I think it’s better to focus on the tail end of their arguments, as opposed to whether it’s technically possible.
European banks and investors are stuffed with Treasuries. If they tumble in value because of a threat of a European boycott, then it would probably end up harming Europe just as much as the US, if not more so. Moreover, a large-scale repatriation of capital would send the dollar tumbling and the euro rocketing, which would alone possibly be enough to send many European countries into a recession.
For example, forcing your bank sector to sell off a bunch of assets that are considered “risk free”, comes with consequences.
Also consider that a majority of European leaders seem to be banking on the whole Trump era to blow over at some point soon. They hope to be able to rely on the US again and don’t really want to do any lasting harm (probably).
For example, forcing your bank sector to sell off a bunch of assets that are considered “risk free”, comes with consequences.
“Risk Free” tells me your mental models havent been absorbing recent changes. A US that is attacking former friends and allies and especially itself, who abandons any pretense of law and order, of the neutral functioning of predictable markets in a storm of serial extortionism, undermining their own labour pools, capital markets and central banking while going on a wild spending spree of unproductive thuggery and grift. (Pauses for breath.) You call that risk free?
Don’t be the dude left holding the bag. US dollars debt and equities are poison. Contracts aren’t legally enforceable and courts don’t practice law, just applied politics.
Get out while you can. This shithole is going to collapse quickly.
I agree that the later half of the article is the stronger portion; I was just surprised to see the lower quality front half under the FT masthead. I also suspect you’re right about what the EU will do, rather than my focus on what they can do.
But if the FT’s argument is that the EU doesn’t have the stomach for a strong euro and reduced exports, that’s something that can change quickly. If your assumption is you can wait out the mad king, doing nothing is clearly the cheapest option. But if your assumption changes to be that you cannot (which it seems more and more people are coming to that conclusion) then you want to be the first to sell. Legal hurdles would be a much stronger constraint than EU leaders’ preferences.
I think it’s better to focus on the tail end of their arguments, as opposed to whether it’s technically possible.
For example, forcing your bank sector to sell off a bunch of assets that are considered “risk free”, comes with consequences.
Also consider that a majority of European leaders seem to be banking on the whole Trump era to blow over at some point soon. They hope to be able to rely on the US again and don’t really want to do any lasting harm (probably).
“Risk Free” tells me your mental models havent been absorbing recent changes. A US that is attacking former friends and allies and especially itself, who abandons any pretense of law and order, of the neutral functioning of predictable markets in a storm of serial extortionism, undermining their own labour pools, capital markets and central banking while going on a wild spending spree of unproductive thuggery and grift. (Pauses for breath.) You call that risk free?
Don’t be the dude left holding the bag. US dollars debt and equities are poison. Contracts aren’t legally enforceable and courts don’t practice law, just applied politics.
Get out while you can. This shithole is going to collapse quickly.
I agree that the later half of the article is the stronger portion; I was just surprised to see the lower quality front half under the FT masthead. I also suspect you’re right about what the EU will do, rather than my focus on what they can do.
But if the FT’s argument is that the EU doesn’t have the stomach for a strong euro and reduced exports, that’s something that can change quickly. If your assumption is you can wait out the mad king, doing nothing is clearly the cheapest option. But if your assumption changes to be that you cannot (which it seems more and more people are coming to that conclusion) then you want to be the first to sell. Legal hurdles would be a much stronger constraint than EU leaders’ preferences.