What's new

U.S. officials crafting retaliatory actions against China over coronavirus

Yes they have trust me i studied History in US about US

1st time American revolution - US couldnt pay France for the artillery/ military equipment to fight british
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans

2nd time - war of 1812 . US defaulted on treasuries
http://www.bandyheritagecenter.org/Content/Uploads/Bandy Heritage Center/files/1812/Financing the War of 1812.pdf

the rest are fairly recent u can look them up. the concept of debt ceiling came US learned from its mistakes

Read your own links

1st American Revolution:

“In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts with the French Government with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately assumed French debts at a slightly higher interest rate. Swan then resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. The United States no longer owed money to foreign governments, although it continued to owe money to private investors both in the United States and in Europe.”

2nd War of 1812:

Last paragraph says the “national debt was paid off in 1837.”

Like I said US never defaulted on it’s debt. I deal with economic and finance related activities on a daily basis and had defaulting occurred I would have come across it.
 
I don't think the CCP cares about jobs. There is no mandate for CCP to create jobs - if it just gives people money for free, that's OK too. Indeed, it would be perfectly in line with the party charter for everything to be automated and for people to just get paid free money. As of now, there are enough jobs to go around, but if there aren't - the government can just increase taxes and redistribute money without ideological opposition.

This is in stark contrast to the US where jobs are a core part of someone's identity and free money is ideologically unacceptable to the Republican Party and large parts of the Democratic Party. Note how Andrew Yang's UBI was ridiculed and Bernie's federal jobs guarantee was favored. Even when US has the capability to just give free money to people, the people do not want to accept it.

As an example of how China does not care about jobs and would rather just automate, here's a look at how warehouses are run in China: total automation, 4 employees.


Meanwhile 4000 workers are required per Amazon facility.

Here's how BYD makes masks. Note the full automation of steps in a roll to roll process. 5 million masks per day.

Here's how GM makes masks. Note several bottlenecks limited by workers such as strap stapling and packing. 20k (0.02 million) masks per day.


2 things

1- your economy is not gona grow if your population does not participate in the economy. If people get free money that that means they are not working --> not earning --> not paying tax. ur gdp wont grow and the party revenue would go down

2nd- taxing the rich wont gona get you much sooner or later those rich are gona get fed up and they might look for other candidates to back.

So instead of doing all that why not give more jobs to people. have so much vacancy already available that if there are population shifts or any significant event occurring they still have extra jobs in reserve to give. Keep the rich happy because after all they are your backers.

I mean if Huawei's CEO can get the govt to act on getting his grand daughter free you know rich have influence in the communist party

Read your own links

1st American Revolution:

“In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts with the French Government with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately assumed French debts at a slightly higher interest rate. Swan then resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. The United States no longer owed money to foreign governments, although it continued to owe money to private investors both in the United States and in Europe.”

2nd War of 1812:

Last paragraph says the “national debt was paid off in 1837.”

Like I said US never defaulted on it’s debt.


You settle when you have already defaulted and cannot pay your loan otherwise the term used is "paid-off". If for example i cant pay my Credit card bill of $1000 i can "Settle" for a $500 payment to get them off the back . if you wana go more ind detail the guy "james swan" rescused the US from french debt by assuming the entire governments debt on himself

For the secodn war. the U.S was forced to suspend the interest payment on the treasuries. when u cant pay your interest you automatically default. stop finding out of context language and read the history to understand
"As revenue from duties shrank and expenses mounted, the public debt soared and soon became unsustainable. Forced to suspend interest payments on its bonds, the U.S. Treasury technically defaulted on November 9, 1814"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...each-us-about-the-fiscal-cliff-debate/265488/
 
2 things

1- your economy is not gona grow if your population does not participate in the economy. If people get free money that that means they are not working --> not earning --> not paying tax. ur gdp wont grow and the party revenue would go down

2nd- taxing the rich wont gona get you much sooner or later those rich are gona get fed up and they might look for other candidates to back.

So instead of doing all that why not give more jobs to people. have so much vacancy already available that if there are population shifts or any significant event occurring they still have extra jobs in reserve to give. Keep the rich happy because after all they are your backers.

