17 ms·
That is what the pamphlet says. Fact is, it was not a issue before, because of trust. "for more resilience against a backdrop of increased geopolitical risk."
by mg794613 2mo ago
That is what the pamphlet says.
Fact is, it was not a issue before, because of trust.
"for more resilience against a backdrop of increased geopolitical risk." is just nice wording for "Trump is burning down all bridges".
- andsoitis 2mo ago> "for more resilience against a backdrop of increased geopolitical risk." is just nice wording for "Trump is burning down all bridges". It is more multifaceted than that. To wit: they're leaving a substantial amount still in North America. America's actions is a big part of it, but it isn't the only reason.
- devin 2mo agoIt's a hedge against the risk of the current government. Leaving a bunch here is part of the hedge. It's not as "multifaceted" as you're making it out to be.
- andsoitis 2mo agoHey, I’m simply echoing what the Dutch government said. I’m taking them at face value since the Dutch are pretty direct.
- skrebbel 2mo agoThe Dutch are pretty direct but not to Donald Trump, who has a famously thin skin and can cause a huge European crisis with a single tweet. You have to see all European diplomacy through that lens. Everybody’s tiptoeing around the orange idiot’s feelings and meanwhile working hard to make sure we’re never again so dependent on a country that’s so untrustworthy. This gold move is one of the many little steps taken in that direction.
- benj111 2mo agoYou could make the argument that leaving gold there also leaves them ammunition for later. The threat of removing the rest is also a useful tool. Personally I'd be getting out of all US bond holdings and investments and making sure the banks are limiting exposed too, well personally I have. Keeping investments in the US, in US debt is just irresponsible at the moment.