hckrnws

This is very good. An economist who understands that you shouldn't dazzle yourself with numbers and instead look at the real movement of goods and obligations. One quibble:

> Higher interest rates encourage domestic spending,

Shouldn't that be higher rates encourage domestic saving? Low rates encourage debt-driven spending, high rates put a higher premium on deferring consumption and saving instead. Other than that everything in this article is directionally correct.

Coda: https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/spread/greece-10-years-...

Just now, Greek bonds are deemed a lower risk investment than US government bonds, because the tariff announcement has spooked the market.

The Republicans are not going to cut the debt: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vnnv6n29no they're going to do deficit funded tax cuts again. The tried and tested Liz Truss budget.

I think that interest rates in the context is congruent to inflation.

High inflation encourages spending (... Before consumer goods become more expensive)

> Shouldn't that be higher rates encourage domestic saving?

In context - going from reading the sentence to the entire paragraph - I think the proper interpretation is that spending will be redirected from buying foreign goods to buying domestic goods. So to synthesise the perspectives, the budget deficits and therefore total spending decline but that is nonetheless coupled with an increase in local spending because foreigners refuse to be involved.

I dont understand. Common people buy into credit card debt because its easy. Interest rates be damned.

Supreme court of India stayed earlier decision of another authority to impose cap of interest rate at 36% saying free market.

This might be true for institutions and governments but many people dont decide to save if interest goes from 8 to 8.5%

> The Republicans are not going to cut the debt

Well, they are also massively cutting state worker jobs. Plus the tariffs will bring in tax money as well. I'm not sure what the net effect will be of these together with the tax cuts.

There are some important caveats to that logic: - the share of the budget spending from these worker cuts is minuscule, even the overall cost of all federal worker is a small percentage of spending, the bulk of spending is in entitlements and defense + debt repayment from deficit spending (which tax cuts always increase) - if tariffs work at making manufacturing come back to the US then the tariff revenues will decrease since fewer products will be imported, and while they are in effect they are a tax increase which will slow down economic activity since they will directly affect consumer spending (unlike a tax increase on high earners would)

The Kalshi market for this has had 2:1 odds against them even reducing government spending, let alone lower the annual deficit (and lessening the debt is right out).

The last Republican president that managed to cut annual spending was Eisenhower. (Obama and Biden both pulled it off twice though.)

That's like cutting off your feet to save weight in a running race.

Yes, those government workers cost money, but no, cutting them will not improve the fiscal situation in the USA. The jobs are not being cut in anything even close to a thoughtful or intelligent way.

Even putting aside the obviously moronic ones like getting rid of IRS staff who bring in truckloads of money for pennies of spending, most of these cuts are just going to cause more chaos and inefficiencies than they prevent. E.g. USAID may seem like 'waste' to sociopathic creitns, but it also serves a very deliberate purpose in furthering the USA'S interests abroad and keeping the international community aligned with the USA and open to US businesses

It's definitely not an easy answer. Cutting the involvement, or the support given by the state in everyday lives can have about any support for the individuals. And this goes beyond the impersonal numbers of the "tax money", with longer term effects we just don't really know yet. I also argument that the current administration doesn't care about the long term effects on the little guy, but maybe that's just me.

I found the linked article hard to follow. I think he was trying to write in a very colloquial manner but still using some terms of art in a way that is specific to his field. Maybe someone could help me figure out a couple passages?

"Chinese savers did not want even more Chinese factories. One of many reasons for this saving (more later, but it helps to make the story) is that China is aging and has little safety net, so its middle age workers want to put money aside, to withdraw when they get old. So, those savers chose to invest in the US."

"From the US side, we are investing more than we are saving. China, in effect, wants to send us factories. But China doesn’t make portable factories. It’s great at making consumer goods. So China sends us consumer goods so that we can build our own factories without lowering consumption."

First, I'm finding it hard to believe that Chinese "middle age workers" are driving a significant portion of the investment in the US. Is this possibly true? Maybe he means that they put their yuan-denominated savings in local banks, and then the banks convert this to invest in US securities?

And I thought that economists usually distinguished between "saving" (capital preservation) and "investing" (capital growth) but at least in the first quote he seems to be using them as synonyms. But in the first sentence of the second quote, he is definitely distinguishing the two.

But what does "China, in effect, wants to send us factories" mean? Is he equating buying US stocks with "send us factories"? This would be a strange usage if the majority of the investment is in big existing tech companies selling software and services. Or is this just a confusing and complicated way of saying they "want" a strong dollar?

