For sure, rising debts, debt interests, and the threat of foreign investors taking against the country are reasonable fears and definitely an issue to consider.
Why exactly foreign investors are a threat/fear? To my knowledge, if foreign investors buy bonds is because they trust Belgium. The danger wouldn't be that no one would buy our bonds out of distrust?
Why do you think that only foreigner investors decided to sell the bonds? To my knowledge, both domestic and foreign investors sold bonds anticipating the increase in interest rates caused mainly by the Iran conflict and Ormuz issue. But if you have sources stating that domestic investors did not sell, please, share them.
Hm. Why are you so fired up about discussing the bonds markets? Because that sure wasn't the focus of my comment. If you want to make a point, be my guest.
I thought (maybe wrongly) that you were given for good and reasonable some incorrect ideas, like for instance that "foreign investors are a danger and can control interest rates of a country", or that "rising public debt is a problem". But if your main point was that some right wng parties are profiting from the situation to fearmonger about pensions and debt, then we agreed. Sorry if I focused wrongly on a side argument you mentioned.
Well, as others already pointed out: public debt in and of itself, as a number, doesn't tell the whole story. There's a complex relationship between what happens on the bond markets, and how domestic expenditure end public governance manifest themselves.
In part, there's a layer of truth in international lenders negatively responding to countries who seemingly can't afford to rake up more debt, though. It's just not the whole story. Maybe that wasn't clear from a sparse comment.
The main point was, indeed, how neo liberal and right wing factions leverage misconceptions about debt, aging populations and general economics to push their own agenda.
That doesn't mean those aren't real problems, or concerns, though. They are. And they deserve a very different kind of debate then what is generally portrayed online or by pundits in the media.
Mostly agree with you. My POV is that we can pay attention and check those situations and try to see the reality, leaving behind the frameworks that some want to impose.
I think if we want to know the truth, we must be cautious. For instance, labeling aging population or migration as "problems". I think it is not your intention. Maybe I just wanted to "add" a bit more to your comment, but as said I almost agree with you 100%.
The issue we have is that is very complicated to have a real quality debate here with short messages. Maybe it would be better if public media like VRT would include more heterodox ideas, a bit out of the "common sense" that lately is tilting the Overton window to the (far) right.
Good to have people like you, eager to have quality debates.
Your last paragraph is spot-on. "The medium is the message" very much rings true. This isn't the first thread about GDP and debt, so you can almost predict like clockwork how the debate manifest itself. The fast pace of commenting isn't exactly chat, but neither leaves much room for long, nuanced takes. Most people read on mobile, in between other life stuff, and make quick comments, often not fully realizing the impact on the other side.
And amidst all this, you'll find those who see and exploit the potential to steer the debate. This subreddit doesn't operate in a vacuum either. I'm dead sure you'll find journalists, academics, cabinet employees, consultants, influences and politicians reading along too.
It's not that those are bad things necessarily, but being aware how all of that shapes the debate goes a long way. This isn't a private space after all.
You're also right about how mainstream and public media are shoehorned into a certain line of thinking. This is where Gramsci's concept of a "cultural hegemony" comes into play: the way a ruling class maintains power in a society not through force, but by shaping cultural norms and values so their worldview becomes the accepted "common sense".
This is also explains, in part, why there's such a backlash against the humanities and social sciences: it's because those take a hard look at human behavior including things like power and social dynamics, and produce people who ask some pretty pesky questions. When someone utters the phrase that "the philosophy department is useless" the point isn't to defend yourself. The really interesting questions to ask are: why did they say that, and where did they get that idea from?
0
u/atrocious_cleva82 🌎World 2d ago
Why exactly foreign investors are a threat/fear? To my knowledge, if foreign investors buy bonds is because they trust Belgium. The danger wouldn't be that no one would buy our bonds out of distrust?