Why not? You don't need everyone to have jobs. Some people are negative value added for a business organization. I know it, you know it, we've all seen them. These people are better off being paid to just get out of the way. Otherwise, they either starve, riot or remove value from the organization.

Another thing is, you don't need people working jobs to produce value. Sometimes a job itself is negative value added. Look at the GM plant vs the BYD plant. BYD could tear out the strap stapling machine and put a sewing station there and hire strap sewers. It would create jobs. But that job is value negative. it is worse than the job not existing. if the strap stapler produces $50 dollars worth of masks per hour but the sewer only produces $25 and makes $10 an hour such that $35 dollars an hour goes into the economy, it's still better for the economy to just install the strap stapler and pay someone $10 an hour for free to create demand.

There is still currently a requirement for labor in China such that there are enough jobs to go around. But in the event there isn't, there's no reason not to just pay money to the unemployed out of the vast surplus of value being created through automation.
 
2 things

1- your economy is not gona grow if your population does not participate in the economy. If people get free money that that means they are not working --> not earning --> not paying tax. ur gdp wont grow and the party revenue would go down

2nd- taxing the rich wont gona get you much sooner or later those rich are gona get fed up and they might look for other candidates to back.

So instead of doing all that why not give more jobs to people. have so much vacancy already available that if there are population shifts or any significant event occurring they still have extra jobs in reserve to give. Keep the rich happy because after all they are your backers.

I mean if Huawei's CEO can get the govt to act on getting his grand daughter free you know rich have influence in the communist party




You settle when you have already defaulted and cannot pay your loan otherwise the term used is "paid-off". If for example i cant pay my Credit card bill of $1000 i can "Settle" for a $500 payment to get them off the back . if you wana go more ind detail the guy "james swan" rescused the US from french debt by assuming the entire governments debt on himself

I know the difference between the two as I have studied economics and finance. US didn’t settle any debt but picking them back up and paying it of. They didn’t defaulted or went into bankruptcy that wiped away debt. US made the investors whole again in both cases.

What your are confusing is the defaulting of it’s obligations. Similar how you have a credit card and missed payments but eventually you’ll owe it at a future date. Which is much different than defaulting on the debt completely. Hence, you had tax increases to shore up the treasury with fresh inflow of cash.
 
Last edited:
2 things

1- your economy is not gona grow if your population does not participate in the economy. If people get free money that that means they are not working --> not earning --> not paying tax. ur gdp wont grow and the party revenue would go down

2nd- taxing the rich wont gona get you much sooner or later those rich are gona get fed up and they might look for other candidates to back.

So instead of doing all that why not give more jobs to people. have so much vacancy already available that if there are population shifts or any significant event occurring they still have extra jobs in reserve to give. Keep the rich happy because after all they are your backers.

I mean if Huawei's CEO can get the govt to act on getting his grand daughter free you know rich have influence in the communist party




You settle when you have already defaulted and cannot pay your loan otherwise the term used is "paid-off". If for example i cant pay my Credit card bill of $1000 i can "Settle" for a $500 payment to get them off the back . if you wana go more ind detail the guy "james swan" rescused the US from french debt by assuming the entire governments debt on himself
I know the difference between the two as I have studied economics and finance. US didn’t settle any debt but picking them back up and paying it of. They didn’t defaulted or went into bankruptcy that wiped away debt. US made the investors who again in both cases.

well if you have studied economics then you should the interest of the underlying principal is an "obligation" as much as the principal is itself. you should also know that the repayment of debts are not bonafide but binding agreement. Hence, if you cannot pay the obligation of the interest in the time it was agreed upon you breach the agreement and so you automatically default. because what you failed to see is that investors may have leveraged that money an example.

Say US govt said i will give 10% interest on X amount of money anyone lends per month. an investor gets the X amount of money from someone else and promise to pay 5% to them. he loans the money to the govt gets 10% interest per month pays 5% keeps 5% as profit. now say US govt refused to pay interest . even though at a later date US may principal back he is hurting that investor because that investor is still on the hook for 5% he promised to whoever he leveraged that money.

As a rule of thumb. you are not in default if you pay your debt with the interest on the time you promised your creditors to. otherwise it is implied that you are not financially stable to service your debts
 
well if you have studied economics then you should the interest of the underlying principal is an "obligation" as much as the principal is itself. you should also know that the repayment of debts are not bonafide but binding agreement. Hence, if you cannot pay the obligation of the interest in the time it was agreed upon you breach the agreement and so you automatically default. because what you failed to see is that investors may have leveraged that money an example.