Can anyone help me parse these passages as they were intended?

I’ve always been a “time in the market” is better than “timing the market” guy, but I find myself questioning that a ton in the current climate. When US bond yields started rising in the current market calamity, I was not surprised but definitely alarmed. As a “retirement saver” (not trader), what’s the best strategic hedge at the moment?

Retirement savers should never react to the news cycle.

Even if you make a good trade and your hedge protects you from a downturn, you've "broken the seal" on trading. Amateur traders almost always lose money in the long run, and once you make a bunch of money on your first trade it's hard to stop. Like the curse of beginners luck on slot machines.

I agree. I guess my question was more focused on asset allocation in an era when the world seems to be moving away from the traditional relationship with the United States.

It depends which series of risks (or sequences) trouble you. Global diversification, in this instance has proven problematic - as evident by the varying (related) drops.

Personally, I view my market investments as already fixed. I'd like a non-correlated asset, which means I'm looking at real estate. In my case, this goal isn't growth, inasmuch as defensive capital, or forced savings. I have the exposures you do, but added several, multi currency risks.

International diversification.

Can you explain more? The tariffs hit other country's stock markets harder than the USA's, as the trade represents a significant portion of a country's GDP.

I guess the answer is to diversify away from the USA trade? But then to what?

The question is if you consider yourself an active trader, ie. how do I optimize a trading path to maximum payoff, or if you are a passive investor.

If does not sound like you are an active investor?

For "paper assets" I apply, and would recommend, lifetime investment in a global, well diversified portfolio. Ie. I adjust my risk tolerance with leverage and not by picking positions. There is no reason why commodities, metals, crypto should not be a part of your "paper asset" portfolio. (I call it paper assets as "stocks" seems to mean ownership in companies, which is a bit too narrow - there are ETFs for most of this stuff)

Housing is a personal question. As an investment it usually does not pay off and compares to stock picking / active trading.

> The tariffs hit other country's stock markets harder than the USA's

... Did they? Which countries? What made you think that?

S&P500 is down about 9% YTD. FTSE250 (UK) down about 8% (but that's in pounds, and the pound is up 5% on the dollar). Shanghai Composite Index(China) is down 2.5%. Stoxx 600 (Eurozone, broadly) is down 1.5% YTD. The only big one where what you say _appears_ to be the case is the Nikkei 225 (Japan), which is down 15%... but remember that it's denominated in yen, and the dollar's down over 8% vs yen in the same time.

As far as I can see, the only way you could even pretend this was the case would be by ignoring the decline of the dollar, and even _if_ you ignore the decline of the dollar that only really works for Japan, not Europe or China.

Rising federal bond yields make them a better investment, more or less by definition, unless you're genuinely worried about default.

But that said, I don't think (again, sort of definitionally) there is a "best strategic hedge" in the face of a trade war. In trade wars everyone loses. You can't meaningfully bet against a shrinkage of the global economy in aggregate.

I haven’t viewed default as a real risk beyond some true craziness happening like the U.S. willfully deciding to default on a payment. Better yields are a good incentive to buy bonds now but they simultaneously lower the value and desirability of exiting bond holdings. They’re also correlated to inflationary risks, so I guess it depends on your outlook on the future of the dollar too.

> I haven’t viewed default as a real risk beyond some true craziness happening like the U.S. willfully deciding to default on a payment.

Well there are many ways to default, and many shades of default.

I can very well see the current administration argue that China, for whatever reason, owes the US, and thus should be compensated by confiscating bonds.

It is surprising that with all the new uncertainty around the future of the USA, that in dollar terms, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 are both still traded higher than a year ago.

Gold is up 36%. Not that much.

Bitcoin is up 29%. Also not that much.

Is the uncertainty not yet priced in?

STOXX Europe 600 is down 2%. Shouldn't it increase in value? European companies will earn less in a recession, but I would think investors do not want to invest solely in bonds, gold and bitcoin. So I would expect a shift of a lot of capital into European equities once investors fully digest the new uncertainty in the US.

Is there any potential upside to US equities I am missing?

> in dollar terms, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 are both still traded higher than a year ago.

The key here is "in dollar terms". EURxUSD is up 10% year to date.

If you were a European investor buying the SP500, you would have lost 10% more on FX rate on top of your SP500 loss.

The uncertainty is not in the US.

The uncertainty is in the global reserve currency that is used to price every transaction and structure terms of every contract.

