own issues. They allowed foreign investors to swoop in and purchase up all of the housing, which raised the prices. Combined with overbearing regulations, means most young people will never get a house.
It's all theater because the people in charge don't have the will to actually make the uncomfortable choices to improve the Canadian economy. Instead? they are using the US as an excuse.
> If Taiwan thinks they will get support from these countries that are now heavily invested in China, they need to think again.
Please explain in detail how you think the Canadian military would deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Taiwan needs a joint force in the Pacific, not individually committed nations. If "America First" policy extends to Taiwanese diplomacy, the island is as good as gone.
That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. Chinese are our adversaries (EDIT: enemies, they actually bankroll Russian invasion and supply weapons) and I hope president of France understands that.
Chinese are Canadian adversaries mostly because of the US. The US more or less forced Canada to hold Meng Wanzhou, which caused a huge rise in diplomatic tensions and cost Canada billions. Some thanks we got for that.
This is definitely the biggest incident, but there's also been supposed Chinese meddling in Canadian politics and establishing foreign police stations which allegedly were threatening people in Canada.
For a time there was a large amount of Chinese money fleeing to Canada and the US, buying up coastland and other high value residential. Circa 2018ish, that reversed due to Xi Ping's mandates. Near Seattle, the Bellevue luxury market bottom fell out over a month long period. AFAIK, it never fully returned to the hey day levels of spending.
US buyers owns like 10x more real estate in Canada in $$$ terms than PRC buyers, and US tends to buy the strategic stuff like commercial/industry, something like 50% of all foreign controlled assets in Canada is controlled by US. VS PRC mostly buying houses, foreigners own like 5% of housing stock in Canada.
> 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't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real.
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
If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands. Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no rational net-positive reason for this no matter what dimension you look in
IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g. Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
No one's really put out a strong case for it like that. You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming or something?
But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same excuses mostly.
> 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 particular is really baffling in that he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse.
> People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real.
I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.
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".
I'm Italian/Polish, China has never done anything to me in history.
Whereas I remember multiple times our allies pillaging and colonizing the country.
Not a fan of their espionage, lack of IP respect and human rights record (albeit we should also look at ourselves on the last one as well). But those are things that could've been challenged diplomatically through economical levers imho.
The only reason China suddenly became the enemy is because their GDP growth put them as the world's biggest economy in few decades and Washington wasn't happy with this.
Both in Macron's own country and his region, there will be hundreds of companies who are already cut-off from Russia, Africa, Middle-East and Central Asia due to geopolitics. China doesn't care and is busy selling there.
So what's left is the remainder of Asia, which is China's home turf where they are already ultra-competitive as they have the geographic advantage.
And of course there will be companies in Macron's country and region using Chinese manufacturing or otherwise engaged in Chinese JVs to get access to sell to the Chinese market.
So for Macron to go full-Trump on China would be a textbook case of cutting your nose to spite your face. The Chinese are masters at playing the long game and the West needs to be careful about knee-jerk short-termism actions.
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, and a bully, as it is now, all that goes away. The bill comes due, and the US will pay dearly. The rest of the world will pay nothing.
> Its baffling that you think the collapse of the USD would have no negative ramifications on the rest of the world.
Empires rise and fall, pax Americana was not the world's first hegemony. The end of the British Empire is within living memory - while they sowed seeds of instability in a handful of former colonies that still flare up today, the rest of the world is fine. Britain, on the other hand, has had to enter a "managed decline", and is a much smaller player in world politics than it was a century ago.
What do you think the US is going to do for that bang? How could a bang ever bring the wealth and peace that its prior friendship with allies brought?
The US doesn't have the cards to play, because the current US Government doesn't even understand where the wealth has come from. That US Government has risen to power by tricking the public into thinking that the very things that make the US wealthy and powerful are actually a scam making them poorer.
The current US Government has already broken the trust that makes the US strong. The repercussions will take years to become fully visible, and without immediate course correction those future repercussions will get far far worse.
> What do you think the US is going to do for that bang?
Literally a bang.
Or many bangs. The largest military in human history going YOLO won’t be a pretty sight. (The only way it sucks more in America than it does abroad is if we go civil war. But even then, it’s almost certain to go global.)
The negative ramifications seem to be better than being invaded by the US or having regional entities invaded by the US, and the ensuing instability as a result.
If its going to be like this the rest of the world might as well cut its losses
You seem to have a very limited view of the world if you think the US doesn't have fans of totalitarian rule and that the "rest of the world" is exclusively against US global strategy. I am going to guess that you actually have no idea what the negative ramifications of the collapse of a currency that underpins the foundations of our world are, because it is something that is near impossible to predict.
I agree that at some point, governments and people will need to step up and fight back, but the idea that the US will somehow fall in a vacuum and everyone else will live happily ever after is laughable.
Yes but you have a) no idea how bad the suck will be b) no idea how long the suck will last and c) what the "better" will look like.
I am not advocating that the status quo should go on, I am just saying that the repercussions will be vast and long lasting, likely resulting in a world war, and whatever follows after that(if anything).
You do realise it is arthimetically impossible to balance all the desired export surpluses of the EU, China, Japan, etc together without the US as the demand sink right? Whatever adjustment comes is certainly going to require somebody to act in a manner contrary to their current strategies, and it's going to be a painful adjustment.
And which is harder? Bringing back production to satiate domestic demand or increasing domestic demand? Historically, demand deficiency is much harder to restore.
That furthers the imbalance to the detriment of the US and in favor of the holders of whichever currency replaces USD.
Dedollarization means that the US market is far poorer and can't import as much as before, yet the new reserve currency(ies) make holders that much richer, enabling greater demand for either imports or self-consumption.
It will be an adjustment, but there will be many winners, none of which are the US. There may be some losers who do not negotiate trade deals or can't find new markets, but it's unlikely. The supposed US trade war on China has resulted in their GDP growing by a massive 5% last year. Canada, losing its exports to the US, negotiates deals with other countries.
