re: “We’re going to pay off...the $35 trillion in debt. We’re going to pay it off...fast too.

quote:

---

How is US monetary policy not 'prepared for the worst' as you put it?

---

Our debt/gdp is right tat WWII levels. Without the war. But, yeah, everything is fine!

quote:

---

Our debt/gdp is right tat WWII levels. Without the war. But, yeah, everything is fine!

---

You should see the debt to GDP ratios of some other countries then.

quote:

---

Yet, your position requires they cannot compete for the US to remain solvent.

---

As long as they use dollars for balance of payments, the US is fine with competition. When there are developments that exceed the US's, the US gets involved to the benefit of US companies. Some prime examples are the Italian computing industry in the early 1960s and US involvement on the behalf of GE. Another example is French nuclear submarine technology, which the US co-opted in 2014 or so, and subsequently sold submarines to the Australians at the expense of the French a few years back.

You aren't even doing the basics of thinking through any geopolitical situation and then invoking the possibility of some mediator of demand for US securities.

quote:

---

Still trying to figure out what you’re talking about by this.

---

I saw a response about things I had posted, but didn't where you had replied directly to me. Don't have time to look back for it now. IF I was mistaken, then I apologize.

quote:

---

When a post suddenly goes off the rails on number of new posts, I know it's either devolved into a discussion of religion, or includes this loon.

---

I'm glad I occupy your headspace that much.

quote:

---

The fact that people currently "are" purchasing something, we shouldn't presume they will always be willing to purchase that item.

---

Like I've said, in order for this system to be upended, there has to be a robust system in place to replace it. The US effort towards developing a 'Liberal World Order' has had noticeable effects, as it gives nations a stake in keeping this system in place. Nations have forums by which their grievances are heard and complicated bureaucracies which are designed to control the methods of change, but the reality of geopolitics is still the same. Might makes right and either you force others to live by your rules or you live by the rules of others. The US has set up a system in which countries willingly participate and change their entire governmental structure in order to join. That's a considerable investment by those states, which isn't easily undone.

Part of the risk assessment has to include what the on the ground realities actually are. Investors aren't stupid. The risks associated with US securities are relatively small within a global context. Given that countries who want to trade between each other use dollars as balance of payments is a strong sign of continued demand. We can look at the broader geopolitical landscape and make determines about the relative risk. Why is it so hard to believe that risk assessment is already baked into the actual act of choosing to invest in US securities itself?