The tariff panic is the straw that broke the back of an already over stressed, over leveraged system.

If equities are doing 'well' it's because some of the really strong companies may be able to persevere through all the chaos. I don't think most people will be able to predict which companies those will be.

With money itself broken I wouldn't want to hold onto too much physical cash or bonds. There will be many sovereign defaults (or money printing - which is just as much of a default). Gold and bitcoin will still exist after we get through this chaotic period and therefore many people are rotating into those assets.

I think one of the key things here is that those prices are denominated in dollars. If the real value of dollars falls, so does the value of those equities. If the nominal price falls, and the unit of measurement is falling at the same time, the actual value of represented has fallen more (potentially a lot more) than it seems like at first glance. There’s been a lot of inflation over the past couple of years, and it’s likely that this period will contribute even further.

I also think that the uncertainty hasn’t been fully priced in yet. I think that traders are hoping that this all blows over.

It is irksome that the goldbugs are right (at the moment) and the best performing asset in my UK portfolio recently has been gold half-sovereigns. Oh, and of course my house.

> Oh, and of course my house.

It is so frustrating explaining to people that for the ordinary folks who only own one home or even a dozen homes, it is NOT a good thing that home values are reliably trending up over time.

If you own thousands, sure. But everybody needs somewhere to live do if you own one home, you don't really come up on top.

And if house prices are lower, it’s cheaper for you to get a better house. I always try to think of our house as ‘well, no matter the economy at least we own a house to live in’ rather than think of its monetary value.

House prices being higher are good if you are planning to downgrade when the children leave the nest though. Or I guess if you reverse-mortgage it when you retire.

If they all rose the same equally everywhere you'd have a point, but that's not really the case. If your home in Palo Alto goes from 750k to 3M and a house in Arizona goes from 250k to 550k you benefit by selling your house in Palo Alto and moving to Arizona.

Homevalues trending up act as a force savings account with 1-4% interest.

Most people spend the money they have in their bank account, which is terrible for their later years.

>But everybody needs somewhere to live do if you own one home, you don't really come up on top.

Versus paying someone rent your whole life? You absolutely do.

Thank you for proving how hard it is to get across to people. I don't want to discourage home ownership. On the contrary, I want home ownership to be easier. However, that requires homes to be abundant and cheaper.

We can't have both:

1. Cheap, affordable housing for everyone

2. Housing as a stable investment that keeps going up in value forever

One of these two has to give.

Yes, the way to do it is to tax investment properties. Many states already do that through the homestead exemption though.

https://www.quickenloans.com/learn/homestead-exemption

Another problem is everyone wants to live in the same few places. Missouri's average house costs around $250, which is pretty reasonable, it's just a lot of people don't want to live in Missouri.

https://www.zillow.com/home-values/32/mo/

The housing market in Detroit is even cheaper: $76K for an average home, what a steal!

https://www.zillow.com/home-values/17762/detroit-mi/

If you think you're going to get cheap home prices in places Silicon Valley or NYC, it's just not going to happen because everyone wants to live there.

Isn't the stock market detached from the dividends that the corresponding stock provides in comparison to the obligation market? People are holding stocks, hoping they are going to be the first ones to leave when the boat sinks.

>the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 are both still traded higher than a year ago.

That's how inflation works.

That's why I just added Gold and Bitcoin. If we compare with those assets that have lower inflation, it is still just a reduction in equity prices of 30%.

If there is so much new potential downside and no upside - shouldn't equities trade at least 50% lower?

You're underestimating how big a deal 30% is; it'd be like deleting California and saying that just 15% of the US economy had disappeared. It represents a capital allocation misstep of titanic proportions.

-30% is a big deal.

But in 2008 we saw the S&P-500 decline 50%. And the Nasdaq-100 30%.

In 2000 the S&P-500 and the Nasdaq-100 both declined 80%.

In dollar terms.

To me it seems that the 2000 dotcom decline and the 2008 financial crisis were once in a decade events and now we are witnessing a once in a lifetime event.

I think anyone who tells you they can make sense of what's happening is being overconfident.

I definitely see where you're coming from expecting a bigger drop, I guess the key thing is that nobody yet is sure what the future of the latest pretty major anouncements looks like, we're currently just seeing bets.

It's possible that tariffs stay high, and US companies like Apple and Nike that depend on global supply chains either relocate, or become outcompeted by foreign companies. In that scenario, I think we'd see a major drop in indexes like the S&P-500, probably out doing the financial crisis in 2008.

