7 ms·

It's not pure symbolism. The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. The US economy is

It's not pure symbolism. The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. The US economy is in a very precarious state, tensions along political ideology lines are high, and it would not take much more than a worsening of economic conditions plus a catalyst event to kick off armed unrest within the country. A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective.

raincole 9mo ago
> Danish pension fund AkademikerPension said on Tuesday it would sell off its holding of U.S. Treasuries, worth some $100 million, > AkademikerPension has in total 164 billion Danish crowns ($25.74 billion) So they are moving about 0.4% of their investment. Not pure symbolism, but $100 million is really nothing when we're talking about US treasuries. In the past decade, China has reduced their holding by about $600B.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  Think of it as a bowshot. There are many more such 10 to 100 billion funds and they can move at the drop of a hat if they have to.
  - dmitrygr 9mo ago
    Can. Won't. There is no safer place to stash money in the world. Nobody buys treasuries for the fun of it. They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      That's your opinion, which you are of course welcome to. People buy treasuries because they expect a return. If a party is threatening to get into a shooting war with you your expectations of a return drop significantly. This then causes that party to protect their investment, the last one to defect will hold the bag. The US is signalling on all wavelengths that it is no longer the safest place to stash money, long term or otherwise.
      - dmitrygr 9mo ago
        ok, let's run with your theory. Where does one safely stash a small-ish sum like ~$100B now?
        jacquesm 9mo ago
        You are so far out from understanding why pension funds put money in foreign government paper that I'm not sure where to begin explaining it. But the key is simply portfolio diversification. Institutional investors have access to a very large number of options on where, how and for how long they want to park their money that it isn't some kind of forced move to put their money in US Treasuries. It's just a way to hedge their bets. In the larger scheme of things $100B isn't all that much (it may be to you, but even a small trading desk of a mid sized bank or multinational, say Royal Dutch Shell, or such) have access to that kind of money. They are not going to take the chance that Donald Trump on Monday morning, after eating a bad burger the night before, decides to unleash the might of the US military on their territory and be left holding the bag. One downside of running a trade deficit with the rest of the world is that they have you by the short and curlies; if they dump your paper you will have to buy it back as fast as they can dump it to avoid a crash of your currency. That can get expensive really quickly.
        pedalpete 9mo ago
        The US was a safe place with consistent returns for decades. Now the US has increased risk. It isn't a calculation of "where do we put $100B", it's a calculation of "what is the balance of managing risk and returns". Canada and Australia are low risk, but don't have the returns of the US. Brasil, Argentina, have higher risk. The allocations get spread across different risk profiles, and the money gets spread across different investments. Of course, this is on the assumption the majority of this money stays in Treasuries. These large funds have options beyond that. It's a mathematical calculation where every asset in the world is an option. $100B can be spread around pretty easily I'd think.
    - chimprich 9mo ago
      > They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term. Only historically. The calculus is rapidly changing. If the US can't even respect sovereign territory of friendly countries, it doesn't inspire trust that they would repay debt.
    - sealeck 9mo ago
      The assumption that treasuries is safe depends upon the guarantor (the US government) being reliable. Currently this is ahistorically far from being the case and therefore people are investigating other places to park capital.
    - fakedang 9mo ago
      If the US starts a war, they immediately collapse down the safety rankings. Also there are other tax havens.
    - ta20240528 9mo ago
      Which is why the ECB should start a programme to issue about €5 trillion in new bonds as an alternative to USD treasuries. IMHO.
- ihsw 9mo ago
  [dead]
whimsicalism 9mo ago
I’m curious when people make comments like this, do they actually live in the US and believe this or has the media environment gotten so bad in Europe+ that people have no clue what’s real or not?
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  Maybe you'd trust Blackrock's CEO instead? I live in the US and I have rotated away from US equities and treasuries to derisk from volatility of poor governance (both this administration and long term fiscal policy). BlackRock CEO delivers blunt warning on US national debt - https://www.thestreet.com/investing/blackrock-ceo-delivers-blunt-warning-on-us-national-debt https://www.thestreet.com/investing/blackrock-ceo-delivers-b... - January 18th, 2026 The U.S. Deficit Will 'Overwhelm This Country': BlackRock CEO Larry Fink - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1GzgnhkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1GzgnhkI
  - whimsicalism 9mo ago
    I don’t disagree that our fiscal situation is unsustainable. I’m curious specifically about the people envisioning (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      In longitudinal surveys, typically, about 5% of folks elect the "some men want to watch the world burn" option. I cannot speak to the glee component you mention, I know these people exist, but they are a minority. I can speak to the ongoing political polarization that treats national politics as a sport and is avoiding course correcting fiscal policy trajectory. And this fiscal policy is going to lead to widening wealth inequality, a continuation of a K shaped economic recovery, and pushing the electorate to more extreme options besides the voting booth. No one is "winning", there is no moderate middle ground any more, and I don't see how this trajectory will change. Thanks Gingrich (who set us on this path decades ago)! Nearly 40% of Young Americans Say Political Violence Is Acceptable in Certain Circumstances, Harvard Poll Finds - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/4/hpop-poll-political-violence/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/4/hpop-poll-polit... - December 4th, 2025 Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing, and they see many reasons why - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans-say-politically-motivated-violence-is-increasing-and-they-see-many-reasons-why/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans... - October 23rd, 2025
technotony 9mo ago
How would a USA civil be the best scenario globally? Who knows what wars that would trigger globally
g_delgado14 9mo ago
> A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective. The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war? And if / when the US does topple (whether in 10 years or in 1000 years), at the moment it looks like the only viable next leaders in the world order are autocratic dictatorships. How is this a best scenario from a global perspective?
