You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Again, your table doesn't differentiate public and private ownership. You obviously don't understand the numbers you're sending. Citing page 1 of your own link:
Both financial institutions and individual investors are private. So your link is totally irrelevant to our discussion (as you would know if you had read it). Yes, for example Luxembourg holds $423.9 billions, but do tou actually think the Luxembourgian state owns it? Of course not! Luxembourg is a trading place where a lot of holdings are based. These holdings hold the far biggest part of those billions. It's the same with the UK (the London City is another trading place with a lot of holdings). And most of European countries.
As far as I know, the US Treasury doesn't communicate on this, so we don't have strict numbers. But it's a well-known thing, as stated the Financial Times recently:
I'd love for Europe to have this kind of power, but we simply don't have it (we have others however, like the “commercial bazooka”).
The section you've quoted that line from is only talking about privately owned US debt.
As you can see from the actual beginning of the paragraph rather than picking out the words you like at the end.
As I've already posted and mentioned right at the start of the pdf
See where it says 44.2% are held by foreign governments. Governments.
In the document from Congress.
About their own national debt ownership breakdown.
Then when we look at the country breakdown of ownership of this debt later on there are plenty of European nations in there.
The beginning of the paragraph changes nothing. Two different sentences can have two different meaning; the text says “in the US and abroad”.
Again that's a worldwide average. It's not equally distributed. Prove me wrong instead of repeating your error.
Again, this table mixes public and private investors and is then irrelevant. Prove me wrong instead of repeating your error.
Nope your turn to prove that none of this debt is owned by European governments.
I've provided the most reputable source that says the debt is owned by governments and within their breakdown it says some of those countries are European.
It doesn't provide a detailed breakdown of private Vs government for these countries but no where does it say that is debt is only privately owned in European nations.
You need to prove that or stop talking nonsense.
Although not technically part of the EU anymore the UK government has confirmed a number of times that it owns US debt. Other nations will certainly do this as well.
Unless you can provide a source that says that no European governments own US debt you're just making things up.
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.