[plain talk]

He seems to be saying he will lose less in US stocks than euro bonds with negative yields. Strange statements. Who would invest to get negative yields? Cash would be better.

[Leaning Right]

He seems to be saying he will lose less in US stocks than euro bonds with negative yields.

The article's optimistic title does not really match the rest of the article.

[cuban leaf]

In ten years we’ll certainly be in the inflation (and most probably hyperinflation) phase of this mess. So sure, Put it in stocks (or PM’s). But not just yet.

[buckalfa]

"Cash would be better."

Cash has got to be parked somewhere however. The US is not that far from zero interest rates. Couple that with ever increasing bank fees for the privilege of storing your cash and you can come out with a negative return.

[NRx]

He seems to be saying he will lose less in US stocks than euro bonds with negative yields. Strange statements. Who would invest to get negative yields? Cash would be better.

Cash is pretty hard for people who are very wealthy or big institutional investors. Most money market funds are closed or offering negative yields,. Bank accounts at least in this country are only insured for $250k. And real cash, as in paper money, is problematic because there isn't that much out there. Most money today is electronic, and most governments no longer circulate large denomination bills.

[Sequoyah101]

It is all relative isn’t it? As crappy as it is here in the US it is crappier almost everywhere else isn’t it?

Places that are in pretty good shape are not big enough to move the dial enough to threaten the status of the US a a reserve currency are they?

And so the debt of the world just continues to go up and default is a relative consideration isn’t it?