- StephenHerlihyy 9mo ago
  The opposition to American hegemony shifted from Europe (ie the USSR) to Asia (ie China). To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way nor do they have the ability to meaningfully implement economic policies that would effectively reduce Chinese growth. Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn’t really changed in the last decade or so. Obama tried to isolate China with European help, Trump 1.0 tried to convince Europe to step up, Biden showed them we were willing to move on, and now Trump 2.0 is following through. People fail to realize how anti-European this past decade has been, and not just under Trump. Europe had significant issue with the Inflation Reduction Act. Not to mention the war in Ukraine, which while illegal and entirely caused by Russia, was capitalized upon by American diplomats to the absolute benefite of the US at the expense of Europe. The overarching plan has been evident for a while, Trump is just blatant about it. He lacks the decorum to make someone happy about being gifted a lemon. Past administrations have had much more tact in that regard. America does not want direct conflict with China. China doesn’t want direct conflict with America either. It would be catastrophic for both honestly. Neither side would emerge cleanly victorious. Both would be limping away scarred by the experience. To that end America is just trying to let the underlying structural issues play out. China and Europe both have some structural issues that need addressed. America is gonna build up it’s own hemisphere and simply wait the rest of the world out. Is it the best plan? Honestly it might be. The more I see of it, the more comfortable I am growing with it. I was more worried about it in the Biden days simply because I was still under the mindset of Europe being an important ally. America was undermining the European economy on multiple fronts and it seemed like we were alienating some of our closest allies. Ironically what I think a lot of people are feeling now. The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily and they have been actively undermining America’s effects to derisk supply chains from China. Trump’s broad tariffs would have been handled better under someone else, but the end result would have been the same out of simple necessity. Since COVID America has grown more dependent on China due to second order effects. Everytime we close a door someone else opens a window to let them back in. And it’s not just Europe, but Canada, South Korea, others too. Honestly Mexico has probably been our best ally in that regard. If you follow the geopolitical sphere most of what’s happening is not new. Trump hasn’t really changed the plan - he’s just subtle like a brick to the face. He is loud and boastful about it where before it was clever and subtextual. That is really the only change. Geopoliticallt he tries to dominate while Biden and Obama would convince people something stupid was what they really wanted. I don’t know if that helps the anxiety at all. I’ve felt it, I’ve been there. I’ve yet to see a better plan though. Honestly, the next decade is gonna be bumpy, but if you look at the long-term trajectory, America is gonna be well ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s. We are easily in the best strategic position I would say. Once you really wrap your mind around the various aspects of it, it’s not a bad plan. It’s not Trump’s plan, it’s not Biden’s plan, this plan has roots going back over a decade. I’m sure at some point it was just a COA under discussion with multiple decision points and alternatives. Could it have worked itself out differently? Probably. But given where we are it’s probably the best plan for now.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
palmotea 9mo ago
> The US economy is in a very precarious state, tensions along political ideology lines are high, and it would not take much more than a worsening of economic conditions plus a catalyst event to kick off armed unrest within the country. Do you remember the situation that precipitated the Nazi takeover of Germany? Wasn't it hyperinflation and economic collapse? And you think it would be a good idea to push the US further in that direction? You'll get worse, not better. > A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective. Are you serious? That's an utterly insane idea. The best scenario from a global perspective is the US regains its stability. Europe is in no position to defend itself militarily, it relies on US support via NATO. I believe similar is true of Japan and other countries. A US civil war would only help Russia and China (Russia would gobble up Ukraine and who knows what else, China would take Taiwan and dominate/subjugate the rest of Asia, like Japan, in some fashion that non-Chinese nations wouldn't be happy with). Also US polarization isn't regional (e.g. a big part is urban/rural). There's no "fragmentation into independent regions" that would really solve the problem.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  The rest of the world is not going to be bullied into submission by one guy. If you can't take care of your own problem then eventually the world will turn away from you. This has the obvious potential of spiraling out of control but Trump is first and foremost the responsibility of the US population. The rest of the world will pick up the pieces. But he needs to be kept inside the lines or he'll run into people who are not just going to say 'yes' to his every whim.
  - palmotea 9mo ago
    But "not getting bullied" is and entirely different thing than thinking a US civil war would be a good thing for the world or "reduce the global threat" (which is just bonkers). Like, we're all amateurs on a web forum, but it's best to avoid monomaniacal, first-order thinking.
    - 9mo ago
zozbot234 9mo ago
> The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. Which is exactly what this administration is doing. What do you expect to happen when the POTUS and DOJ overtly pressure the sitting Chairman of the Federal Reserve to cut Fed Funds rates and print more money, thus creating more inflation in direct violation of a crystal-clear Congressional mandate? Do you think that's good for the U.S. as a destination for safe assets, or a "reserve currency"?
lingrush4 9mo ago
No, it's pure symbolism. Countries don't purchase US treasuries to be charitable to the US. This hurts Denmark just as much as it hurts the US. And in relative terms, Denmark is going to feel the pain from this way more than the US since the US economy is 70x bigger than Denmark's.
- overfeed 9mo ago
  You could measure this by looking at the Pensions fund performance vs US treasuries over the next decade or so.
littlestymaar 9mo ago
> The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. I really don't understand why people keep saying that despite the fact that Stephen Miran, Trump economic advisor, made it an explicit goal to devalue the dollar: > The root of the economic imbalances lies in persistent dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of international trade https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... They want the dollar's value to go down. You don't make someone change course by doing what they want as a punishment.

