Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 23, 2025

This is to say that if the government continues to spend on credit, and offers no clear path for arresting the growth of its debt, investors will demand ever higher interest rates on the money they lend to it.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Growing concern about the national debt impacted home borrowing rates this week. Mortgage rates track the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which climbed higher as bonds sold off after US federal debt was downgraded from a perfect rating by Moody's Ratings on Friday. cnn.it/3Shn6Tn

[image or embed]

-- CNN (@cnn.com) May 22, 2025 at 3:29 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More: But the global picture is even more interesting. While the world is now awash in debt, this is not a universal problem. Western governments, fuelled by cheap credit and the huge run-up in pandemic-era debt, account for most of the planet's borrowing. Add the private borrowing of their citizens, and their debts now account for several times their annual output.

While debt crises used to be thought of as a developing-world problem, most major governments there have since got their fiscal houses back in order. As a result, while investors have been demanding higher returns on loans to Western governments, since the start of the year bond yields in India, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico have all been trending downwards.

It's obvious why. With better growth prospects and more prudent budgeting " not just by governments, but by the private and household sectors too " the countries of the developing world are starting to prove more attractive as long-term prospects for bond investors. If Western politicians continue to wave off the concerns of their lenders, they will continue to receive negative responses that choke off their credit supply. It happened in Britain three years ago; will America be next?

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2025-05-22 01:14 PM | Reply

Interested to hear Republicans tell us why this is a good thing.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-22 04:04 PM | Reply

Its transitory!
~ Snoofy

#3 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-05-22 04:50 PM | Reply

Doesn't China own the significant portion of our debt in treasury bonds?

At what point would China decide to call-in?

#4 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-22 05:14 PM | Reply

Probably about the same time they make landfall on Taiwan.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-22 05:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires will fix this problem.

Right Trumpers?

Or will you morons avoid this thread as well?

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-22 05:31 PM | Reply

Its transitory!
~ Snoofy

#3 | Posted by oneironaut

This is what you wanted, s*&^heap. You don't get to be flippant.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2025-05-22 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

At what point would China decide to call-in?

#4 | Posted by redlightrobot

-last week

Unmentioned so far: the selloff is global
BTW:
the only reason China et al has been able to buy our bonds is because of their trade surplus, which also enables them to buy our land.

#8 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-23 05:50 PM | Reply

Bears repeating:
Trade Deficits are financed with Debt and Equity Sales

#9 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-23 05:53 PM | Reply

"the only reason China et al has been able to buy our bonds is because of their trade surplus, which also enables them to buy our land."

Gee, if only Republicans hadn't reset our fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits, we wouldn't have that problem, would we?

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-23 06:22 PM | Reply

"the only reason China et al has been able to buy our bonds is because of their trade surplus, which also enables them to buy our land."

Gee, if only Republicans hadn't reset our fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits, we wouldn't have that problem, would we?

#10 | Posted by Danforth

I'm not sure what your point is, because the China situation has developed across multiple administrations.
Please see these CFR sites for clarification, and notice that the China Holdings of U.S. Agency Bonds tracks exactly the China's trade surplus :

www.cfr.org
falling-trade-rising-imbalances

www.cfr.org
chinas-rising-holdings-us-agency-bonds

If the trade balance is not restored, we will literally lose our country. Foreigners will own our country.
Do you understand?

#11 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-23 11:42 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure what your point is"

I'll type slower so you can understand.

After Nixon opened China, the Reagan tax code incentivized relocation to China. The Dubya codes (let's be serious, Cheney I and Cheney II) reset America's fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits. In Cheney
II, a stunning 27% went to the wealthiest 1%, a number so staggering. Dubya had to point out the wealthiest had received the lion's share from the first code change.

"We won the midterms; It's our due" Cheney famously replied.
Subsequent Republicans refused to raise taxes.

Trump then had folks hold his Diet Coke, as his code gave a whopping 82% to the 1%, with trillions and trillions of additional dollars borrowed, mainly to give away in tax cuts.

You lived through all of this. Were you paying attention???

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-24 12:09 AM | Reply

"If the trade balance is not restored, we will literally lose our country. Foreigners will own our country. Do you understand?"

Yes, I understand complex math equations. Do you?

Do you understand Republicans built this?

