Well then what are they waiting for?
Do it
America is doing quite fine wreaking havoc on itself, no need for Europe to get involved.
This is not a “YSK”, it’s just yet another post about (US…) politics.
Seriously, this problem ruined !showerthoughts@lemmy.world and it’s ruining this community too.
Sign of the times… If it is on everyone’s mind, it will infiltrate generic subs like these
Amen. And I know we all want to just agree with it, but propaganda is propaganda, and when people are painting it to fit the guidelines of communities (like this), it’s deceitful and wrong.
… the time to do this shit has long been upon us. Who gives a fuck what they can do, until they do it? As an American, I’m begging you, put up or shut-up.
I didn’t vote for the baby in office, and I would gladly suffer to see his toys taken away by the adults.
I said this in another thread but I’ll say it again, threats are only useful if you hold leverage. If they blow their load, what else can they hold over the heads of the US? They need to threaten, and then if they threat isn’t listened to then they act on it. Doing it now just ensures there’s not much of a punishment left to be dealt, so there’s no reason not to invade. Sure, the economy will collapse, but that would happen either way in the case they act now.
If I hold a knife to you and threaten you with it, you’ll listen. If I just stab you then what reason do you have to listen? Just like nukes, the only use for a threat is in not using it. If you do have to use it then you’ve lost the reason they may have held back.
No one is proposing they rattle their saber. The scale of the threat has long been too great to bother speaking aloud, and putting it into words instead of action would just be laugable.
Again, the “listened to” or no phase is past the horizon, around the curve and honestly several hills and valleys back in the rear-view mirror. A threat that isn’t followed-through on or is spoken only after you’ll obviously never act isn’t even a threat any more; Its a mark of submission.
Nice job contradicting yourself in that second paragraph though. Let me ask you this: Did Trump bother saying we were going to, could, or “should” abduct Maduro in advance?
Did they make this threat before? I never heard it if they did. Yeah, a threat is only good as long as the other party believes you’re going to act on it, so if they did threaten it before then they should. However, again, this isn’t going to prevent anything, except for making them believe your threats are good. What good will come out of them taking this action? (By this, I don’t mean collapsing the US economy, which will hurt a lot of people. I mean, does it prevent harm.)
I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Could you point out how? I’m not sure how abducting Moduro is related to this. However, I do believe he’s been saying we should remove him for a long time, though I think most people ignored it because it would have been seen as crazy, and gets mixed up with all his other insane ramblings. I don’t know the relevance of this question though.
Trump didn’t specify how we would remove Maduro in the same way its pointless for Europe to specify exactly how they could or would retaliate. Its more than enough for there to be multiple options to make them all valid when it comes time to say “we warned you”.
Please don’t confuse my enthusiasm for one option that’s been shown to be possible and devestating, for me saying this is the only option Europe should consider. On the contrary, I’m just wishing they would pick an option that matters and run with it already. All they’ve done is show their belly like a submissive dog.
They don’t even appear to care about plausible deniability any more. Arresting Gaza protestors is just such a good, strong-arm look for going against Trump. Fear of Europe must be why so many churches in my area are flying Israeli flags at the moment.
As for how you contradicted yourself, you said “if the threat isn’t listened to then they act on it”, then went on to claim a threat that has to be followed-through on is worthless. On the contrary, a threat that has been known all-along is rendered moot when you spell it out long after the time for it is past.
Its the threat you have to verbalize that’s worthless. Holding a knife to someone’s throat to threaten another person is not the act of someone with any control over their present situation, and its a threat made-up on the spot that’s easilly invalidated in so, so many ways. That scenario is not applicable to Europe versus the US at all.
I wont suffer from this, but ill gladly watch you and my neighbirs suffer! obviously not being serious, but damn thats almost what you sound like lol. If you had some money, suddenly youre an asshole with that mindset is all. My neighbors who cant tough it out shouldnt suffer because you accept a raw deal is all im sayin
You’re funny. You think the US isn’t full of people who wouldn’t notice if things got worse on the whole because of how bad they have it already.
The only one proposing its somehow worse that me and my well-to-do neighbors join them and maybe end-up remembering such a basic concept as Class Solidarity is you.
Depends on the neighbor. If they have a trump flag, fuckem. I literally don’t give a shit anymore. “Oh if you say people should suffer the consequences of their actions you’re somehow in favor of collective punishment” is a braindead take that is only used by people trying to get out of the consequences of their actions.
I voted for kamala, and so did my neighbors
I held my nose and voted for her. None of my neighbors did. Your sympathy is misplaced.