raincole 9mo ago

> Danish pension fund AkademikerPension said on Tuesday it would sell off its holding of U.S. Treasuries, worth some $100 million, > AkademikerPension has in total 164 billion Danish crowns ($25.74 billion) So they are moving about 0.4% of their investment. Not pure symbolism, but $100 million is really nothing when we're talking about US treasuries. In the past decade, China has reduced their holding by about $600B.

jacquesm 9mo ago
Think of it as a bowshot. There are many more such 10 to 100 billion funds and they can move at the drop of a hat if they have to.
- dmitrygr 9mo ago
  Can. Won't. There is no safer place to stash money in the world. Nobody buys treasuries for the fun of it. They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    That's your opinion, which you are of course welcome to. People buy treasuries because they expect a return. If a party is threatening to get into a shooting war with you your expectations of a return drop significantly. This then causes that party to protect their investment, the last one to defect will hold the bag. The US is signalling on all wavelengths that it is no longer the safest place to stash money, long term or otherwise.
    - dmitrygr 9mo ago
      ok, let's run with your theory. Where does one safely stash a small-ish sum like ~$100B now?
      - jacquesm 9mo ago
        You are so far out from understanding why pension funds put money in foreign government paper that I'm not sure where to begin explaining it. But the key is simply portfolio diversification. Institutional investors have access to a very large number of options on where, how and for how long they want to park their money that it isn't some kind of forced move to put their money in US Treasuries. It's just a way to hedge their bets. In the larger scheme of things $100B isn't all that much (it may be to you, but even a small trading desk of a mid sized bank or multinational, say Royal Dutch Shell, or such) have access to that kind of money. They are not going to take the chance that Donald Trump on Monday morning, after eating a bad burger the night before, decides to unleash the might of the US military on their territory and be left holding the bag. One downside of running a trade deficit with the rest of the world is that they have you by the short and curlies; if they dump your paper you will have to buy it back as fast as they can dump it to avoid a crash of your currency. That can get expensive really quickly.
      - pedalpete 9mo ago
        The US was a safe place with consistent returns for decades. Now the US has increased risk. It isn't a calculation of "where do we put $100B", it's a calculation of "what is the balance of managing risk and returns". Canada and Australia are low risk, but don't have the returns of the US. Brasil, Argentina, have higher risk. The allocations get spread across different risk profiles, and the money gets spread across different investments. Of course, this is on the assumption the majority of this money stays in Treasuries. These large funds have options beyond that. It's a mathematical calculation where every asset in the world is an option. $100B can be spread around pretty easily I'd think.
  - chimprich 9mo ago
    > They do it since that is the safest place to stash money long term. Only historically. The calculus is rapidly changing. If the US can't even respect sovereign territory of friendly countries, it doesn't inspire trust that they would repay debt.
  - sealeck 9mo ago
    The assumption that treasuries is safe depends upon the guarantor (the US government) being reliable. Currently this is ahistorically far from being the case and therefore people are investigating other places to park capital.
  - fakedang 9mo ago
    If the US starts a war, they immediately collapse down the safety rankings. Also there are other tax havens.
  - ta20240528 9mo ago
    Which is why the ECB should start a programme to issue about €5 trillion in new bonds as an alternative to USD treasuries. IMHO.
ihsw 9mo ago
[dead]

