4 ms·
That's a pretty roundabout way of thinking. Plenty of countries have troops but an unstable currency (e.g. Venezuala). Plenty have a stable currency but no sign
by soVeryTired 8y ago
That's a pretty roundabout way of thinking. Plenty of countries have troops but an unstable currency (e.g. Venezuala). Plenty have a stable currency but no significant troops (e.g. Iceland).
- PycptN2MH 8y agoMilitarily robust sovereignty is necessary but not sufficient for the integrity of a fiat currency. Governments such as Iceland borrow military power through international agreements.
- soVeryTired 8y agoRobust against what?
- PycptN2MH 8y agoThreats to national sovereignty such as invasion.
- soVeryTired 8y agoI don't really see how protection against invasion helps you maintain a fiat currency. I don't think an army is either necessary or sufficient. These just seem like two different issues.
- PycptN2MH 8y agoDo you have an example of a nation failing to repel an invasion yet maintaining the integrity of its currency?
- soVeryTired 8y agoYou're shifting the goalposts. Lack of protection against invasion doesn't mean you're going to get invaded. Maintaining a standing army isn't protection against invasion either.
- PycptN2MH 8y agoDo you agree that if a nation is successfully invaded its currency will lose its integrity? Do you agree that defense against invasion requires an adequate military or agreements with nations with adequate militaries? If we agree on those two claims, it seems we must agree that militarily robust sovereignty is necessary but not sufficient for the integrity of a fiat currency.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ThomPete 8y agoNo thats actually the right way to think about this. Externalities are often misinterpreted to only include a few layers of abstraction when in reality its a much more complex and multilayered discussion and include both positive and negatives.