Between incentivizing moving businesses to China, to borrowing trillions for new or expiring tax cuts, to filibustering any-and-all tax increases, Republicans are either responsible, or irresponsible.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-24 12:15 AM | Reply

^^BOTH parties sold us out re: trade imbalance. Please refer to the CFR charts linked previously. China and others are still going to have a surplus, if given our recent historic state of indifference to trade imbalance, and they are going to continue to buy American equities and land with that surplus, regardless of how much we punish ourself with taxes.
Are you suggesting that we could tax our way out of a trade deficit? Tax apples to offset oranges?
"here, tap our consumer market for all you can, and we'll make up the difference out of our own pocket, and still you will be able to own our equities and land because of all the money we let you make here"

#14 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 07:58 AM | Reply

Other countries have been playing US for suckers via trade, and internal dissidents such as Danfort are helping them. THEY know what they're doing, but many of us don't, particularly those of us wearing political blinders that limit our field of view to targeting our fellow Americans, while THEY rob us.

#15 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 08:02 AM | Reply

I will point out that per the CFR charts, Both China's trade surplus and their US portfolio holdings peaked 2012-2016, retracted from 2017-2019, then increased again in 2020. This phenomenon is completely independent of US internal taxation; It's based solely on trade imbalance.

#16 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 08:53 AM | Reply

Here is a great non-political economic info site:
www.econovis.net

Diverging Trade Balances: U.S. Deficit Hits $1.2 Trillion as China's Surplus Climbs to $1.0 Trillion
www.econovis.net

U.S. Goods Trade Deficit Hits Record $1.2 Trillion in 2024
www.econovis.net

I hope this helps.

#17 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 09:14 AM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY ITCHYP

Brings up some interesting points.

But has ItchyMyStrap thought about what happens if the trade deficit balance is 0?

The US would be hit with inflation levels the Depression would envy.

Thats the rub, without the trade deficit, government spending can't go on unabated.


At what point would China decide to call-in?
#4 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

China has been slowly selling off its holdings.
www.scmp.com

#18 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-05-24 10:45 AM | Reply

Doesn't China own the significant portion of our debt in treasury bonds?

#4 | Posted by redlightrobot

No, the biggest portion is owned by the U.S. itself. China owns a lot, though.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2025-05-24 12:36 PM | Reply

But has ItchyMyStrap thought about what happens if the trade deficit balance is 0?
#18 | Posted by oneironaut

-Then trade balance would be achieved. All trade partners get to sell their products; everyone makes money; no one abuses another's market.

without the trade deficit, government spending can't go on unabated.

Please explain, because this makes zero sense, also why is "unabated" gov't spending a good thing?

#20 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 02:46 PM | Reply

Inflation: If inflation is running rampant in a country, the price to produce a unit of a product may be higher than the price in a lower-inflation country. This would impact exports, thus affecting the trade balance.
Which Factors Can Influence a Country's Balance of Trade?
Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com ... Macroeconomics

Inflation may affect trade balance, but trade balance affect inflation? I don't think so.
Please explain, if you can, onenut.

#21 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 02:50 PM | Reply

For danfort et al who champion raising tax rates:

-Taxes raised via tariffs
"they will just pass along the cost to consumers"
Fair enough, but tariffs will also serve to balance trade.

-Tax rates increased
"they will just pass along the cost to consumers"
Plus finished goods cost will increase, leading to greater trade deficit.

#22 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 02:55 PM | Reply

Who owns the most U.S. debt abroad?

Japan: $1.125 trillion.
China: $784 billion.
United Kingdom: $750 billion.
Cayman Islands: $418 billion.
Luxembourg: $413 billion.
Canada: $406 billion.
Belgium: $395 billion.
France: $354 billion.

#23 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 03:20 PM | Reply

The US would be hit with inflation levels the Depression would envy.
proudly posted by onenut

During the Depression, inflation was negative.
What are you trying to say, other than incorrectly asserting that trade balance leads inflation?
Do you even know what you mean?

1930 -6.40% Contraction (-8.5%)
1931 -9.30% Contraction (-6.4%)
1932 -10.30% Contraction (-12.9%)
1933 0.80% Contraction ended in March (-1.2%)

#24 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 03:33 PM | Reply

which also enables them to buy our land.

#8 | Posted by itchyp

The US government could prevent foreign ownership of our land by passing a bill. Many other countries have already curbed such foreign investment. Why don't the Republicans do that?

#25 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-24 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The US government could prevent foreign ownership of our land by passing a bill. Many other countries have already curbed such foreign investment. Why don't the Republicans do that?

#25 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-24 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:*superbump

Also, Why didn't the Democrats do that?

#26 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 06:56 PM | Reply

Also, Why didn't the Democrats do that?

Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 06:56 PM | Reply
They play for the same team and we're not on their team.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-24 10:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


The US government could prevent foreign ownership of our land by passing a bill. Many other countries have already curbed such foreign investment. Why don't the Republicans do that?