whimsicalism 9mo ago

I’m curious when people make comments like this, do they actually live in the US and believe this or has the media environment gotten so bad in Europe+ that people have no clue what’s real or not?

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
Maybe you'd trust Blackrock's CEO instead? I live in the US and I have rotated away from US equities and treasuries to derisk from volatility of poor governance (both this administration and long term fiscal policy). BlackRock CEO delivers blunt warning on US national debt - https://www.thestreet.com/investing/blackrock-ceo-delivers-blunt-warning-on-us-national-debt https://www.thestreet.com/investing/blackrock-ceo-delivers-b... - January 18th, 2026 The U.S. Deficit Will 'Overwhelm This Country': BlackRock CEO Larry Fink - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1GzgnhkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1GzgnhkI
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  I don’t disagree that our fiscal situation is unsustainable. I’m curious specifically about the people envisioning (with barely disguised glee) the US erupting into a civil war within 5 years, as they seem somewhat to have lost touch with reality.
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    In longitudinal surveys, typically, about 5% of folks elect the "some men want to watch the world burn" option. I cannot speak to the glee component you mention, I know these people exist, but they are a minority. I can speak to the ongoing political polarization that treats national politics as a sport and is avoiding course correcting fiscal policy trajectory. And this fiscal policy is going to lead to widening wealth inequality, a continuation of a K shaped economic recovery, and pushing the electorate to more extreme options besides the voting booth. No one is "winning", there is no moderate middle ground any more, and I don't see how this trajectory will change. Thanks Gingrich (who set us on this path decades ago)! Nearly 40% of Young Americans Say Political Violence Is Acceptable in Certain Circumstances, Harvard Poll Finds - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/4/hpop-poll-political-violence/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/4/hpop-poll-polit... - December 4th, 2025 Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing, and they see many reasons why - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans-say-politically-motivated-violence-is-increasing-and-they-see-many-reasons-why/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans... - October 23rd, 2025

technotony 9mo ago

How would a USA civil be the best scenario globally? Who knows what wars that would trigger globally

g_delgado14 9mo ago

> A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective. The US isn't going to passively give up its hold on the world order. You don't think this would trigger a world war? And if / when the US does topple (whether in 10 years or in 1000 years), at the moment it looks like the only viable next leaders in the world order are autocratic dictatorships. How is this a best scenario from a global perspective?