The pain for other countries is more organizational than anything economic. The US will face massive economic disaster in the form of devalued dollars and the need to close the government deficit after decades of being addicted to massive reserve-currency-enabled deficit spending. The US will be plummeted into massive recession by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely trades with whoever are the winners.
If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely massive. Europe may have a harder time signaling to Europeans that they are far wealthier, but make imports cheaper for Europeans, and people who find that they suddenly have a lot more left in their bank account at the end of the month usually find ways to spend at least part of it.
> If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy
This is a fantasy that the CCP leadership will not entertain, because it would mean losing their control as the (export/industrial) king. Their national security descends from having that crown firmly in their hands & making everyone else reliant on their industries, and will do as much as they can to make sure it stays that way.
A strong currency runs counter to what the CCP leadership wants, having seen how it has hollowed out the US' industrial capacity (as a result of strong currency demand leading to comparatively higher labor costs).
The CCP aspires to climb the value chain up to where the US is, which means shifting away from manufacturing to the high profit margin tech, biotech, and other science related industries.
The manufacturing stage is just a stepping stone to getting to where the US already is.
The end goal of the CCP is not to be a middling power, with middling wealth. It's to be the greatest power. That some in the US want to go down the value chain and take China's manufacturing spot just as China zooms ahead of the US, is, well... It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
>The supposed US trade war on China has resulted in their GDP growing by a massive 5% last year.
I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. China is known to play with the numbers to hit goals when they feel that they need to.
>The US will be plummeted into massive recession by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely trades with whoever are the winners.
The massive devaluation in the dollar would mean that the country would become incredibly attractive for manufacturing exports, which would prevent a massive recession.
>If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely massive.
If you think that China is going to shut down the majority of its factories, move them to other countries, and let their currency float freely (well, freer than it is today), you're delusional.
> the country would become incredibly attractive for manufacturing exports
First, the US will not be attractive in any way for investment because it is run by a madman that has ridiculous tariff policies that make starting manufacturing supply chains nearly impossible.
Second, even if the US could transition its economy back to manufacturing, that's a massive slide down the value chain to far less profitable industries than our current tech, biotech, and service driven economies. The idea as presented is a serious downgrade in quality of life compared to today.
> If you think that China is going to shut down the majority of its factories, move them to other countries, and let their currency float freely (well, freer than it is today), you're delusional.
China wants to transition its economy up the value chain to the high tech industry that the US currently has. It has the educational system and the brain power, and the biggest impediment, brain drain to the US, has now been shut off.
If climbing the value chain, out of manufacturing, requires China to shut down factories or open up currency somehow, they are far more likely to do that than to abandon their ambition of economic growth.
> balance all the desired export surpluses of the EU, China, Japan, etc together without the US as the demand sink
in 2022 China, Russia exported around 630 billion USD, US imported around 950 billion USD. maybe the world will not end if these three just go and play in a separate sandbox;)
> it's going to be a painful adjustment.
even if demand falls a bit it's not the end of the world if it becomes more sustainable afterwards (less overproduction, consumer waste, gassing the environment)
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.
> subsidize their local industries that rely on exports to the point that it's a smooth transition to more of a consumer economy.
There's an implication here that the country *wants* to become a consumer economy, and not remain an export economy.
Furthermore, it relies on the leadership wanting to wind down that production, and not use that subsidy to further bolster their industrial capacity & crush global prices, in an attempt to wash out the others & only have their country be the sole remaining place capable of meeting demand at that subsidized point.
> no armies, can’t defend itself, can’t make energy.
Look I love dumping on the Europoors as much as anyone, but even I can see that this is a bit extreme. "Decadence?" What does that even mean here? That people are happy and secure and have good qualities of life, without worrying about everything falling apart?
The US is not fine, and is falling apart. The US is living decadently on its reserve currency status, which enable things like ridiculously wasteful and unproductive military spending. Even its military spending on things like the, say, F35, require external customers in order for it to make any sense at all. But all that decadence is at risk. Decadence is good, I want it, I don't want austerity. Give me this awesome US decadence or I'll have to settle for the fake European "decadence" which is mere economic and health security without all the extra spending that US consumers get to make.
We've asked you before not to break the guidelines. Political/ideological flamebait is not what HN is for and destroys what it is for. You can discuss these themes in curious ways, rather than inflammatory ways; indeed, you must, if you want your comments to avoid being killed by flags. Eventually we have to ban accounts that continually flout the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN is a community that exists for a specific purpose and that purpose is curious conversation. The guidelines are designed to keep activity aligned with that purpose, and HN is a place where people want to participate because enough people make the effort to follow the guidelines and raise the standards rather than drag them down.
What is acceptable in your circles is not relevant here. What matters here is preserving HN as a good place for curious conversations.
That idea has been so destroyed by current events that I can only imagine that you are trolling or have been living in a cave for a few weeks. Check the news!
To be fair, has it? The EU is talking about activating its anti-coercion thing, which would anyway only kick off a year-long consultation and voting process before anything happened. To my knowledge, there have been no consequences to America annexing Greenland put forward that would hit before the midterms.
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 not a proof of instability, it's a change in the strategic goals held by the people controlling the superpower.
And the US is at a high level of strength, not weakness. Its large corporations hold sway over the globe in a manner the likes of which has never been seen before in modern history. Its military has force projection to nearly every point on the globe, with hundreds of global military bases. Its national wealth is at an all-time high. Its stock markets are at all-time highs. Its median income is at an all-time high. Its median disposable income is at an all-time high. Its housing wealth is at an all-time high.
> The US is more stable than the powers of Europe (which have constant political upheavals, snap elections that completely remake the political landscape, etc)
How many European powers have had their incumbent head of state violently attempt to hold onto power after losing an election after January 6th, 2021?