Say US govt said i will give 10% interest on X amount of money anyone lends per month. an investor gets the X amount of money from someone else and promise to pay 5% to them. he loans the money to the govt gets 10% interest per month pays 5% keeps 5% as profit. now say US govt refused to pay interest . even though at a later date US may principal back he is hurting that investor because that investor is still on the hook for 5% he promised to whoever he leveraged that money

Your going all over the place and now splitting interest from principle. The 1st example is a private individual took over the obligation for debt hence no default in interest and principle. So your point is mute there. The 2nd no where it says either principle or interest was defaulted, and no reputable economic journal states it either. Now interest was deferred for few years to pay down the principle but this was no default.

well if you have studied economics then you should the interest of the underlying principal is an "obligation" as much as the principal is itself. you should also know that the repayment of debts are not bonafide but binding agreement. Hence, if you cannot pay the obligation of the interest in the time it was agreed upon you breach the agreement and so you automatically default. because what you failed to see is that investors may have leveraged that money an example.

Say US govt said i will give 10% interest on X amount of money anyone lends per month. an investor gets the X amount of money from someone else and promise to pay 5% to them. he loans the money to the govt gets 10% interest per month pays 5% keeps 5% as profit. now say US govt refused to pay interest . even though at a later date US may principal back he is hurting that investor because that investor is still on the hook for 5% he promised to whoever he leveraged that money.

As a rule of thumb. you are not in default if you pay your debt with the interest on the time you promised your creditors to. otherwise it is implied that you are not financially stable to service your debts

Again financially stable and default two different things, you can be late on your payments but not completely default on your obligations.

At the end of the day the US never in its history defaulted on its obligations. Where it refused to pay bond holders.

I suggest you learn some more about this topic because your just now starting to throw random things left and right.
 
Your going all over the place and now splitting interest from principle. The 1st example is a private individual took over the obligation for debt hence no default in interest and principle. So your point is mute there. The 2nd no where it says either principle or interest was defaulted, and no reputable economic journal states it either. Now interest was deferred for few years to pay down the principle but this was no default.

dude you dont even understand the concept of debt govt/private househoold/business the concept of debt is the same. some entity borrows some money and promise to pay it at a certain time with interest. if they cannot do it they default. and hence must come to other arrangement with the creditors. either settling, deferring, bartering, liquidation whatever have you

You also dont understand what defaulting is. idk which school of economics have you studied at
definition of default
"Default is the failure to repay a debt including interest or principal on a loan or security. A default can occur when a borrower is unable to make timely payments, misses payments, or avoids or stops making payments"
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/default2.asp

you dont understand the concept of default you believe as long as they paid the principal they dint default. . in the war of 1812 US could not pay the interest on the treasury hence it defaulted. Also here is a barrage of reputable source while you have yet to prove even one

i have given u sources from the atlantic, US govt public library but heres some more

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theo...lt-associated-press-1979-war-of-1812/2979497/ - defaulted atleast twice

Investors called it a "default" and sued for interest to cover the gap. Treasury called it a "delay."
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/debt-limit-government-default-098252

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ted-states-has-defaulted-before/#2e8224d26021

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/the-u-s-has-defaulted-before/

https://www.businessinsider.com/eco...-carney-the-us-is-not-a-default-virgin-2011-5

https://www.theglobalist.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-defaults/

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/reswkpap/pdf/rwp19-04.pdf

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-02-01-9602010022-story.html
 
Last edited:
Why not? You don't need everyone to have jobs. Some people are negative value added for a business organization. I know it, you know it, we've all seen them. These people are better off being paid to just get out of the way. Otherwise, they either starve, riot or remove value from the organization.


Another thing is, you don't need people working jobs to produce value. Sometimes a job itself is negative value added. Look at the GM plant vs the BYD plant. BYD could tear out the strap stapling machine and put a sewing station there and hire strap sewers. It would create jobs. But that job is value negative. it is worse than the job not existing. if the strap stapler produces $50 dollars worth of masks per hour but the sewer only produces $25 and makes $10 an hour such that $35 dollars an hour goes into the economy, it's still better for the economy to just install the strap stapler and pay someone $10 an hour for free to create demand.