StephenHerlihyy 9mo ago
The opposition to American hegemony shifted from Europe (ie the USSR) to Asia (ie China). To that end, NATO lacks the capacity to meaningfully impact a conflict in the Pacific. The EU simply does not have the means to project power in that way nor do they have the ability to meaningfully implement economic policies that would effectively reduce Chinese growth. Trump is an asshole, but the strategy hasn’t really changed in the last decade or so. Obama tried to isolate China with European help, Trump 1.0 tried to convince Europe to step up, Biden showed them we were willing to move on, and now Trump 2.0 is following through. People fail to realize how anti-European this past decade has been, and not just under Trump. Europe had significant issue with the Inflation Reduction Act. Not to mention the war in Ukraine, which while illegal and entirely caused by Russia, was capitalized upon by American diplomats to the absolute benefite of the US at the expense of Europe. The overarching plan has been evident for a while, Trump is just blatant about it. He lacks the decorum to make someone happy about being gifted a lemon. Past administrations have had much more tact in that regard. America does not want direct conflict with China. China doesn’t want direct conflict with America either. It would be catastrophic for both honestly. Neither side would emerge cleanly victorious. Both would be limping away scarred by the experience. To that end America is just trying to let the underlying structural issues play out. China and Europe both have some structural issues that need addressed. America is gonna build up it’s own hemisphere and simply wait the rest of the world out. Is it the best plan? Honestly it might be. The more I see of it, the more comfortable I am growing with it. I was more worried about it in the Biden days simply because I was still under the mindset of Europe being an important ally. America was undermining the European economy on multiple fronts and it seemed like we were alienating some of our closest allies. Ironically what I think a lot of people are feeling now. The truth is though that Europe is dead weight. Their economy is anemic, their still too fragmented militarily and they have been actively undermining America’s effects to derisk supply chains from China. Trump’s broad tariffs would have been handled better under someone else, but the end result would have been the same out of simple necessity. Since COVID America has grown more dependent on China due to second order effects. Everytime we close a door someone else opens a window to let them back in. And it’s not just Europe, but Canada, South Korea, others too. Honestly Mexico has probably been our best ally in that regard. If you follow the geopolitical sphere most of what’s happening is not new. Trump hasn’t really changed the plan - he’s just subtle like a brick to the face. He is loud and boastful about it where before it was clever and subtextual. That is really the only change. Geopoliticallt he tries to dominate while Biden and Obama would convince people something stupid was what they really wanted. I don’t know if that helps the anxiety at all. I’ve felt it, I’ve been there. I’ve yet to see a better plan though. Honestly, the next decade is gonna be bumpy, but if you look at the long-term trajectory, America is gonna be well ahead of the rest of the world by the 2040s. We are easily in the best strategic position I would say. Once you really wrap your mind around the various aspects of it, it’s not a bad plan. It’s not Trump’s plan, it’s not Biden’s plan, this plan has roots going back over a decade. I’m sure at some point it was just a COA under discussion with multiple decision points and alternatives. Could it have worked itself out differently? Probably. But given where we are it’s probably the best plan for now.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

palmotea 9mo ago

> The US economy is in a very precarious state, tensions along political ideology lines are high, and it would not take much more than a worsening of economic conditions plus a catalyst event to kick off armed unrest within the country. Do you remember the situation that precipitated the Nazi takeover of Germany? Wasn't it hyperinflation and economic collapse? And you think it would be a good idea to push the US further in that direction? You'll get worse, not better. > A new civil war that drives the US to fragment into several independent regions over the course of the next ~five years would kind of be the best scenario from a global perspective. Are you serious? That's an utterly insane idea. The best scenario from a global perspective is the US regains its stability. Europe is in no position to defend itself militarily, it relies on US support via NATO. I believe similar is true of Japan and other countries. A US civil war would only help Russia and China (Russia would gobble up Ukraine and who knows what else, China would take Taiwan and dominate/subjugate the rest of Asia, like Japan, in some fashion that non-Chinese nations wouldn't be happy with). Also US polarization isn't regional (e.g. a big part is urban/rural). There's no "fragmentation into independent regions" that would really solve the problem.

jacquesm 9mo ago
The rest of the world is not going to be bullied into submission by one guy. If you can't take care of your own problem then eventually the world will turn away from you. This has the obvious potential of spiraling out of control but Trump is first and foremost the responsibility of the US population. The rest of the world will pick up the pieces. But he needs to be kept inside the lines or he'll run into people who are not just going to say 'yes' to his every whim.
- palmotea 9mo ago
  But "not getting bullied" is and entirely different thing than thinking a US civil war would be a good thing for the world or "reduce the global threat" (which is just bonkers). Like, we're all amateurs on a web forum, but it's best to avoid monomaniacal, first-order thinking.
  - 9mo ago

zozbot234 9mo ago

> The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. Which is exactly what this administration is doing. What do you expect to happen when the POTUS and DOJ overtly pressure the sitting Chairman of the Federal Reserve to cut Fed Funds rates and print more money, thus creating more inflation in direct violation of a crystal-clear Congressional mandate? Do you think that's good for the U.S. as a destination for safe assets, or a "reserve currency"?

lingrush4 9mo ago

No, it's pure symbolism. Countries don't purchase US treasuries to be charitable to the US. This hurts Denmark just as much as it hurts the US. And in relative terms, Denmark is going to feel the pain from this way more than the US since the US economy is 70x bigger than Denmark's.

overfeed 9mo ago
You could measure this by looking at the Pensions fund performance vs US treasuries over the next decade or so.

littlestymaar 9mo ago

> The most effective way to reduce the global threat the US is appearing to pose more as of late, is to hit the dollar. I really don't understand why people keep saying that despite the fact that Stephen Miran, Trump economic advisor, made it an explicit goal to devalue the dollar: > The root of the economic imbalances lies in persistent dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of international trade https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... They want the dollar's value to go down. You don't make someone change course by doing what they want as a punishment.