A stable country would do what South Korea or Brazil did: imprison the criminal.
Instead, in the US, we have our supposed captains of industry wielding chain saws on stage to publicly support the wannabe tyrant, and donating billions behind the scenes to privately support the wannabe tyrant.
> You're confusing Trump's mouth with how the US political system actually functions.
I'm not confusing anything, right now Trump's mouth IS the political system in the US. Republicans control every aspect of the government completely, all the way through to the checks of the US Supreme Court.
No Republican has enough backbone to stand up to Trump, and if they do gain a backbone to stand up to Trump at all, like MTG, they exit politics quickly. Thomas Massie is the closest to somebody who is standing up to Trump. If Republicans in the Senate were willing to stay in office yet defect from the party, that would be enough to stand up to Trump, but even that's not happening.
Right now, the US is in a position not unlike Imperial Japan, right before they launched an attack on the US, forcing the US into WW2. High Command wants somebody to stand up and stop the obviously bad action, but nobody is willing to make the short-term sacrifice for the long-term good.
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
> 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.
Sorry, Trump insisting on annexing Greenland is not a "change in strategic goals", it's a toddler's petulant obsession. The US already had carte blanche from Denmark to do pretty much whatever it wanted in Greenland.
Besides Trump, I doubt there's another official in the WH who wants this. They are all just humoring the demented old man.
> 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…
> The US is more stable than the powers of Europe ....... You're confusing Trump's mouth with how the US political system actually functions.
Eh?
If the US political system was stable and fit for purpose, the US would have got rid of the wannabe dictator by now; or at least held his power in check.
EDIT: Amusingly, I'm being downvoted by a class of American who refuses to believe their way might not be the best after all. Even when the facts are staring them in the face.
As a US citizen, I agree with you that if the US was a stable power we would have gotten rid of the dictator for good after the first term. And most definitely after trying to usurp an entire election. Or worst case after he issued pardons to all people involved in any way to usurp the election, including many hardened criminals. After all these things, even if we get control of the US government and place it into stable, hands, it will take a generation to rebuild the broken trust.
But I don't think that the people downvoting you are necessarily other US citizens. It feels like HN is very good at eliminating bots, but in these sorts of discussions lots of sleeper agent bots come out to try to shift discussion. Every bit of our social media is full of it and I think that the downvotes your comment probably come from that.
> 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.
this is satire right?
the UK's system is close to 1000 years old
I doubt the current US system will last another decade
> with hundreds of global military bases
all of which will evaporate the moment it does anything to Greenland
The UK's current system is realistically about the same age as the US, their first PM was in the 18th century. Unless you're claiming the King/Queen is still in control of everything. You can't have that premise both ways.
> And the US is at a high level of strength, not weakness. Its large corporations hold sway over the globe in a manner the likes of which has never been seen before in modern history. Its military has force projection to nearly every point on the globe, with hundreds of global military bases. Its national wealth is at an all-time high. Its stock markets are at all-time highs. Its median income is at an all-time high. Its median dispoable income is at an all-time high. Its housing wealth is at an all-time high
This is in part because other countries allow American countries to come in and take over markets.
The combination of median disposable income and housing wealth being at all time highs is a big part of it!
Those with housing have locked others out of housing, causing lots of "wealth" that those with housing don't even consider to be wealth. They think it's just "normal" and don't realize the massive advantage it gives them over everybody stuck renting.
But that's symptomatic of all the other inequality. Housing is the biggest expense, and most obvious form of rent extraction that the wealthy use to exploit those without wealth, but it's not the only one.
The US used to be a much more homogeneous country, which certainly makes it a lot easier for everyone to be on the same page because of shared cultural values.
That has changed dramatically in the past few decades and with it, places where Americans can find common ground.
Other western countries are going down the exact same path, just a bit behind us.
Funny though how all those European countries everyone on HN and Reddit point to as "how things should be" are all pretty ethnically and culturally homogenous, though that's changing rapidly. Interestingly, cracks are starting to appear.
> And the US was always less homogenous than other "western" countries.
The US was 85-90% white in 1965. That's pretty homogenous.
You're confirming what I said earlier. There are both happy and unhappy "homogenous" countries. There's literally no correlation.
Instead of stopping there you're regurgitating, and it's unfortunate I'm confirming Poe's law, Mein Kampf.
> The US was 85-90% white in 1965. That's pretty homogenous.
I think you know nothing about culture, ethnicity, or the history of bigotry, xenophobia, and racism in the US if you can confidently make that statement. You're reducing all the diverse peoples that made up the nation into a single group based on their skin color.
What is considered "white" now certainly wasn't in the past. It took a long time before Italians were considered to be part of the in-group. Irish and Italian people were considered an inferior race and suffered extreme racial prejudice when lots of immigrants came from those nations.
And that evolution itself tells the story of the US itself. The people in non-homogenous neighborhoods are happy and harmonious, but outsiders scared of cultural differences cause racial strife and discontent.
Those who let themselves get worked up about racism are the problem, not the non-homogenous races.
That barely scratches the surface of the bigotry that existed. Protestant or Catholic, Jewish or Gentile/Christian, Eastern European or Western European, Anglo or non-Anglo, Anglo + German or non, Southern European or Northern European - these are all lines people use to discriminate upon that I can think of just off the top of my head. That's without even getting into skin color.
There will always be a market if the interest rates are high enough. But wanting to lower interest rates and introducing political instability seems like a bad combo.
We're under active, malicious attack by 1/3 of our own eligible voters. Not clear how this will play out, as I can't think of any historical parallels.
It's not uncommon for democracies to be subverted by a minority party.
Nazis did it in Germany. They lost parliamentary seats in the November 1932 election, but remained the largest party with 33% of seats. The next year the country was already a dictatorship.
Communists did it in Czhechoslovakia in 1948. They led a coalition government but had just lost the previous election.
