I’m sitting here debating how much wasted time explaining this is worth…
Trump’s newest round threatening parts of the world with annexation have been going on since he won the US election. Canada, Greenland, Panama, etc.
Right now the responses to his loud mouth ramblings have been proportionate. He mouths off, troops are sent to make it more of an escalation if he actually tried anything. It’s moving the pawns around waiting to see if there’s an attempt of a check coming.
Your suggestion is to flip the table and hurt everyone at a point when only pawns have been moved.
I fully recognize as a Canadian the slap in the fact that a threat at annexation has. The sense of betrayal, and the concern that maybe it might happen. That said, you respond proportionately and appropriately without causing collateral damage.
Selling off US Treasury bonds hurts all bond holders across the globe, not just the US. I called it the nuclear option because it does a lot of collateral damage and is a move reserved for when it’s more than just talk.
You flip the table early and not only was it you that escalated, you that removed all other measures moves, but you provoke the other player and give them more cause to then start punching you in the face.
You start your comment by insinuating you hold all knowledge but that it’s a waste of time explaining things to a dumb fuck like me. Just so you know, that’s not a great way of engaging with someone.
I didn’t insinuate anything. You’re being awfully combative when we’re both in agreement that his behavior is unacceptable. I also didn’t call you a “dumb fuck” so from my perspective you’re projecting. My major concern with your comment is that any sell enough enough to hurt the US also hurts ALL others holding US Treasury bonds so it’s an extreme move to do now. That’s it.
You didn’t actually say in your initial comment that you didn’t mean dumping all US bonds. You might have meant it but there was no nuance in your comment. Fundamentally I agree with you (though you seem to really be looking for a fight) but I also still maintain that there are other options like I’ve mentioned elsewhere in the thread. If you’re hellbent on going after US treasuries the other option (maybe more proportional) is for countries to stop reinvesting in them as they mature.
You called it a “trade bazooka” and now you’re back tracking saying you only meant a little bit when I explained why that move is maybe not the best move right now because it hurts many countries globally. You have also yet to acknowledge my point. Who’s not replying in good faith?
Ok. The trade bazooka is something else entirely. Look it up and learn something. I said sell some US bonds AND use the trade bazooka. Since you’re only after a fight I’m not going to indulge you any further. Have a nice day.
It’s not just some social media post. It’s repeated threats to annex a part of europe.
I’m sitting here debating how much wasted time explaining this is worth…
Trump’s newest round threatening parts of the world with annexation have been going on since he won the US election. Canada, Greenland, Panama, etc.
Right now the responses to his loud mouth ramblings have been proportionate. He mouths off, troops are sent to make it more of an escalation if he actually tried anything. It’s moving the pawns around waiting to see if there’s an attempt of a check coming.
Your suggestion is to flip the table and hurt everyone at a point when only pawns have been moved.
I fully recognize as a Canadian the slap in the fact that a threat at annexation has. The sense of betrayal, and the concern that maybe it might happen. That said, you respond proportionately and appropriately without causing collateral damage.
Selling off US Treasury bonds hurts all bond holders across the globe, not just the US. I called it the nuclear option because it does a lot of collateral damage and is a move reserved for when it’s more than just talk.
You flip the table early and not only was it you that escalated, you that removed all other measures moves, but you provoke the other player and give them more cause to then start punching you in the face.
You start your comment by insinuating you hold all knowledge but that it’s a waste of time explaining things to a dumb fuck like me. Just so you know, that’s not a great way of engaging with someone.
I’m not saying dump all US bonds. I’m saying send a signal. It’s been done before, with some success (https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/11/business/bond-market-trump-treasury-yield-rates). I agree it’s not a perfect solution to the problem, but showing strength is the only thing a bully understands.
I didn’t insinuate anything. You’re being awfully combative when we’re both in agreement that his behavior is unacceptable. I also didn’t call you a “dumb fuck” so from my perspective you’re projecting. My major concern with your comment is that any sell enough enough to hurt the US also hurts ALL others holding US Treasury bonds so it’s an extreme move to do now. That’s it.
You didn’t actually say in your initial comment that you didn’t mean dumping all US bonds. You might have meant it but there was no nuance in your comment. Fundamentally I agree with you (though you seem to really be looking for a fight) but I also still maintain that there are other options like I’ve mentioned elsewhere in the thread. If you’re hellbent on going after US treasuries the other option (maybe more proportional) is for countries to stop reinvesting in them as they mature.
I said some US debt. Some is not all. I can see you’re not acting in good faith here.
You called it a “trade bazooka” and now you’re back tracking saying you only meant a little bit when I explained why that move is maybe not the best move right now because it hurts many countries globally. You have also yet to acknowledge my point. Who’s not replying in good faith?
Ok. The trade bazooka is something else entirely. Look it up and learn something. I said sell some US bonds AND use the trade bazooka. Since you’re only after a fight I’m not going to indulge you any further. Have a nice day.
Wow. Your opening sentence is certainly one way to lose all credibility in the rest of your post. An unusual approach to arguing a point, for sure.
Yea, I just re-read it and I didn’t realize how it came across so I left it up but put a stroke through and an edit.