#25 | Posted by Whatsleft

Just more xenophobia. I own my home, you're claiming I should own my home?
Ridiculous.


They play for the same team and we're not on their team.
#27 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

WTF are you talking about?

Fair enough, but tariffs will also serve to balance trade.


Please explain, because this makes zero sense, also why is "unabated" gov't spending a good thing?
#20 | POSTED BY ITCHYP

Imagine the trade deficit is 0. Now all the government spending/debt creation now has to stay IN the country. Given its printing money via Bond sales to foreign entities, This will cause inflation internally, also who would buy the treasuries now?
The beauty of the trade deficit is it allow the US to EXPORT dollars to other countries and IMPORT goods, alleviating some of the pressure of inflation internally.

Now lets say the trade deficit continues to increase, this allows the government to increase spending without concern about inflation because those dollars are exported.
The big issue is foreign countries using their USD in the US (buying land, treasuries etcetc), then the US would see inflation funded by the trade deficit, but typically they can't spend all the dollars as they need some to manufacture goods.
All those countries in your list had to do something with the profits, so they convert to US treasuries.

The US Government survives because the US IMPORTS goods and EXPORTS dollars. If it couldn't export the dollars there would be huge inflation as government spending is out of control, and no one to buy the bonds except at super high interest rates.


Tariffs also are targeted taxation, meaning some industries won't be affected by the Tax. Thats the best.

#28 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-05-24 10:43 PM | Reply

During the Depression, inflation was negative.

Pardon, the hyperinflation Wiemar helped contribute to its Great Depression.
www.bbc.co.uk

Americans so ethnocentric.

#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-05-24 10:50 PM | Reply

Also, Why didn't the Democrats do that?

Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 06:56 PM | Reply
They play for the same team and we're not on their team.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-24 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag *superbump for you too!

#30 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 12:05 AM | Reply

#28 | Posted by oneironaut

Maybe the easily-printed increasingly worthless fiat currency is the problem, not a balanced trade.
Also, in the balanced trade scenario, we would export actual products instead of playing a shell game with play money.
What then, about the trade surplus countries buying up our tangible assets? How does that cycle culminate?

#31 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 12:13 AM | Reply

If the trade balance is not restored, we will literally lose our country. Foreigners will own our country.
Do you understand?
#11 | Posted by itchyp

So what's your plan, abandon Capitalism?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 12:28 AM | Reply

Americans so ethnocentric.

#29 | Posted by oneironaut

Well, after all, this is a thread about "US bond Sell-off". Per OP.
I thought this was America!
www.youtube.com

BTW your damage control is weak. "Great Depression" always refers to US.

How was Germany affected by the Great Depression?
Germany suffered more than any other nation as a result of the recall of US loans, which caused its economy to collapse. Unemployment rocketed, poverty soared and Germans became desperate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcwxrdm/revision/3

Our nation had real money and no debt problems at all until people like (((you))) obtained a monopoly on our currency and instituted their grand plan to confiscate all our wealth via USURY and Babylonian Money Magic.
"Here, you don't need your Constitutional Mandated actual money any more, it will never really work as good as our magic paper."

100 years later "Gee why is my money done lost 97% of it's value? Duh just normal I guess..."

DEBT is WEALTH. WAR is PEACE. Oh please, spare me.
Now we have to collapse, war, and start over, the only remaining vestige of our once-fairly-advanced society a City of London enclave of elitists trapped in the rotting corpse of the nation they cannibalized. I'd like to imagine that we would do it right next time, but in reality there will always be some shylock to pollute everything again.

#33 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 12:34 AM | Reply

So what's your plan, abandon Capitalism?

#32 | Posted by snoofy

-NO, Not at all!
A plan would be to balance trade and control spending.

#34 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 12:41 AM | Reply

A plan would be to balance trade

What does that mean, exactly?

#35 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-05-25 12:46 AM | Reply

"Tariffs also are targeted taxation"

Of buyers, not makers. US tariffs are taxes on US consumers.

"meaning some industries won't be affected by the Tax."

But all consumers will be affected by it.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-25 01:41 AM | Reply

And to think we had a grand total of about $5 trillion when Clinton left office, and also left a plan on George Bush's Oval Office desk to pay it off in just a few years.

Instead, Bush and GOP-controlled Congress doubled the budget, more than doubled the debt, and left us with annual deficits of $1.4 trillion his last budget year.

Obama got deficits back down to $500 billion, but Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress once again did tax cuts and left us with $1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficits.