I'm worried that United States 2027 will be added to this list. If MAGA sees their grip on power starting to fade after November elections, they may try increasingly extreme measures.
It is 49.8% (people who voted Trump in 2024) of 64.1% (people who voted in 2024), or 31.9% or ~1/3 of the total eligible voting population, which is what your parent states.
That is the problem though - a third of the US population is basically lunatics... This will not go away. And one cannot keep a third of the population "down".
Yes, sorry; I added 'eligible' to emphasize how many people failed to vote at all.
Unfortunately, my understanding based on reported surveys [1] is that if the non-voters had voted, Trump's margin of victory would have been even greater. If that's the case, then those who say that my 1/3 figure is too low are correct.
You understand how statistics work, don't you? When you have 64% of the population voting, that's a pretty big sample size, enough so that you can reasonably extrapolate that the 49.8% share _probably_ holds across the rest of the population, give or take.
Put another way, if someone asked you to estimate what the split between the one third of the population that didn't vote was, what would you use as a reference point? Social media posts? Vibes? Or maybe polls leading up to the vote that showed the same roughly 50-50 split found in the actual results?
I don't think that you understand how that part of statistics works. You are said that we have sampled 64% of the population, so we can extrapolate to the rest. That works if the sampling is sufficiently random. But in this case the "sampling" is people who voted, so an entirely (self) selected population, and pretty much not random at all (i.e.: people who were mostly less decisive about their opinions/vote).
So I don't think we can extrapolate confidently at all. So we really don't know whether it holds for the rest of the population at all.
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 leadership at many institutions. Even in Silicon Valley, the loudest and most vocal leaders are self-destructively supporting this madness that will destroy the US's wealth, and their future wealth gains too.
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 that debate, while all the "responsible" people insisted he was sharp and smart. It really was more unique than its given credit for.
Both candidates were a disgrace to the parties who propped them up. However, nothing Biden said was any worse than what Trump said about immigrants eating peoples' pet dogs and cats.
At the Biden/Trump debate, the choice was between malevolent, incoherent senility and plain old garden-variety senility, and the voters choose poorly. At the actual election, there were even fewer excuses for voting for Trump, as Biden was no longer in play.
2024 was right after voters had seen Biden at that debate, while all the "responsible" people insisted he was sharp and smart. It really was more unique than its given credit for.
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.
Japan is the model of low interest rate debt and the US is not close to how low Japan was able to go, with a currency (Yen) vastly less potent than the global reserve currency.
Most of the US borrowing is domestic, very little of it is now foreign. No foreign entity can afford to absorb $2 trillion of new paper every year. That's equal to the total holdings of China + Japan. Going forward you might as well regard all US Govt borrowing as domestic, as that will essentially be the case given the scale. The UK holds $885b of treasuries, what are they going to buy annually that will make a difference at this point?
Every nation has a limitless ability to borrow internally via currency debasement, with obvious consequences. That USD debasement is why gold has gone up 10x in 20 years when priced in dollars. It's why healthcare and housing is so expensive - when priced in dollars. Cash pushed into gold in 2005, $100k, would now buy you a million dollar house. It's the dollar of course that has been hammered (among other currencies, the Euro has not done well against gold either).
The US won't stop being able to debase its currency and buy its own debt. What the US is doing is eating its hand. If it continues to get worse, it moves on to eating its arm, and so on (the US is de facto consuming its national wealth through stealth confiscation via currency destruction, rather than paying the bills with taxation directly).
>what are they going to buy annually that will make a difference at this point
Mechanically, "they" being sovereign banks serve as price-insensitive marginal buyers that close treasury auctions regardless of price because they buy treasury for storage/liquidity. VS domestic buyers (hedgefund insurance), who are price sensitive = raise rates to attract discriminate buyers who buy for yield/valuation = worse debt servicing = faster debasing. Foreign sovereign buyers still play governor role in making sure domestic buyers get a shit none-market deal, i.e. US gov gets a good deal which moderates velocity of debasing. Of course past certain level of debt brrrting, the ability for sovereign buyers to absorb is compromised, in which case it makes sense for US to fuck foreign buyers over and inflate away as much debt as possible while still reserve currency - US can inflate/soft default faster than world can unwind. And TBH US will probably be "fine" as long as US can still gunboat diplomacy. If can't be banker anymore, be the mob boss.
A sensible response, indeed. Investing is about finding the right balance of risk vs reward. When a country becomes less reliable, it becomes a less attractive investment, until the interest they pay rises enough to compensate for the additional risk.
It's not a lot. Multiple countries could offload hundreds of billions and the U.S. Treasury would buy them up immediately (and probably ask the Federal Reserve for some help the next day)
I can't find the program name at the moment, but the Treasury plans for situations like this regularly.
We've certainly planned for single allies going unhinged - but what we didn't plan for was us going unhinged and causing all our allies to take retaliatory actions. If France, Denmark, Germany, Britain - any one of them was swept up in nationalistic fervor and turned their back on our multi-lateral alliances we could easily weather that storm... when it's us though, that threatens the USD's acceptance as the defacto trading currency especially at a time when BRICS is semi-coherent and we're weathering a recent inflationary burst. This is like a perfect storm.
Definitely, I think there'd be a crisis if our biggest holders like the UK and Japan sold off their treasury securities but some "small" selloffs aren't outside the realm of possibilities. Trillions in selloffs though, that might get interesting.
In case you are interested in more than definitions of words: Bond investors do not care if you default by giving them a haircut, doing things like forcefully extending the term to 100 years or lowering the currency value by printing money.
In either case they will adjust their future risk premium of US govt. bonds and of course price in future inflation.
One might be able to hide the money printing for a while, though, while the haircut is explicit.
The other thread going on this topic says that Europe could sell about $10 trillion. That’s a lot, but also, it’s only a bit over 10 days trading at normal volumes (according to the numbers being discussed in this thread).