There is still currently a requirement for labor in China such that there are enough jobs to go around. But in the event there isn't, there's no reason not to just pay money to the unemployed out of the vast surplus of value being created through automation.

ok in the interest of not being rude to those people. i agree some people are negative value added. i havent really thought about how complete automation in china would look. maybe the country will look more towards being a service country where people are encouraged to get into very skilled labor.

ive always considered that phenomenon to come to America specially with Covid since everyone is realizing the consequences of relying majorly on china and what keeps American companies bound to china which is primarily the cost of labor the additional cost of health care etc. If robots were to fill that gap by not having to pay a minimum not healthcare etc then theres no reason why manufacturing would continue in china and wont make it back to the US
 
Last edited:
Senior U.S. officials are beginning to explore proposals for punishing or demanding financial compensation from China for its handling of the coronaviruspandemic, according to four senior administration officials with knowledge of internal planning.

The move could splinter already strained relations between the two superpowers at a perilous moment for the global economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/30/trump-china-coronavirus-retaliation/

I dont believe a word.

USA & NATO & Russia should have bombed Beijing months ago. But they are afraid of China.

The best evidence is how Western big Press Agencies treat the topic of Covid, they dont demonize China or Xi Jinping, unlike they did in the past with Saddam or Gadafi.

The West are afraid of China.
 
I dont believe a word.

USA & NATO & Russia should have bombed Beijing months ago. But they are afraid of China.

The best evidence is how Western big Press Agencies treat the topic of Covid, they dont demonize China or Xi Jinping, unlike they did in the past with Saddam or Gadafi.

The West are afraid of China.

thats true to some extent. China definitely has alot of pull when it comes to Europe and canada. In both places the balance of power shifted where china does what it wants regardless and pretty much doesnt give a damn. U.S is the only country that has pull with china

it was evident during the trade-war

When U.S started putting tariff's left and right and china finally agreed to cover the deficit even buying soyabeans just to appease U.S

US got huawei blocked in alot of countries considering huaweii is very close with the communist party and have alot of influence

US got the CFO of huawei who is the grand daughter of Huawei's CEO arrested in Canada and huawei's CEO and despite so much pressure form huawei to the communist party even to the extent of china putting canadians in jail they couldnt do anything about it
 
There is a lot of similarities between 1920s - 1930s and 2020.

Global economic crisis, high unemployment rate, social unrest and so on. Consequently, bunch of dictatorships gets chosen (like Hitler and Mussolini) because they promise to fix the problem and make their country great again.

I can see history repeating itself with China being the next major boogeyman. We all know the only way to restart the economy would be for a major global conflict to occur. Wartime production with 99% employment, half the population dying, then the victors would be in a golden age.
 
dude you dont even understand the concept of debt govt/private househoold/business the concept of debt is the same. some entity borrows some money and promise to pay it at a certain time with interest. if they cannot do it they default. and hence must come to other arrangement with the creditors. either settling, deferring, bartering, liquidation whatever have you

You also dont understand what defaulting is. idk which school of economics have you studied at
definition of default
"Default is the failure to repay a debt including interest or principal on a loan or security. A default can occur when a borrower is unable to make timely payments, misses payments, or avoids or stops making payments"
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/default2.asp

you dont understand the concept of default you believe as long as they paid the principal they dint default. . in the war of 1812 US could not pay the interest on the treasury hence it defaulted. Also here is a barrage of reputable source while you have yet to prove even one

i have given u sources from the atlantic, US govt public library but heres some more

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theo...lt-associated-press-1979-war-of-1812/2979497/ - defaulted atleast twice

Investors called it a "default" and sued for interest to cover the gap. Treasury called it a "delay."
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/debt-limit-government-default-098252

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ted-states-has-defaulted-before/#2e8224d26021

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/the-u-s-has-defaulted-before/

https://www.businessinsider.com/eco...-carney-the-us-is-not-a-default-virgin-2011-5

https://www.theglobalist.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-defaults/

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/reswkpap/pdf/rwp19-04.pdf

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-02-01-9602010022-story.html


You have no idea what your spewing and just google searching “Did US Default” and posting links. Where did I say, you just make principle and no interest payments and you’re not in default, I said US pushed forward it’s obligation to make interest payments, they had a legal precedence to do it.

