Amid rising geopolitical tensions, discussions have surfaced about potential economic countermeasures by European NATO nations, Canada, and China, particularly regarding US Treasury securities., Economy, Times Now
Show me where I said that European governments owned no US debt, please. I said that it was mostly owned by private agents in Europe. The keyword here is mostly. Mainly. For the greatest part. Predominantly. Don’t change the terms of the discussion now that you feel cornered.
Of course the UK, Luxembourg, France or Ireland own US bonds. But what is owned by European countries is largely dwarfed by what’s owned in European countries. Not a word in the Congress’s document contradict that, and I provided a source that you conveniently ignored.
So if the European countries sold what they own directly, the effect would be weak. For this idea to work, they’d have to make private agents cooperate, and I don’t think they can.
I’m not the respondee but you may want to reread that post. they use the word mainly there to indicate most but not all. You are risking cherry picking the argument. By what I see it, the wording for “only exception” since the word mainly is used, would indicate that the only major exception would be, not the “only exception” would be.
That’s how I read it anyway.
regardless though, the entire theory is silly anyway, doing what the original article suggests would also send the world into a global recession and would be the a classic case of shooting your own foot in an attempt to harm the opponent.
ammendum/post addition: regardless of who owns it though, the outcome is still unlikely. For government it would be political suicide in democratic countries, and for private sector it would be a massive financial dumpster fire. I think finding alternative export/import partners is far more likely to happen than something of the scale the article posts
It’s the last line. Where they say it is owned by governments just not European ones. That’s just wrong. They do own some of it. How much is up for debate but to say they don’t is wrong.
Also agree they probably won’t do anything with it as using it as a lever will also damage global markets, increase the overall cost of debt and impact all the economies involved.
However the world seems so fucking mental at the moment. So who’s to say it won’t happen.
Also I do wonder if China might do it with theirs just because they can, to flex their muscles or as a big fuck you to the US.
I counted, I say 5 times “mainly” or a variation of “mainly” in our discussion and I wrote one ambiguous (if taken out of context) sentence. You’re trying to save face at this point.
Again your own post. You do put a couple of maybes in there but then say the only exception is Norway and finish with a very unambiguous final sentence that EU governments do not own US government debt.
It’s not me that’s trying to save face by bringing a load of maybes into it. You were wrong. EU governments do own US debt.
Just the last two sentences again since you seem to be a bit thick
I put no maybes. I put mainlies. Do you understand the difference?
It’s easy to take a sentence without context and making it say something else, but it’s a bad faith argument. You only discussed in bad faith until now.
Show me where I said that European governments owned no US debt, please. I said that it was mostly owned by private agents in Europe. The keyword here is mostly. Mainly. For the greatest part. Predominantly. Don’t change the terms of the discussion now that you feel cornered.
Of course the UK, Luxembourg, France or Ireland own US bonds. But what is owned by European countries is largely dwarfed by what’s owned in European countries. Not a word in the Congress’s document contradict that, and I provided a source that you conveniently ignored.
So if the European countries sold what they own directly, the effect would be weak. For this idea to work, they’d have to make private agents cooperate, and I don’t think they can.
Here we go your own post where you sat they weren’t owned by European governments. Only Norway
I’m not the respondee but you may want to reread that post. they use the word mainly there to indicate most but not all. You are risking cherry picking the argument. By what I see it, the wording for “only exception” since the word mainly is used, would indicate that the only major exception would be, not the “only exception” would be.
That’s how I read it anyway.
regardless though, the entire theory is silly anyway, doing what the original article suggests would also send the world into a global recession and would be the a classic case of shooting your own foot in an attempt to harm the opponent.
ammendum/post addition: regardless of who owns it though, the outcome is still unlikely. For government it would be political suicide in democratic countries, and for private sector it would be a massive financial dumpster fire. I think finding alternative export/import partners is far more likely to happen than something of the scale the article posts
It’s the last line. Where they say it is owned by governments just not European ones. That’s just wrong. They do own some of it. How much is up for debate but to say they don’t is wrong.
Also agree they probably won’t do anything with it as using it as a lever will also damage global markets, increase the overall cost of debt and impact all the economies involved.
However the world seems so fucking mental at the moment. So who’s to say it won’t happen.
Also I do wonder if China might do it with theirs just because they can, to flex their muscles or as a big fuck you to the US.
I counted, I say 5 times “mainly” or a variation of “mainly” in our discussion and I wrote one ambiguous (if taken out of context) sentence. You’re trying to save face at this point.
Again your own post. You do put a couple of maybes in there but then say the only exception is Norway and finish with a very unambiguous final sentence that EU governments do not own US government debt.
It’s not me that’s trying to save face by bringing a load of maybes into it. You were wrong. EU governments do own US debt.
Just the last two sentences again since you seem to be a bit thick
I put no maybes. I put mainlies. Do you understand the difference?
It’s easy to take a sentence without context and making it say something else, but it’s a bad faith argument. You only discussed in bad faith until now.
Ha ok to put mainly rather than maybe. A typo by me.
Again you did say mainly. Apart from the section where you said it was only Norway and then that no EU governments owned US debt.
Your post again.
“Only Norway” which you then clarify isn’t EU. Then a whole sentence that clearly says that EU governments don’t own any US debt.
Just can’t admit that post was wrong huh.