<p>It seems that economic threats have become a mainstay in geopolitical saber rattling. For example: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html</a></p>

<p>Summary: Saudi Arabia has threatened to sell approximately $750 billion in U.S. treasuries if Congress passes a measure meant to facilitate the accountability of any Saudi Official found to have been complicit in/actively involved in the terror attack of 2001. In response to this economic threat, the Obama administration has taken a position against the Congressional action. </p>

<p>Such threats and subsequent responses make me curious:</p>

<p>Let us suppose the Saudi's are able to sell the $750 billion of treasuries. What is the likely outcome for each of the two economies. </p>

<p>Further, if such threats are feasible and serious, why are there no restrictions about who can hold (and in what amounts) US debt? </p>

<p>It seems reasonable for some Americans to argue that the benefits of allowing foreign nations (especially those who are not historically allies of America) are not worth the costs. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-16T18:45:04.720Z
Questions  really do need to be self-contained. We don't expect answerers to go off and read an article to understand what it is you're asking. So please summarise the relevant part of the article in the body of your question, and ask just one single question about it - you currently seem to have five.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-16T19:09:31.497Z
Yes, I suppose asking people to read an article is too much. I have summarized the article and narrowed the questions. However, I have not cut this down to a single question. This is because I am very curious how others feel about each of the questions asked, because the questions are strongly related and because opening separate threads would, I think, create unnecessary clutter.
123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-17T05:32:33.470Z
Opening a separate question for each question is exactly how this site works. This is not not a discussion forum with threads: this is a question and answer site; it works differently.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-17T15:08:33.633Z
@123 Energynumbers is right. Too many questions in one post. Try to restrict yourself. And if someone answers your question, then in the comments section of that answer, try to assess if t that person might also be willing to extend his answer towards some particular aspect not dealt with before...
An old man in the sea.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-17T17:50:24.143Z
Okay. Feel free to close it.
123
<government-debt><political-economy>
The intersection of geopolitical wrangling and economics
123
# The intersection of geopolitical wrangling and economics

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-16)

It seems that economic threats have become a mainstay in geopolitical saber rattling. For example:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html>

Summary: Saudi Arabia has threatened to sell approximately $750 billion in U.S. treasuries if Congress passes a measure meant to facilitate the accountability of any Saudi Official found to have been complicit in/actively involved in the terror attack of 2001. In response to this economic threat, the Obama administration has taken a position against the Congressional action.

Such threats and subsequent responses make me curious:

Let us suppose the Saudi's are able to sell the $750 billion of treasuries. What is the likely outcome for each of the two economies.

Further, if such threats are feasible and serious, why are there no restrictions about who can hold (and in what amounts) US debt?

It seems reasonable for some Americans to argue that the benefits of allowing foreign nations (especially those who are not historically allies of America) are not worth the costs.

**Tags:** government-debt, political-economy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Questions  really do need to be self-contained. We don't expect answerers to go off and read an article to understand what it is you're asking. So please summarise the relevant part of the article in the body of your question, and ask just one single question about it - you currently seem to have five.  
> **username_0**: Yes, I suppose asking people to read an article is too much. I have summarized the article and narrowed the questions. However, I have not cut this down to a single question. This is because I am very curious how others feel about each of the questions asked, because the questions are strongly related and because opening separate threads would, I think, create unnecessary clutter.  
> **username_1**: Opening a separate question for each question is exactly how this site works. This is not not a discussion forum with threads: this is a question and answer site; it works differently.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Energynumbers is right. Too many questions in one post. Try to restrict yourself. And if someone answers your question, then in the comments section of that answer, try to assess if t that person might also be willing to extend his answer towards some particular aspect not dealt with before...  
> **username_0**: Okay. Feel free to close it.  

---

## 0 answers

