• gasgiant@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Here we go your own post where you sat they weren’t owned by European governments. Only Norway

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          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

          • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            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.

            • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              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.

              • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                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

                • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  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.

                  • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    30 minutes ago

                    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.