It's also possible that the tariffs end up being an overblown bargaining chip, or get walked back as the current US administration realises they are unpopular and loses interest in them. In that case, you'd probably see the S&P take a hit because of the uncertainty, but it's not the same as US companies all finding their supply chains are unworkable.

So I guess the tldr is, shrug, who knows? We're just seeing the market guessing at the moment, the actual economic damage will happen over the next year as things progress more clearly.

> But in 2008 we saw the S&P-500 decline 50%

This is not true unless you define 2008 as including 2007 and 2009 as well.

The market is not efficient in the short term.

> it is still just a reduction in equity prices of 30%.

quantity has a quality of its own. Systems react to large changes. 30% drop without good reason for the drop, just because of a political will of small group (as even the wide field of the Trump supporters seem to be surprised by the scale of the action), is large. And given how fast it happened, the system is only starting to react. Even some Republicans started to move about stripping tariff power from President. The Republicans are going to be judged on the tariff effect in 1.5 years - too little time for any good, if any at all supposed to come, effects, more than enough for the bad ones. And Trump is wiggling and backtracking too. People have always been saying that the Big Money rule the politics. We seem to be testing that theory right now as the Big Money got seriously hit, and we're going to see how much power they have.

36% is MASSIVE for a metal treated primarily as a store of value.

Frankly there's not much gleaned from stock prices over a short term. The market can be very reactive to events, but then quickly recover once the "new normal" is established.

There are certainly indications that the economy will contract (but by low single digits at worst.) 30% swings in stocks represent either highly inflated valuations before, or radically different outlooks after. That may be true for a stock here or there, but not the market as a whole.

The US bond market is a more interesting signal. That will affect future-debt cost, and that significantly moves the needle.

    Frankly there's not much gleaned from stock prices over a short term

You're talking about an individual stock price. I'm talking about the market.

Put another way, your strategy completely works because stocks (as a market) trend upward. You'd want to better define "above" and "below" (because, transaction costs) and you'd also want to consider the period (100 days).

Firstly the market was heavily inflated by hyped shit in the last year so past performance was bad but the numbers went up. Then there’s the currency situation which masks a lot of the decline.

There’s a bunch of locked in shares and some of the high holding investment companies don’t give a crap as long as their AUM rank stays the same. They make money on fees still.

On top of that to sell you need buyers. That is not a problem for low volume traders but big holders won’t be able to shift lots. So the big ETFs, while the market position would be better to sell now, they can’t.

Gold isn’t a good bet either. What’s the betting when people ask for it, the answer is no.

There is no upside, just a slow deflation which isn’t as bad as some sensationalists expect. That isn’t a reason to crow about the current state. It’s like saying you’re cured because the first round of chemo was successful.

Unfortunately this article begins by poisoning the well with the Greek example, and I kept reading hoping the author would either explain why despite the major difference between the Greece and US situations there are still lessons to be learnt, but the article doesn’t even mention the difference.

The #1 difference, which at the very least has to be explained if you don’t even consider it relevant, is that Greece couldn’t print Euros whereas the U.S. does print dollars.

The fact that they could write the entire article without even mentioning this difference frankly makes it suspect to say the least.

But there are so many other issues.

- The author keeps treating currency as debt. And while it’s true at some level, currency is not debt. Because currency can be created. Borrowing in your own currency means you can simply print more currency if you need to.

This isn’t a good thing, because your currency would plummet in value and you wouldn’t be able to buy anything from abroad, but that’s what these tariffs are trying to do anyways! The tariffs are realizing the possible but not likely worst case scenario from the future now, in the most obnoxious way that alienates allies and makes the country immediately poorer for no good reason.

- China is buying assets. Trillions of dollars worth. And yet we don’t see those trillions of dollars worth of property and U.S. assets owned by the Chinese government? Why is that? Where is the massive purchase of U.S. assets by foreign governments the author threatens will happen?

There isn’t any such thing because the assets the Chinese are buying is the US dollar. This is where reserve currency status comes in. The author links to an article about the reserve currency supposedly not being all it’s cracked up to be (and one can have that discussion), but never even addresses what it means to be the reserve currency.

What it means is that perceived U.S. governmental and financial stability and the belief that the U.S. would honor its debts, makes the U.S. dollar valuable in and of itself.

China and India, under normal circumstances, are much more likely to trade with each other in USD than they are either in Rupees or Yuan. That’s what it means to be the reserve currency.