The normal trading volume isn't really the key. Rather, it's how elastic the price is.
Suppose these guys sell 10% of the daily trading volume. How do the traders in the market react? One possibility: Buy at current prices. Another: Speculate that there'll be more sales and the price will drop by a couple of per cent in the coming days/weeks, and delay their buying in order to buy the dip.
I'm sure the Americans have laid plans for how to avoid a major Oops.
It would have a massive negative impact, and there are reason why these countries dont do this (their own interests), but that's all besides the point. The US hold most of it's debt, which is not something everyone realizes.
Two people buying and selling the same dollar a trillion time would hit that trade volume in a day. There's also a huge difference between short term and long term bonds.
So we need a better metric to evaluate this against. If we look at recent auctions, they typically move around 35-40 billion in 10 year notes and about 25-30 billion in 30 year notes. With the rest being short term.
In 2025, the Treasury issued $30 trillion total over 400 auctions.
So yes, $100MM is not a lot, but it's still three or so auctions worth of bonds. There's also the downstream impacts of this, as the Netherlands is likely no longer buying t-bonds in any form. And this is just one country.
Whilst this might be symbolic, money managers don’t tend to do symbolism. Surely it’s more likely that they fear what’s to come: an economic war against the dollar as pushback for the threats from Trump. So selling before the price tanks makes good sense.
To the rest of the world - Nothing. Trade works just fine without a reserve currency.
For the USA - massive inflation. All of those dollars are coming back home, which will weaken the dollar.
Plus, there's the second-order effects from a president taking control of the fed by trumping up charges on its members. So high inflation + low/zero/negative interest rates.
The USD has already been in decline as a reserve currency. The only thing that is happening is the decline is accelerating.
It is not necessarily a question of "takes its place", but more about being more serious about diversification. Or to paraphrase the old IBM saying "nobody got fired for buying USD" is no longer the case.
In terms of options you have JPY, EUR and CNY as the big-three and maybe tag AUD on top.
Look up something called "dedollarization," it's been talked about in academic circles for quite some time and now more mainstream institutions are discussing it more too.
Yes, in my undergrad government policy classes twenty years ago, we were talking about a "basket of currencies" that would replace the USD as the global reserve.
IMF has this, intra-countries, with their SDR ("Special Drawing Rights"). China was added in the 2010s, and USD has slowly been losing its percentage of the SDR's overall-makeup.
SDR's are a type of Keynes' "Bancor" concept, but only transactable between countries. Citizens may resort to the commoner's bancor, e.g. bitcoin (but also gold, silver &c).
The share of the USD as a reserve currency has already been slowly declining over the last decade, although it is all but dramatic. The reduction is not in favour of another particular currency. Instead, the proportion of minor currencies is increasing. Here is a diagram for the years 2016 to 2023: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/232562/umfrag...
I doubt it would be replaced by a single global reserve currency. More likely there would be a handful of currencies that perform a similar role (USD, EUR, CNY, maybe some others) and which you primarily use depends on whose sphere of influence you are in.
My guess would be EUR takes its place, gold will also be used more. I guess what happens is USD gets much weaker and US buying power goes down. Maybe destroying the USD will eventually cause the boost to domestic manufacturing that Trump wanted, since foreign goods will be out of reach. Cut down the forest to kill a squirrel. I'm no expert though
There will never be a boost to domestic manufacturing without some kind of investment. The booms of the 1950's and 1960's were a result of massive government spending in the 1930's and 1940's building a bunch of capacity and researching novel manufacturing techniques and building new tools. If we don't have the morale for that we will simply stop having as many things.
It also included a bunch of women joining the workforce, an enormous baby-boom and brown people acquiring the freedom and prosperity necessary to become consumers. Demographics are always the fundamental driver of economic movements.
Domestic manufacturing isn’t coming back without a thoughtful investment program. A lot of older people still think of China like in the 1980s where it was mostly low-wage, low-quality products but that’s nothing like true now and they have entire clusters of world-class product pipelines with long supply chains which would take a long time to bring back in stages.
The other problem seems even bigger: we don’t have many high-skill workers available, but our wages are high enough that anyone bringing manufacturing back is going to try to automate it as much as possible. That seems like a real bind for the Republicans’ isolationist strategy: exports will be down due to a trade war and a difficult price/value ratio in the areas other countries currently dominate, and if we’re heading into a more automated economy we’re going to have a growing number of people who won’t be able to afford to buy much. This seems like a vicious self-inflicted cycle if it gets rolling.
It's easier if contracts run on the same currency I think, your suppliers price in USD, you sell your products in USD, it's easier for a whole supply chain that way. I can imagine that fracturing or switching to Euro for things like manufacturing and semiconductors.
The US starts more wars until its eventual complete collapse. See The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. We're operating out of a playbook for imperial destruction word for word.
What are some better parallels? Seriously, no snark, please throw out some suggestions for reading. I can't think of any other country that has done this to itself.
Qing suffered a century of unequal treaties before they fell, they were the bullied and not the bully. (They were also medieval and isolationist which further hurts the comparison IMO).
Anybody who can (EU, Yuan) does not want to. Primairly because as export based economies, they want a weak currency in relation to a strong reserve (dollar) so they can make their goods more competitive, and also because surplus naturally appreciates a currency without central bank intervention via buying US treasuries to offset the appreciation. And for China, they're not going to accept the liberalized capital controls neede for it either.
So the answer is if the US dollars fail it would be global economic collapse and then chaos, but contrary to the rhetoric the rest of the world's economic systems are too uniquely vested in the USD to see it fail. As for gold, well we come to the same problem as noted above but worse, and in that situation the US actually holds the highest gold reserves so they still benefit the most out of it.
I would say the same on my old accounts too. I rotate accounts annually (it is january). I'm not anyone note worthy or famous, this account and my others are just as generic as any other HN commoner.
