3 ms·

" It seems clear that they negotiated hard with the US and acted rather shrewdly." I do not even understand why one country would need to negotiate about their

" It seems clear that they negotiated hard with the US and acted rather shrewdly." I do not even understand why one country would need to negotiate about their properties held abroad. There are two reasons I can come up with right now: - Country A holding assets of Country B wants leverage over Country B or - Country A does not hold 100% of these assets any longer

late2part 10y ago
Because "possession is 9/10ths of the law."
VLM 10y ago
Centuries ago countries, or strongmen anyway, used to formalize allegiances by trading human hostages. We're friends for all eternity because your cousin is a valued "guest" of my court and vice versa. We do that with central banks and gold now a days. So keeping a relationship of balanced trust, yanking assets from one location will have an equal and opposite reaction probably in a completely different form somewhere else. The manipulated currency exchange rates will wiggle. Imported black forest cuckoo clocks will get a different tariff. The ratio of central bank interest rates will wiggle. Sometimes 3rd parties get roped into the deal so perhaps the GBP-USD ratio will wiggle in some manner. Something is gonna happen to balance it and you can either control what happens, influence what happens, or toss hands in air and hope the free market does the right thing. A lot of people are paid a lot of money to not do the later, so you can generally assume that politician-like or IT consultant-like, the strongly advised reaction by the people is never for their paycheck writing organization to do nothing. So something of equal and opposite reaction, probably agreed upon ahead of time, is about to happen. Ideally in some sort of pacifistic utopia it would be illegal for citizens to store movable assets in-country or invest locally. We're rather unlikely to bomb Germany again anytime soon, or unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, but it is sad to see the old (by my human lifespan standards) relationship on shakier grounds. Oh well.

late2part 10y ago

Because "possession is 9/10ths of the law."

VLM 10y ago

Centuries ago countries, or strongmen anyway, used to formalize allegiances by trading human hostages. We're friends for all eternity because your cousin is a valued "guest" of my court and vice versa. We do that with central banks and gold now a days. So keeping a relationship of balanced trust, yanking assets from one location will have an equal and opposite reaction probably in a completely different form somewhere else. The manipulated currency exchange rates will wiggle. Imported black forest cuckoo clocks will get a different tariff. The ratio of central bank interest rates will wiggle. Sometimes 3rd parties get roped into the deal so perhaps the GBP-USD ratio will wiggle in some manner. Something is gonna happen to balance it and you can either control what happens, influence what happens, or toss hands in air and hope the free market does the right thing. A lot of people are paid a lot of money to not do the later, so you can generally assume that politician-like or IT consultant-like, the strongly advised reaction by the people is never for their paycheck writing organization to do nothing. So something of equal and opposite reaction, probably agreed upon ahead of time, is about to happen. Ideally in some sort of pacifistic utopia it would be illegal for citizens to store movable assets in-country or invest locally. We're rather unlikely to bomb Germany again anytime soon, or unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, but it is sad to see the old (by my human lifespan standards) relationship on shakier grounds. Oh well.