The word default can have different meanings depending on the contract you have with another party if one fails to make certain payments or perform as expected per contract law. A party who has defaulted can be made to come back into compliance with a contract through payments with penalties, or modifications to a contract. Private contracts typically specify in some detail what actions or omissions would constitute default.

There is a big difference often times in public and private debt, a private individual who missed payments the credit card company can consider you delinquent, but not default unless the file is handed over to collection’s, and before this there is a time period to make one party whole again, through payments or other remedies. However, certain contracts will not give you such leeway.

In the case of US after the War of 1812 the Federal Government took the debt did a swap; with lower interest rates – but in no circumstances defaulted completely as your applying. As I said before rating agencies and public departments can have different meanings (or the contract can stipulate what will constitute a default):

Treasury Securities Carry No Contractually Specified Default Clauses

The UOC, however, contemplates no contingency related to payment delays or default. Thus, any discussion of potential default by the U.S. government on obligations related to Treasury securities cannot be based on contractual terms specified in the UOC. The absence of any provision in the UOC mentioning payment delays or defaults presumably stems from the widely held view that U.S. Treasury securities are risk-free assets. If Treasury payment delays or defaults were to become an issue, legal consequences would depend on how the corpus of contract law were applied. (Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44704.pdf).
 
Last edited:
ok in the interest of not being rude to those people. i agree some people are negative value added. i havent really thought about how complete automation in china would look. maybe the country will look more towards being a service country where people are encouraged to get into very skilled labor.

ive always considered that phenomenon to come to America specially with Covid since everyone is realizing the consequences of relying majorly on china and what keeps American companies bound to china which is primarily the cost of labor the additional cost of health care etc. If robots were to fill that gap by not having to pay a minimum not healthcare etc then theres no reason why manufacturing would continue in china and wont make it back to the US

American companies don't own the factories in China, they subcontract. At most, they can stop working with those factories, but then where do they source from? It's also not the manual labor that's cheap in China. It's the engineers all the way to the CEOs.

A manual laborer on a sewing machine, even if working for free, still can't compete with the strap stapler machine. Chinese labor making $4 per hour can't compete in pure cost with the 1 billion people in this world making $2 per day.

But a $20k per year engineer can definitely compete with a $60k per year engineer. How much different, really, is a $20k per year engineer in China vs. a $60k per year engineer in US, given equivalent experience? How different is a $1 million per year CEO in China vs a $5 million per year CEO in the US in terms of delivering value? Does that $4 million extra actually hire someone capable of generating at least $4 million more in revenue?
 
You have no idea what your spewing and just google searching “Did US Default” and posting links. Where did I say, you just make principle and no interest payments and you’re not in default, I said US pushed forward it’s obligation to make interest payments, they had a legal precedence to do it.

The word default can have different meanings depending on the contract you have with another party if one fails to make certain payments or perform as expected per contract law. A party who has defaulted can be made to come back into compliance with a contract through payments with penalties, or modifications to a contract. Private contracts typically specify in some detail what actions or omissions would constitute default.

There is a big difference often times in public and private debt, a private individual who missed payments the credit card company can consider you delinquent, but not default unless the file is handed over to collection’s, and before this there is a time period to make one party whole again, through payments or other remedies. However, certain contracts will not give you such leeway.

In the case of US after the War of 1812 the Federal Government took the debt did a swap; with lower interest rates – but in no circumstances defaulted completely as your applying. As I said before rating agencies and public departments can have different meanings (or the contract can stipulate what will constitute a default):

Treasury Securities Carry No Contractually Specified Default Clauses

The UOC, however, contemplates no contingency related to payment delays or default. Thus, any discussion of potential default by the U.S. government on obligations related to Treasury securities cannot be based on contractual terms specified in the UOC. The absence of any provision in the UOC mentioning payment delays or defaults presumably stems from the widely held view that U.S. Treasury securities are risk-free assets. If Treasury payment delays or defaults were to become an issue, legal consequences would depend on how the corpus of contract law were applied. (Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44704.pdf).