But neither of them can print USD so they have to buy USD, which has an intrinsic utility value in itself. This is what funds American “consumption” (we will get back to this as well). The assets China is buying is quite literally the U.S. dollar and not a future promise to buy assets in the future.

The problem, however, is that recent U.S. govt actions are destroying that trust and stability underlying the intrinsic value of the USD, at which point it will indeed become an IOU. But that is a decision the current U.S. government is making that no other country wants them to make. Destroying this will lead to a real destruction of trillions of dollars worth of actual U.S. assets, because that trust has real value.

- The author insists the U.S. is using the products flowing into it for “consumption” not “investment”. And yet the U.S. GDP, which represents productive output, keeps increasing faster than most other western and developed nations. How is all this consumption translating into actual productive growth? US productivity growth has also far outpaced other similar nations, even those that we supposedly consider “investment” nations such as Germany.

The reality is that the U.S. is just “consuming” is romantic nonsense which somehow ignores non physical production (ie services) even though arguably this is even more important today. Think about the latest exemption that the U.S. just applied on electronics. That’s over 20% of Chinese exports to the U.S. It basically falls under “consumption”, but smartphones and laptops are the basis of trillions of dollars of productive output. Without this “consumption” the US would have a GDP that would be a fraction of the size it is today.

But we can go even further. How about household appliances? The fact that nearly every US home has a dishwasher and washing machine and dryer means far more Americans are able to work further increasing productive US output than without this “consumption”.

The idea that “investment” is somehow superior to “consumption” is suspect to say the least. Both investment and consumption can be bad. The famous Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” was investment, but it was worth far less than a parent buying a cheap Chinese produced toy for their child, and the positive impact that had on the parents and kids.

The whole point of free market capitalism is that individuals can usually make better choices than an overbearing government for what is and isn’t a better use of their money.

This can be corrupted. So Americans spend way too much money on eating junk food, meat, dairy, consuming drugs, etc. but all of those are largely homegrown goods and a result of “investment” creating huge industries pushing these products on Americans.

There is bad consumption and bad investment and good consumption and good investment (defined purely in terms of productivity).

I can go on with other issues with the article, but this is already way too long, and I actually don’t disagree with the end. The U.S. government needs to reduce its massive deficits not because it means it will have to sell assets in the future. Unless this administration completely destroys the U.S. governments credibility this won’t be a problem. No, the problem is the distortionary effects of that deficit domestically. And we can see that with the concentration of wealth it’s leading to causing American industries to compete not by selling better products or being more productive, but by buying the U.S. government to cut their taxes, to redirect government spending towards themselves, and to keep out competitors.

Fortunately solving this problem will help with the deficit as well. Go back to the tax levels before the trillion dollar tax cuts on the wealthiest and to reduce the deficit with barely any impact on actual productive activity.

One thing I don't quite understand in all of these discussions is why there seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the importance of the dollar at the core of them. Maybe we really just don't know that much about how global trade works historically? I guess there just is a fundamental disagreement at the hear of macro econ about this?

It seems to me like being the country that everyone else relies on to facilitate trade is an incredible thing that you'd never want to give up. And yet that's where we are, and what the disagreement is about. In the past few years there's been a lot of talk about BRICS and how it might undermine the reserve status of USD. Other countries appear to envy this position.

I've read some of the Hudson Bay Capital piece[0] on this, the article linked in the post describing why reserve status isn't great, I guess I'm just going to have to read it in full to get a better understanding of the other side.

[0]: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...

Good post in general - a question though.

"But we can go even further. How about household appliances? The fact that nearly every US home has a dishwasher and washing machine and dryer means far more Americans are able to work further increasing productive US output than without this “consumption”."

So what is the US currently producing? Software yes... and then?*

I know you produce other things as well, but from a growth perspective.. Whats driving your GDP?

The author wrote thousands of words based on a fundamental misconception.

The US is not Greece. Greece doesn’t control its own currency. The US does. It can always meet its debt requirements. It will never default.

Inflation is not a concern. Any kind of spending is inflationary.

Printing money to pay debts is inflationary.

Every dollar printed is a dollar stolen from the collective citizenry of the USA. Of course it makes sense to add money supply commensurate with increased productivity, so that money doesn't deflate, but go beyond that and that is what your are doing.

Either way, someone has to pay the debt, even if you repudiate it.

You’re wrong, empirical evidence shows that you’re wrong, but you don’t seem like you’re engaging in good faith so I’m not going to do your homework for you either.