Its an indian website
Its not the opinion of any european
Facts ≠ Opinions, although I am going by the title where it says “Can”, rather than “should”. I stated my opinion though.
Maybe Europe would act, if enough former colonies call them cowards.
Well they are cowards, that’s why there are so many “former” colonies. Give it 20 years, Europeans won’t even control their own lands.
The people living their in 20 years STILL won’t control their own lands, you mean. If I’m wrong, I might then consider your implication that those people won’t count as Europeans, but to that I would only say “GOOD FOR THEM THEN!”
While it economically can, we should also be able to military defend all Europe ourselves.
1 % of GDP from every country to a European army would make that possible without completely sacrificing national armies.
That’s not what is complicated lol, it’s the command & control.
Yeah, the problem is that Europe is going to dick around not doing that while the other side is actually using bullets.
Are they shooting at us?!
Europe won’t though.
No, unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. “Europe” doesn’t owns a lot of US bonds; private investors from Europe own them. There’s no way to compel them to sell them.
Ok except you’re completely wrong. The foreign holdings are both private and government owned. From https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/RS22331/RS22331.51.pdf
Ok except you’re completely wrong regarding Europe. Governmental investments in US are mainly made by countries outside Europe, like China. The only European exception is Norway, which alone can’t do much (and is not in the EU).
So yes, almost half of foreign US bonds owning are by governments, just not European ones.
Hmmm except that just saying the same thing again still doesn’t make you right.
When you get further down the pdf from Congress (or any other valid source on government debt breakdown) there’s a number of European countries. Such as this.
Have you got any actual sources for your statements other than just repeating the same thing?
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:
Investors in the United States and abroad include official institutions, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and foreign central banks; financial institutions, such as commercial banks; and private individual investors.
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:
But this doesn’t change the fact that most of these assets are not actually owned by European governments (the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund being the only notable exception). These stocks and bonds are actually overwhelmingly held by the private sector: thousands of insurance companies, pension plans, banks and other institutional investors, and millions of ordinary people.
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.
As you can see from the actual beginning of the paragraph rather than picking out the words you like at the end.
The beginning of the paragraph changes nothing. Two different sentences can have two different meaning; the text says “in the US and abroad”.
As I’ve already posted and mentioned right at the start of the pdf
Again that’s a worldwide average. It’s not equally distributed. Prove me wrong instead of repeating your error.
there are plenty of European nations in there.
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.
There’s no way to compel them to sell them.
On paper no.
In practice, when you consider how much economy at that level is driven by quid pro quo, that statement sounds almost silly. It’s not a matter of whether governments can trigger a mass disinvestment, it’s a matter of the cost.
US will collapse on its own.
NATO colonies have been increasing US debt holdings in 2025, instead of sharply reducing them in face of US threats against them. Ending US military procurement, boeing, caterpillar, and US NATO membership, would be destruction of US empire.
The US proxy war on Russia through Ukraine was a US war on Europe. Nordstream, and energy capture for a year or 2. The biggest Trump lie at Davos is that Europe’s energy is expensive due to their adoption of renewables. When, in fact it is their capture to extortionist US energy, instead of Russian bridge energy, and military subservience to US, that is destroying Europe. Far better and more equitable trading opportunity with Russia replacing US as a trading partner, or even as a NATO member.
Selling US Treasury bonds is exactly what Trump wants as it would devalue the dollar (flooding the market with dollars basically devalues the dollar) and Trump wants to devalue the dollar to make manufacturing in the US more attractive and to stimulate exports and therefore jobs in the US.
Not sure it’s a plan as much as an unintended consequence. The man doesn’t really have a track record of deep thinking.
I don’t think he has a track recording of thinking in general to be fair.
I think he spits actions and just takes whatever sticks. The dude bankrupted how many times now and is expected to be the master in resolving US trade?
the man certainly does not do deep thinking but the thinktanks that are his advisors sure do.
It would devalue the dollar, but it would also substantially increase borrowing costs. Not that great for a country which is effectively paying off one credit card with the other.
Why does this sketchy website not having valid certificates
Why is your browser out-of-date?
I mean, I don’t like the site per se, but Firefox isn’t complaining for me, so I am legit wondering what browser you are using that does complain. Are you planning on giving that site your personal information?
Get a modern device that supports x25519 or secp256r1.
Update your browser or OS. It’s all good here.
Ok not a sketchy website. I was using the WiFi at my Company I work for, they were redirecting my traffic leading to the browser warning me of the invalid certificates.
On mobile data the link works. This is the first time I noticed it today, and after the second link from Google gave me a similar issue I knew something was fishy
