The US dollar is a boon for the United States, yet a disaster for the world, and US Treasury bonds are the foundation of the dollar. In the current financial game between China and the US, whoever sells US Treasury bonds is essentially undermining the United States. For some time now, we have been reducing our holdings of US Treasury bonds.

However, unexpectedly, in the data released by the US Department of the Treasury for April, the main force selling US Treasury bonds has shifted to Japan and the UK, while China, contrary to previous trends, has switched from reducing to increasing its holdings, adding $3.3 billion in US Treasury bonds to end a seven-month streak of selling. From ceasing the continuous purchase of gold to increasing holdings of US Treasury bonds, is China succumbing to the United States? Is China about to save the US again?

Advertisement

China Ends Three Consecutive Sales

It was thought that at this critical moment in the China-US game, China would strike while the iron is hot and continue to reduce its holdings of US Treasury bonds to exert pressure on the US. However, unexpectedly, Japan began selling US Treasury bonds, while China started to increase its holdings, suggesting a potential shift in positions between China and Japan?

Recently, according to relevant media reports, the US Department of the Treasury published the situation of US Treasury bond holdings in April. Surprisingly, while China used to be a major seller of US Treasury bonds and Japan a major buyer, the roles have now reversed, with Japan selling and China increasing its holdings.

Moreover, information shows that China ended its seven consecutive months of selling and increased its holdings by $3.3 billion in US Treasury bonds, while Japan directly sold $37.5 billion in US Treasury bonds, making Japan a paragon of selling.

At this point, some may ask, why is the world selling US Treasury bonds, while China is starting to increase its holdings, going against the trend? Is China about to save the US again or has it succumbed in the China-US game?

In fact, compared to the past, the increase of $3.3 billion in US Treasury bonds this time is not a large scale. Moreover, after reducing our holdings for several months last year, around March of last year, we also ended a seven-month decline and increased our holdings of US Treasury bonds, with the scale reaching $20.5 billion, which is almost seven times the scale of this time.However, after that, we continued to reduce our holdings of U.S. Treasuries, all the way down to below 800 billion U.S. dollars. So, in the general direction, we have not changed at all. As for why there is an increase again this time?

In fact, there are various factors at play here, because our reduction of U.S. Treasuries has always been in line with our strategy, and we will not reduce on a large scale without reason. Moreover, our reduction of U.S. Treasuries is not because we need a large amount of U.S. dollars like Japan to save the market, but rather a non-renewal upon maturity.

If there are more U.S. Treasuries maturing this month, then we will see an increase in the scale of reduction. If there are fewer maturities, there will be a smaller reduction. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility of a significant decrease in U.S. Treasury yields leading to an increase in U.S. Treasury prices, which would result in an increase in the holding of U.S. Treasuries.

Moreover, we can see that in April of this year, the yield on ten-year U.S. Treasuries increased significantly, which means that short-term debt yields have plummeted. For a long time, U.S. Treasuries have been in a situation of long-term and short-term inversion. If we hold a large scale of short-term U.S. Treasuries that still exist upon maturity, this kind of increase will occur.

So, the increase is not necessarily our subjective intention, but more likely the result of a combination of various factors. And we must understand that, even today, U.S. Treasuries are still high-quality products compared to other investment products.

Therefore, under the influence of comprehensive factors, not reducing or reducing on a small scale will become the norm, but the trend and direction of China-U.S. competition will not be wrong.

China is going to save the United States again?

Whether to save the United States or not is not the result, but the result's direction is which one is more in line with our interests. If saving is more beneficial to us, why not save? If not saving brings greater benefits, I think we naturally will not intervene. But which one is more beneficial today?

We have always been saying that a country without external threats will perish. Moreover, we must see that although the competition between China and the United States has not yet been decided, it is clear on whose side the trend stands.

And looking at the current global situation, is it really beneficial for us if the United States shatters into pieces in an instant? Everyone is saying that in the U.S.-Soviet competition, it was because of the collapse of the Soviet Union that the situation of one superpower and many strong powers emerged. But did the collapse of the Soviet Union really benefit the United States the most?I don't think it's the case, because everyone knows that the one closest to the water gets the moon first. Moreover, in the context of the Eurasian continent, the United States is an isolated island, so if the U.S. wants to get involved, it must constantly stir up trouble. Where there is trouble, there is an opportunity to exploit. If everything is calm, who would invite American influence?

And we all know that our pursuit has always been a peaceful transition and handover. If the U.S. were to collapse suddenly, it would inevitably create a global power vacuum, and the situation of regional powers vying for dominance would re-emerge. Is this truly beneficial?

What we need is not a rapid collapse of the U.S., but a slow landing and a peaceful handover. Moreover, aside from disputes over interests, do we have any other disputes with the U.S.? In our strategic planning, the U.S. is not on our main path of expansion, so the U.S. is not necessarily our biggest stumbling block, but rather a whetstone.

Of course, some might argue here, do we have to take on America's debt again to prolong its life? I think this possibility is not very high, after all, the current U.S. debt has reached about 34.7 trillion U.S. dollars, and it is now increasing at a rate of 1 million U.S. dollars per day. Under such circumstances, who can take on America's debt and save America?

The only thing we can do is to reduce pressure on the U.S., so that the U.S. doesn't feel so much pressure and doesn't take desperate measures. After all, the best way out is to leave one side unguarded, and this way out is to drain allies and bet against us, which in turn clears out the strongmen in various regions, which may be more beneficial for us.

So, the world needs China to drive economic development, and the world also needs the U.S. to be the opposite of China, which is actually advantageous for us. Moreover, for us, a visible enemy is always better than an invisible one, and facing one opponent is always better than facing a group of opponents.

Furthermore, the U.S. dollars we earn cannot be directly used to supplement our own country, so why not serve the national strategy? Of course, the situation of 2008 will not reappear, after all, the times have changed.