Pot calling the kettle black. You're saying the commenter is wrong, without presenting any substantive arguments or "empirical evidence" otherwise.

"Do your homework" is not a useful comment, b/c you can easily find eco-chambers re-enforce any point you want on the internet. Instead of trying to engage in conversation, you're just pushing them further into their own ecochamber.

You can’t reason someone out of a viewpoint they didn’t reason themselves into.

There’s no economic argument to be had with someone that says monetary policy is theft.

I will attempt a reductio ad absurdum: why do anything other than print dollars then? Why farm? Why build anything? Why not just use the magic wand all the way?

Why are you assuming the worst version of my argument to argue against?

> Inflation is not a concern

At lest your misconception took a base less than a hundred words long

The US could print itself out of debt, but with an unbalanced budget and economy, that may be a disaster if it needs to finance new budget deficits. The result seems similar to the default.

Henry Ford made an interesting argument for printing money to fund productive enterprise in the context of a gold standard currency.

Just as it's okay to print money corresponding to central bank gold reserves, so too it's okay to print money to pay for the construction of the gold mine. Either way currency holders have real gold on the other side of the ledger.

Taking this one step further, it should be okay to print money to fund any enterprise whose output can be traded into gold. For example if we printed money to build a silver mine then the silver could be traded for gold at some ratio, so the currency holders would be in a protected position.

In fact whether the enterprise produces silver, timber, cars or software doesn't really matter as long the output is tradable for gold; and produces enough "gold value" to justify the newly printed currency.

I think the economics on this actually checks out. Although politicians in the real world would realistically use money printing for consumption rather than production.

> Henry Ford made an interesting argument for printing money to fund productive enterprise in the context of a gold standard currency.

Is there a link/etc to the long form of his argument?

Unfortunately I don’t remember exactly where I read it. It’s been a few years since I looked into Ford.

The mostly likely place is probably his autobiography “My Life and Work” where he talks about business/economic ideas quite a bit. Although it could also have been a newspaper article he wrote.

FWIW beware there’s a lot of serious antisemitism in that book. Which is a shame because it stains an otherwise fascinating book about early cars and 20th century business.

Yes, this is the entire point. Government needs to spend productively to grow the economy.

Any spending can be inflationary if it’s perceived to not be productive.

How that spending is financed is a footnote. Domestic debt works, foreign debt works, but the central bank can also purchase bonds and that works too (and is not inflationary). This is what Japan has been doing for decades to great success.

Not to say that the transition is easy, and if too much of the USs debt is owned by 3rd parties that means that there will be currency value shocks that have to be mitigated.

It does not mean that there will be a crash, or a recession, or a default.

That's how the current system works too: newly created money goes through the banks, and so the ones who spend it first (and benefit from seigniorage) are the financial industry and its customers: corporations borrowing to invest in productive activity. The key thing to note is that this system (and Ford's) represents a system of continuous wealth transfer from the working class (who hold most of their money in cash or low interest savings accounts, and suffer the most from inflation) to the owners of the means of production.

A socialist version of this could work too - governments creating money/debt to invest in state owned enterprises for example.

There is always next time. Unless you are an oil state. And either deflation or massive over printing means that next time fewer are willing to loan money. Maybe domestic holders will. But investors and foreign surely go somewhere more stable and less inflationary.

That’s how you prevent future bonds because they become trash.

Doesn’t matter, a sovereign government doesn’t need bonds to fund its spending.

https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/spread/greece-10-years-...

> It will never default

It doesn't have to default, but there have been several near misses vs Republicans who want to deliberately default because they don't understand the implications.

De facto it doesn't make too much difference.

If the US deliberately print money, it will immidiately realize kn the bond market and manifest as higher interest rates.

That is literally what the article explains.

And some point your bonds are considered trash

It will never default except for political reasons, there's been a few near misses on debt payment exactly due to that so there's already a material risk it could default even though it doesn't need to.

The whole issue is basically that, there's no guarantee the political will to never default currently exists, a classic confidence crisis is brewing.

The US has the option to not default, but don't forget what libertarians are like. Instead of choosing to print money to avoid default, they may choose to default to avoid printing money.

Also, other countries that printed away their debt hyperinflated their currencies, which is just as bad. Even the US can only sustain its level of anti-debt-printing because it's the global reserve currency, and to be the global reserve currency, it needs to have massive trade deficits. Do you see an incompatibility with the way the current regime thinks?

[dead]

[dead]