Republicans aren't fiscally responsible. Not in the least. Tax cuts don't lead to growth. They lead to mounting debt. Only.

#37 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2025-05-25 04:52 AM | Reply

Gee, if only Republicans hadn't reset our fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits, we wouldn't have that problem, would we?

#10 | Posted by Danforth

"Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

VP Dick Cheney when asked about 2 tax cuts and doubling the budget, creating massive systemic annual deficits

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2025-05-25 05:00 AM | Reply

How does one appeal for reason and logic from an insane, narcissistic leader who is wandering around the world muttering? He isn't famous for listening to anyone, though last term his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, and his Secretary of Defense Mattis were able to distract him as one would distract a little child.

#39 | Posted by Hughmass at 2025-05-25 07:33 AM | Reply

"If the trade balance is not restored, we will literally lose our country. Foreigners will own our country."

What is Trump looking to finance? $4T, $5T, something like that? So that USans don't have to pay taxes?

The trade balance is immaterial. In fact, if you're a fan of Trump's populist "poor people pay nothing" tax plan, it's an imperative that you like the trade imbalance. That's how it's being financed.

Furthermore, the absolute collapse of the US dollar will lead to far more foreign ownership. Why? Because if 1 EUR = $2 USD, US property is half the cost to Europeans as what it would have been two months ago. And why would the dollar decline in value? Tariffs. There is no need to trade in USD if you're not buying anything from the US. I don't ever recall any of my econ professors talking about how a country can tariff its way to prosperity.

No ----, I don't understand how some of you support this garbage. Trump is literally adopting an economic platform that rivals anything Bernie could have come up with. And it's Trumpers supporting it-and progressives claiming they disagree with it.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-05-25 07:34 AM | Reply

We've had two Parties sell out the citizens of the country they represent. They knew the multiple origins of the problem reckless spending and wars and paying to the benefit of other countries, but they obeyed the Wall Street financialists and globalists instead of the common sense of tightening up all spending. It has been suggested many times no tax cuts unless we see them bring benefits of bringing actual production and productivity back to USA.

#41 | Posted by Robson at 2025-05-25 01:55 PM | Reply

"In fact, if you're a fan of Trump's populist "poor people pay nothing" tax plan, it's an imperative that you like the trade imbalance. That's how it's being financed."

Yep. And now that the tariffs are lowered, what makes up that tax shortfall?
Nothing. We go another four trillion into debt.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money!

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 02:13 PM | Reply

"Trump is literally adopting an economic platform that rivals anything Bernie could have come up with. "

Setting aside that Trump already abandoned the tariffs:

Trump's plan is the opposite.
Trump's plan is regressive taxes and tax cuts for the rich.
Bernie's plan is progressive taxes and taxes on the rich.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 02:15 PM | Reply

" I don't ever recall any of my econ professors talking about how a country can tariff its way to prosperity."

That should have been your first clue that Bernie would not come up with such a wealth-destroying plan.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 02:16 PM | Reply

"We've had two Parties sell out the citizens of the country they represent."

Nobody has ever sold us out like Trump.

And by "us" I mean White people, not African Americans. Hard to say who sold them out the worst, but it was probably George Washington.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 02:17 PM | Reply

Just more xenophobia. I own my home, you're claiming I should own my home?
Ridiculous.

#28 | Posted by oneironaut

That's not what I'm talking about. And unless you live in a cave you know it. I'm talking about foreign investment in massive amounts of commercial, agricultural and residential real estate. ...And the later is a big part of what is making housing unaffordable for so many Americans.

#46 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-25 03:09 PM | Reply

"If the trade balance is not restored, we will literally lose our country. Foreigners will own our country.
Do you understand?
#11 | Posted by itchyp"

You, like Trump, are only looking at one side of the trade.
But we don't only trade goods.
We also trade services. And we have a surplus on that trade.

And that's the direction we should be moving in, since services are a higher margin than most trade goods.

The United States maintains a significant trade surplus in services, which reflects its comparative advantage in sectors like education, entertainment, and finance. In 2024, the U.S. ran a trade surplus in services of $295 billion, while having a trade deficit in goods of $1,213 billion.
econofact.org

Service industries account for over two-thirds of U.S. GDP and four out of five private-sector U.S. jobs. In 2020, U.S. cross-border exports of services measured $706 billion and generated a surplus of $245 billion. Foreign affiliates of U.S. companies generated an additional $1.77 trillion in sales in 2019 (most recent data available), bringing foreign sales of services by U.S. companies to more than $2.4 trillion.
ustr.gov

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-25 03:16 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort