> It almost feels as though economics discussion is made complicated on purpose Mostly because finance as much as financiers desperately want it to be a scienc

> It almost feels as though economics discussion is made complicated on purpose Mostly because finance as much as financiers desperately want it to be a science it isn’t. For the most part they’re guessing in the dark and presenting it like hard science, using baselines that are very generic and seeing if their associated metrics change all the while speaking in cryptic language. Good example is Greenspan’s one number to rule them all. In general I’ve noticed the same behavior in life too, whenever people start speaking in overly complex ways they’re usually (though not always) masking incompetence in the subject matter. This article in general felt more like a forced down your throat PSA than anything else. Don’t worry it’s not foreign countries owning your future, it’s your own retirements at work for you. Your country working for you. There’s a name for that, propaganda. The article didn’t really explain anything about debt, it just used government publications to recite to you how the government segregated the owners of US treasuries. Same as when an analyst will tell you what kind of institutions own AAPL. Hint: the same.