The petrodollar (a product of Kissinger) has been in collapse since Saudi Arabia began divesting from it.
We've been printing pretend money for quite some time, and supressing the value of precious metals (which is why you're now seeing silver bullion sell for $100+ an ounce). Copper is also selling out now.
These precious metals are extremely valuable because they're used to manufacture all of the technology consumers and nation states rely on daily. We're going to see a regression towards mercantilism and commodity hoarding. Most likely fiat will be abandoned in favor of crypto as we enter a new era of hyperinflation.
Gotta love HN - getting downvoted with no explanation, but most likely because the truth is uncomfortable and people would rather press the downvote button than face facts.
Probably some type of balanced trade. Holding each trade partners currency and balancing it at times. Or even between multiple holders and currency pairs.
If there is need you can now build very complicated systems as everything is digital anyway.
Maybe stable coins would be finally useful. Each currency has own stable coin and then they are automatically traded in massive market... /s
What is the theory of how the US Navy keeps the dollar the reserve currency, when the US has made itself a pariah state? What mechanism? Would the US Navy be doing piracy and demand protection money in dollars? Piracy payoffs would be a far far lower demand for dollars than there currently is and, and also greatly reduce all other trade with the US, further reducing demand for US dollars.
I think it works as a statement right up until you start an actual war, then the threat is gone. No point worrying US will invade if you don't support it economically, if it already invaded
If the US pisses enough countries off with this Greenland stuff that they shut down US bases around the world, that substantially curtails the US Navy's ability to be effective globally.
The argument made like that is an original argument bent backwards. The argument was that the US Navy guaranteed open shipping lanes and kept Pax Americana. Now we get closed shipping lanes and Bellum Americanum.
Navies appear to be obsolete (edit: I'll exempt ballistic missile subs from this statement, though.) You don't even need a navy of your own to sink another country's navy these days.
When $100M in armaments can take out a $10000M carrier, it's time to rethink things.
We finally realise there is no such thing as a “reserve currency” in the floating exchange rate era and that the concept is a long dead hangover from fixed exchange rates.
And that’s definitely going to upset the gold bugs.
(In reality lots of things are held in reserve)
USD is a routing currency that is used because it is cheaper than the mesh alternative. When it stops being cheaper whoever is then cheapest will get the routing transactions.
My local coin store was busier today than I've ever seen it (visit about once a quarter, for about a decade). Lots of people transacting silver — so much so that the buyback fees were about 50% more than usual — and yet people were primarily turning silver/USD into gold (myself included).
When you consider that historically our US fiat has been 65:1 (Au:Ag), it's scary to see the ratio back around the levels when Bretton Woods was implemented (50:1, 1930s-1960s). It's even scarier to see the rapid rate we are approaching to-when USD was gold-backed (22:1), considering that less than two years ago it was over 100:1 .
----
What else is a fiat-based country supposed to do after creating all these unfunded pensions/liabilities ?— ¡¿..then to inflate away the guaranteed difference..?!
Out of curiosity, what are the transaction costs like for buying and selling physical gold/silver? I would imagine it to be quite costly, especially compared with spreads on equities.
I've wondered if maybe large metals funds get better rates, but also have no idea.
>what are the transaction costs like for buying and selling physical gold/silver?
This depends on soooo many factors (mainly: mint, store, and your relationship(s) within). I buy and sell both stocks and bullion on long-term (years), and am typically only selling when I get over-extended on a project (construction renovations) and absolutely need liquidity [e.g: today's visit]. Young-forty-something.
But today at my US coin store (in a no-tax state), you could buy/sell a Canadian Mapleleaf (an ounce of 99.99% gold in easily-recognizable coin format) for 2.5% spot. For real physical gold that you can hold & hear (isn't fake/heavily-leveraged "paper gold").
I never recommend anybody transacts less than an ounce because the fees rapidly increase on smaller denominations (e.g. tenths are fee-prohibitive, other than as less-expensive gifts for recent graduates). Buy ounce coins, long-term, at regular intervals (no timing the market, only time IN the market!).
Silver is a wildcard, at least at my local shops. Today it cost me 6.5% to unload a few hundred ounces — which sucks, but shops are buying lots of silver right now given its recent increases; this increases their risk (should the market correct, which it probably will around $100 IMHO). Typically this would have been about 4.5% — still, I more than quadrupled my original investment (from just a few years ago).
So definitely you shouldn't be buying/selling bullion short term (fees will eat you alive!) — but it is always nice to have an emergency fund that isn't fiat (i.e. losing value guaranteed) but is also immediately convertible back into currency (no mail / ACH / bank delays).
I have about a year of my normal income in physical bullion. Most I've been holding on to for years — which is how you should transact physical metals. Timing any market is impossible... it doesn't always even rhyme.
Disclaimer: I am a forty-something electrician — not your financial advisor — and am the type of risk-taker that has "stupidly" taken 10% of his paycheck in bitcoin/bullion, since 2013.
Keep in mind that there are many such 10 to 100 billion funds and they can move very fast if they have to. If the feeling is that the value of the USD is going to be lower in the near future they will divest and before you know it the threat becomes reality simply because it is predicated on a belief. Kill the belief and the actions will follow automatically. This could be the first and it could be the only or it could be the first of many.
Dollar is the exception because the US is the exception (partially from luck, partially from its inherited geographical advantage), not the other way around.
What do you mean? All the best companies the world have seen recently is in US though. Google, Apple, Nvidia to name a few. What am I missing in your argument?
They're implying that the US is exceptional due to its access to cheap credit, not due to some inherent superiority. Your comment listing off successful american companies seems to agree with him if anything. Maybe you misread the comment and got a little defensive?
I personally have dumped every single US security I held in the last 2 years, US bonds have been the latest to go in the last week.