oh my God do i have dumb it down to grade school economics for you? for your sake i am writing a lengthy post so you can understand economics and clear your misconceptions. so read carefully

Defaul DOES NOT have different meanings. Default means breaching you contract, breaking your contract. that where that word comes from
"Default occurs when one party to a contract fails to meet their obligations under the contract"
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/contract-termination-result-default-59223.html


borrowing money/ debt is a "BINDING AGREEMENT" which equates to a contract between 2 parties that includes in its most basic version 3 clauses to be executed precisely
1- how much money was borrowed
2- how much was interest does both parties agree to pay
3- the time of repayment
if you dont execute that contract precisely than you break that contract or you DEFAULT on the contract that where that word comes from.

There is a big difference often times in public and private debt, a private individual who missed payments the credit card company can consider you delinquent, but not default unless the file is handed over to collection’s
Wrong! if you miss one month's of payment you defaulted on the contract. Now its upto creditor whether he gives u more time, late fees, seek collection, sell your asset thats his contingency. and for your sake i have even attached terms of agreement of a bank of america credit card to clear your misunderstanding

"DEFAULT You will be in default of this Agreement if: (1) you fail to make any required Total Minimum Payment Due by its Payment Due Date; (2) your total outstanding balance exceeds your Total Credit Line; (3) your Bank Cash Advance balance exceeds your Cash Credit Line; or (4) you fail to abide by any other term of this Agreement. Solely for the purposes of determining eligibility and premium payment obligations for the optional credit insurance purchased through Bank of America, you will be deemed in default or delinquent if you fail to make a payment within 90 days of your Payment Due Date"
https://www.bankofamerica.com/conte...atinum-visa-signature-world-mastercard-en.pdf

Why a CC company considers you in default if you fail to make even only 1 month payment because breach of contract of "3- the time of repayment"


In the case of US after the War of 1812 the Federal Government took the debt did a swap; with lower interest rates – but in no circumstances defaulted completely as your applying. As I said before rating agencies and public departments can have different meanings (or the contract can stipulate what will constitute a default):

so even if the federal governemnt "did a swap" the need to take that additional action came when they couldnt pay their orignal obligation or in another unable to execute thier contract. otherwise they wouldnt need to do it and keep paying their creditors as-is no problem. also that "swap" is "settling' the interest to a lower amount because YOU COULD NOT service the original interest agreed upon hence your DEFAULTED



The UOC, however, contemplates no contingency related to payment delays or default. Thus, any discussion of potential default by the U.S. government on obligations related to Treasury securities cannot be based on contractual terms specified in the UOC. The absence of any provision in the UOC mentioning payment delays or defaults presumably stems from the widely held view that U.S. Treasury securities are risk-free assets. If Treasury payment delays or defaults were to become an issue, legal consequences would depend on how the corpus of contract law were applied. (Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44704.pdf)..

this shows me how truly little you know about economics. you know what this paragraph is saying. let me also dumb it down for you. it means US government has no contingency (Alternative plan) in case they delay or default on their payments. it does not mean they never default. let me dumb it down a little more

If you have a loan on your house and you are paying mortgage. lets say you missed a payment and so DEFAULTED on your mortgage. the bank CAN (does not mean they immediately will) auction your house that is their contingency meaning an alternative thing they can do to recoup payment. US govt said if we default or delay then thats it buy it at your own risk there is no contingency available

The absence of any provision in the UOC mentioning payment delays or defaults presumably stems from the widely held view that U.S. Treasury securities are risk-free assets
theyre saying we dont mention delays or defaults in our contract because everyone in the world thinks giving us debt is risk free. makes sense u would never put a default contract if ur loaning to bill gates because its risk free

If Treasury payment delays or defaults were to become an issue, legal consequences would depend on how the CORPUS OF CONTRACT LAWS applied
However if we did default (broke out contract) then we will adhere to the laws of that time that pertains to breaking the contract. basically if we default and are taken to court then we will do whatever the court decides. Even the freaking treasuries are telling you how debt are a binding agreements


you cant understand this basic thing the basic fundamental of finance and economics work and whatever little knowledge you have you keep spinning around and whatever doesn't fit that little circle of your knowledge you start saying "going all over the place" you don't even comprehend half the stuff is say.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom