Vegas Free-for-All - The US wants to "send a message" . . .

The US wants to "send a message" . . .

Don

Oct 12, 2015
12:47am

. . . to China objecting to Chinese occupation of the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea.

"The United States considers the areas around [the] Spratly Islands to be part of international water", . . . and intends to "sail [warships] within [the] 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as its territory around the Spratly Islands within the next two weeks."

This could be interesting. DonDiego is unaware of any Country in history which has sent warships to intimidate another Country which happens to own well over a TRILLION DOLLARS of the first Country's debt.

Well, at least no one has "drawn a red line" yet.

Ref: US to Deploy Warships in South China Sea

jatki

Oct 12, 2015
1:15am

Block User

I believe proper etiquette goes something like,
First-Send a message
Second I double dog dare ya
Third-Triple dog dare and hope you die
Fourth- The most intimidating, scariest, strikes fear to the center of their hearts threat of all , the dreaded "red line in the sand, er,water"

LurkerPoster

Oct 12, 2015
2:21am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
. . . to China objecting to Chinese occupation of the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea.

"The United States considers the areas around [the] Spratly Islands to be part of international water", . . . and intends to "sail [warships] within [the] 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as its territory around the Spratly Islands within the next two weeks."

This could be interesting. DonDiego is unaware of any Country in history which has sent warships to intimidate another Country which happens to own well over a TRILLION DOLLARS of the first Country's debt.

Well, at least no one has "drawn a red line" yet.

Ref: US to Deploy Warships in South China Sea

Good fo you DD! You seem to be the first Republican on LVA FFA who is against international provocation by our government. China hasn't shown agression towards the West like Russia, so maybe we should leave them alone. At the same time, nothing impressive is going to happen probably because of the fact they own over a trillion dollars of our debt. It's become a marriage without the option of divorce.

alanleroyII

Oct 12, 2015
3:22am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
This could be interesting. DonDiego is unaware of any Country in history which has sent warships to intimidate another Country which happens to own well over a TRILLION DOLLARS of the first Country's debt.

If China attempted to liquidate all of their US denominated bond holdings we could simply suspend interest and principle repayment for treasury bonds issued to or owned by the PRC until such a time as their hostile actions are stopped. We could even threaten to repudiate the debt if the bad behavior didn't change. We could do that without defaulting on any other international obligations.

So who gets the worse end of this deal then? We end up with a trillion less debt and no interest payments. China ends up with about $50 worth of paper...Who is really in the driver's seat?

Don

Oct 12, 2015
4:18am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: LurkerPoster
Good fo you DD! You seem to be the first Republican on LVA FFA who is against international provocation by our government. China hasn't shown agression towards the West like Russia, so maybe we should leave them alone. At the same time, nothing impressive is going to happen probably because of the fact they own over a trillion dollars of our debt. It's become a marriage without the option of divorce.

DonDiego hasn't seen much true aggression against the West by President Putin either.
__The support of President Assad in Syria is pretty well contained to Syria and in support of Russian economic plans. Russian actions there - against Islamist rebels as well as US-sponsored surrogates - seem more effective than recent US-sponsored "anti-terror" efforts.
__The moves in eastern Ukraine/Crimea were defensive in response to provocations by a well-known provocateur nation.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
If China attempted to liquidate all of their US denominated bond holdings we could simply suspend interest and principle repayment for treasury bonds issued to or owned by the PRC until such a time as their hostile actions are stopped. We could even threaten to repudiate the debt if the bad behavior didn't change. We could do that without defaulting on any other international obligations.

So who gets the worse end of this deal then? We end up with a trillion less debt and no interest payments. China ends up with about $50 worth of paper...Who is really in the driver's seat?

Wow! Is that legal?

China has already turned several of the islands into what appear to be military bases:
Before:

After:

[That there island might'a made for a nice Winter home for poor old DonDiego a'for they concreted it.]

Actually DonDiego is more worried about real bullets flying even more than the debt question. All or some of the "disputed" islands are claimed by China, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and others. US Treaty obligations may come into play if military actions commence.

Poor old DonDiego just wants to live in peace. Besides if'n there's gonna be war on top of some serious economic unpleasantness poor old DonDiego might find it difficult to find good vittles or even keep his hilltop home heated, . . . 'specially if'n the world powers involved in these disputes decide to set off a few EMP-devices high above the US landscape, thereby denying its citizens electricity.

LurkerPoster

Oct 12, 2015
4:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
__The moves in eastern Ukraine/Crimea were defensive in response to provocations by a well-known provocateur nation.

This is not correct. Putin was not defending his own land, he invaded another country. And please don't forget about MH17. It might not be very relevant to you because the victims weren't American but I tend to believe the rest of the west disagrees with you here.

alanleroyII

Oct 12, 2015
5:03am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
If China attempted to liquidate all of their US denominated bond holdings we could simply suspend interest and principle repayment for treasury bonds issued to or owned by the PRC until such a time as their hostile actions are stopped. We could even threaten to repudiate the debt if the bad behavior didn't change. We could do that without defaulting on any other international obligations.

So who gets the worse end of this deal then? We end up with a trillion less debt and no interest payments. China ends up with about $50 worth of paper...Who is really in the driver's seat?

Wow! Is that legal?

No. It's probably not legal. But when you own the world's reserve currency you can bend a few rules when it comes to payments to countries that are threatening you.

If push came to shove, all China has is paper. We have all the stuff that trillion dollars bought.

Boilerman

Oct 12, 2015
5:15am

Block User

Who to we borrow money from after we stop paying China?

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
If China attempted to liquidate all of their US denominated bond holdings we could simply suspend interest and principle repayment for treasury bonds issued to or owned by the PRC until such a time as their hostile actions are stopped. We could even threaten to repudiate the debt if the bad behavior didn't change. We could do that without defaulting on any other international obligations.

So who gets the worse end of this deal then? We end up with a trillion less debt and no interest payments. China ends up with about $50 worth of paper...Who is really in the driver's seat?
Wow! Is that legal?

alanleroyII

Oct 12, 2015
5:30am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Who to we borrow money from after we stop paying China?

With a trillion less debt, President Leroy would demand that Congress immediately submit him a balanced budget with no further borrowing required. He would suggest that 1/2 of the money come from budget cuts and 1/2 from tax increases. If congress refused to submit a balanced budget, President Leroy would simply whack the budget with across the board cuts.

Don

Oct 12, 2015
9:32am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego Wow! Is that legal?

i. If the US were to suspend payments to one country, other countries might well begin to slough off US debt as well.
ii. The status of the US$ as the "reserve currency" is already being questioned; there is no guarantee the accompanying privileges will be recognized.
iii. A lot of the "stuff" the US bought with the borrowed money is already gone, . . . like today the US air-dropped 50 tons of weapons/ammunition/supplies to "rebel groups" in Syria. Who knows where that'll end up? Oh, . . . and money is fungible; most of the the money borrowed by issuing bonds goes to maintaining social programs nowadays, so that money's gone too.

1 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now