Mind you I'm a small investor (my portfolio is 100k-ish euros). I'm still exposed to US securities through ETFs though, as I have 3 different ones holding US companies, but that I ain't gonna sell them.
But for new capital I may as well provide it to others.
I'm not dumping US, but since Trump got back into power, all new investment goes into ex-US funds to help balance what was previously a portfolio over-reliant on US stocks. I'm based in Canada.
For context foreign total holdings are around 9T and domestic around 30T. Uk and japan are the largest foreign holders at around 1.7T between them. This is a 100M divestment.
We don’t need tax cuts, we need higher taxes and less spending on the rich&old. Our welfare system is completely backwards, if you are facing declining fertility and struggling young people - you don’t continue to tax the young to spend on the wealthier generation.
Unfortunately most young people don’t realize they are being hoodwinked and so poll extremely supportive of this scheme.
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 debt hawks are very wrong about the fundamentals of currency, but they are less dangerous than the war hawks in the White House to the US's economic future.
It's one thing to do a epically stupid invasion of Iraq on faked intelligence, which ally support. It's another thing entirely to invade allies. It will totally end US dominance in the world.
"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.
Congress passed a tax cut last year for the wealthiest as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill (“OBBB”) that increases the debt by $1T-$4T over ten years. What taxation by both parties?
The US pays $800B/year to service debt. It pays $800B-$1T/year for the military. What would you like cut that is discretionary? There appears to be no appetite to raise taxes on the wealthy, pay down debt, and reduce military spending. So US credit card go brrr. We’ll hit a debt spiral eventually.
In "defense" of Republicans, the MAIN reason for deficit increasing under Republicans is that their administrations often end with some type of economic disaster. Their increased spending is part of the picture, but not as responsible as the impacts from final year recessions.
It's a great indicator of how much of the American public's sentiment on everything is driven by marketing.
Just say "Fiscal responsibility" enough times and it's magically true, and nobody will listen to the educated people pointing at literal receipts because they are "the elites", which is a group that somehow doesn't include the people who's wealth has grown 10x based on explicitly pro-rich person fiscal policy for decades.
It's why they blame democrats for "globalism" as well, despite the fact that the entire country loudly voted for Reagan because of his "lets reduce taxes and magically get rich" narrative.
Or how it's constantly said that "Democrats turned their back on blue collar workers". Said by people voting for the "Unions are inherently bad" party.
Everything about American behavior makes sense when you understand them as especially prone to swallowing marketing and ideology as truth.
Well, the unsophisticated and low education keep voting for Republicans, so what do? If you’re an individual, if you can, the best you can do is be prepared to get out and not have exposure to the US financially or from a tax perspective. Otherwise you’re stuck going over the cliff economically with the lemmings due to an uneducated, unsophisticated, vibe driven electorate and a suboptimal political and governance system lacking sufficient checks and balances to prevent this outcome.
Maybe we’re lucky and adults come back into power, but hope alone is not a strategy. No one is coming to save you, prepare accordingly. I have prepared accordingly to decouple from the US entirely as a citizen, if necessary. It’s regrettable and I have no other solution for those inquiring. You can’t control the winds, but you can adjust your sails. My genuine condolences and sympathies if one cannot escape the US either via income, wealth, or some form of visa (lineage, family, work, etc).
so 100% of your savings are in foreign companies that don't have US as a client, plus BTC, and you have dual citizenship already plus don't own your own home?
I own a residence outright in a European country, I have invested in a golden visa fund (renewables) that will provide my family European citizenship after five years, I am financially independent with a minority of my portfolio in US exposure, and I have built a network of folks who will employ me anywhere globally in almost any currency I choose. I hold no crypto while also holding at least a year of expenses in Euros. We have applied for and received permanent residency in Mexico as well (no upkeep cost, the only thing we can't do is vote). Even without a golden visa, Spain will allow you to apply for a digital nomad visa with a three year term from within the country while a tourist (for any employment sourced at least 80% out of the country), and with one two year extension, will then allow you permanent residency after five years (for example; there are many paths to an exit, citations below, and most of the developed world is hungry for skilled labor).
Through the actions above, I feel that I have diversified away from the US sufficiently for my risk appetite. I don't feel I need to renounce my US citizenship currently (due to foreign earned income exclusions), but I am also prepared for that in the future if necessary.
Resources for others I have assembled helping folks exit:
“I’m a real estate developer, I look at a corner, I say, ‘I’ve got to get that store for the building that I’m building,’ etc. It’s not that different. I love maps. And I always said: ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States.’”
Feels like the exception to the rule that Mercator has no impact. Probably not coincidence it involves the head of state whose arguments that Northern California could water Southern California appears to stem from belief that water flowing from north to south is going downhill all the way :)
Mercator projection aside, Greenland is not tiny. The ice-free area is about as big as California. If you include the icy areas, it's bigger than any U.S. state.
Feels like the right direction, pull all European money from the US, hope that financial and economical consequences convince US citizens to deal with their president as he deserves. It will decrease profits short term but certainly will have less negative impact than letting that guy in power.
There are differences though. First the US is still a democracy, so unhappy voters matter (and there are the midterms which is an opportunity to express unhappiness). Second the ties between Europe and US are greater than they were between Europe and Russia, so probably this could have more impact.
> "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.
Not a political decision. Still a bad sign for the US, but not really unexpected.
This sundering of US-European relationship feels like watching a trainwreck in slowmotion. It's all so stupid and avoidable. Is there really nothing that can be done?
Can people quit with this stupid argument? A thin majority of Americans voted for this during the election. If you follow the polls, the vast majority of American currently don't want this. Just stop with this "dumb Americans" dur dur nonsense. Those of us who have our heads screwed on straight are so sick of being blamed for this. The same thing could happen at any time in any country.
Not really. They can say "we shouldn't have taken this"[0], they can decide the case in a way that doesn't really offer any precedent (eg: these are the wrong plaintiffs to have brought the case), or they can remand it back to a lower court for more info. Prediction markets seem to think there's a 70% chance they'll strike down the tariffs though.
Hopefully they'll sell off their Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and other US equity holdings too. Part of the reason US equities are so expensive is massive foreign inflows. Foreign divestment of US equities would mean more Americans could buy them up cheap.
Side topic: I absolutely hate these large “Allow Ads” screen - you can’t even go back on iPhone Safari , which hides the interface unless the user pulls down the whole page - which you can’t because you can only pull down the Allow Ads page.
Trump will be a lame duck soon, and it's likely that the next president will be far less extreme. Some sense of American normalcy will likely return relatively soon.
The Monroe Doctrine stated, under Polk, that the Euros should not interfere with territorial expansionism of the US in the Western hemisphere, even if it came at their expense.
The Roosevelt Corollary stated likewise the US would police any Latin American country's mismanagement.
Yet, all these people are proclaiming a certain person a warmonger instead of completely in line with historical US policy.
I keep repeating myself: Back up your iCloud pictures via privacy.apple.com and move your mails away from M365. Worst case these things get blocked/deleted.
I moved my mails from M365 to a 2€ Hetzner cloud server in one day, it's quite easy with docker-compose apps like mailcow. Plus you have encryption and less errors when using thunderbird.
Many will downvote this, but this is profound validation of the concern that Europe is nearly suicidally trending toward what will be a disastrous relationship with China. Only the US seems to appreciate the risks. Complete insanity, not unlike German denuclearization, etc.
Someone should tell the orange guy that we can also stop respecting our obligations. It’s a two way street. It would be a shame if something happened to your ITAR-protected secrets, for example. The US would lose a lot of leverage if they cannot use European military bases. Let’s see how fast Trump goes to bed with Putin…
Oh, I know. Let’s see how fast he tries to make Putin the good guy on Fox News. What are these rednecks going to do when MAGA goes into bed with Ruzzians! Cold War warriors gonna flip out.
Just impeach the guy already. His mental capabilities aren’t far off Biden’s at the end.
> What are these rednecks going to do when MAGA goes into bed with Ruzzians! Cold War warriors gonna flip out.
I'm assuming you're from outside the US, because literally everyone in the US is well-acquainted with MAGA wearing shirts like "better Russian than a Democrat"
“I want a Nobel prize”. Who asked for help in fucking Iraq up, and got it? Who needed help in Afghanistan, and got it? Oh yeah, we’re not respecting. We’re not respecting the orange bully toddler clown, my fellow dear human being. One day like this, another day the opposite. Just impeach the imbecile so we can all do productive stuff. Where are you going to sell your shit saas when you push us off the cliff? The Ruzzians? Putin, or the guy after him, is going to do you the same way he did Europe. He’s going to lure you, then snap two decades later. But dream on, dreamer.
“You are already not respecting your obligations” is rich from a guy with a Dutch phone number. You have some split personality right there. Make your mind up about where you are.
This divestment is so little and with so little aim.
The whole situation is been caused by a single guy and 400 enablers, whereas the US is a 400 million people country.
The correct form of reaction is a punch in the face during a bilateral meeting, Zelensky came close to doing it but unfortunately he resisted his impulse , that's where the epicenter of all newly generated global problems in the last 10 years lies, in that octogenarian brian of his.
Why don't you go up and punch him in the face yourself? Especially if the problem is just one man and 400 enablers hat should be trivial. Just find 1000 people to beat them up.
In reality that one man is backed by half of the US voters, the Republican Party a lot of rich and powerful people, a clear majority of the police forces and an unknown part of the US military.
Hilary Clinton could have literally entered office and done nothing, and still be better for the American people than the current admin, which is making life more difficult every week for not just Americans, but a good part of the whole world. But hey, the libs were owned, so I guess that's good or something.
>Hilary Clinton could have literally entered office and done nothing
Like Keir Starmer has in the UK. He got elected for saying nothing too. Country didn't get much worse. Maybe we should have 5 years off changes now and then?
No, I do not even think people like DeSantis or Ted Cruz would have been worse. Trump was one of the worst possible candidates the US voters could pick.
The plunge around 2001 wasn't caused by 9/11, and was orchestrated a bit before. Since Clinton managed to cut a lot of spending (both due to his governance and global economics) and reduce some tax avoidance schemes, the US budget had a surplus, so the Bush admin implemented a lot of tax cuts. 9/11 and the following wars didn't had any positive impact, but without the Bush tax cuts, the US budget would still have a surplus in 2003 before the Iraq war
It's not like the EU can go to China for the $64 to $94bn in mineral fuels and oils (LNG, crude oil) they import from the U.S. Or the aerospace products and parts $35-46bn they import. Or the $45-$52bn in pharmaceuticals and medicines and advanced biologics (unless they go all in on generics, but this is only part of that sum). The list goes on and on. Germany trying to reboot their nuclear energy infrastructure, but it's a bit too late to help this winter, and they're the third largest consumer in the world after the US and and China. India is 8th.
The US imports a lot from Mexico, 15.5% of the total $3.36 trillion of US import, right here in the Americas. The EU about imports are about 18.5%.
Merz's mother-of-all-deals needs to have India lower its imposed tariffs on Germany of 100-150% on autos, which would cut against India if the new FTA goes through by Q2 2026.
May you live in interesting times is a wish or curse coming to fruition...
Not in one year no, but in 5-10 years, certainly. Solar is cheaper than coal in China today and they blew through their capacity targets. I was just there and the EV adoption is phenomenal. The buses, even some heavy trucks are EV.
If this pace keeps up for 10 years I don’t see how methane will be useful in the energy sector. Let’s face it, we’re investing in a dying industry. In 20 years our kids (or grandkids) will laugh at any country burning methane to make electricity.
