5 ms·

> Hey remember that there World War? Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. The wars you name

by javert 5y ago

> Hey remember that there World War? Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. The wars you name as examples were "real" wars, i.e. they required real sacrifices of the nations involved, political buy-in, and were financially limited in a way that modern US fakewars are not. (Aside: Of course, our fakewars do require limited sacrifices---of our young "grunts" that are recruited from high schools and haven't received a good enough education to know that signing up for Iraq makes you a sacrificial victim, not a war hero; and that sacrificing yourself in the Middle East hurts our country and is anti-patriotic, rather than the reverse.) > Surely you have some citation The rich are getting richer by buying assets (like equities, US homes en masse turning us into a nation of renters, farmland, etc.) while borrowing for nearly nothing. The Fed is what allows the rich to borrow at near zero interest. It isn't literally the banks as corporate institutions that are getting rich; I was referring to "banking" in a more general sense. If you're serious in asking for a citation, you'll know that in modern scientific and semi-scientific literature works in such a way that there are dozens of "citations" for any position anyone wants to take. "Citations" are not the way to go. Understanding fundamentals is what is needed. That's why we have these conversations. The answer does not lie "in the literature." I'm leaving the conversation now.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. And yet World War 1 could? C'mon now. There is no reason to think that lending would be impossible under hard money. That's how wars are financed now lol. > The rich are getting richer by buying assets. Yes, this is social policy not monetary policy and can be addressed easily with a wealth tax. It's a question of appetite not means. > "Citations" are not the way to go. Yeah, they are...
- seibelj 5y ago
  Citizens of Britain were destroyed financially by WW1, and the British Empire fell apart. Afghanistan lasted far longer and had no real sacrifice of current citizens, other than debt which will be paid by debasement. The benefit of hard money is citizens actually feel the pain of taxation. With forever wars financed by fiat money, we can funnel freshly printed cash into the meat grinder forever.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Citizens of Britain were destroyed financially by WW1, and the British Empire fell apart. They were destroyed financially because they were destroyed physically. There are a lot of reasons the British empire fell apart, including losing Hong Kong to the Japanese showing the world they were no longer able to protect their territorial posessions. Pinning this on hard money is really difficult IMO but if it was actually hard money, that sounds like a great reason not to adopt it? Empire collapse sounds bad... > Afghanistan lasted far longer and had no real sacrifice of current citizens, other than debt which will be paid by debasement. What makes you think lending won't be possible in a hard money environment? Afghanistan was expensive but not that expensive. US GDP is 21T. Afganistan cost $100B/yr, or 0.47% of GDP. America can fight forever-wars because of its largesse, not its ability to create debt. That's just accounting. You can't make a $21T GDP country feel $0.1T/yr. That's a rounding error in appropriations. The Defense budget alone is $700B/yr. > With forever wars financed by fiat money, we can funnel freshly printed cash into the meat grinder forever. This is social policy not monetary policy. Japan has a soft monetary system, struggles constantly with deflation and has no army.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      The populace is easier convinced to fund a war if it is in defense immediate or perceived imminent threat to sovereignty of their territory. Vietnam and Iraq wars were no such threat. Afghanistan arguably so only to the extent of suppressing the forces responsible for the Twin Towers attack. For instance, I'm quite sure America would have defended any attack on American soil in WWII under any conceivable currency scheme. Taxation is an explicit act that is visible on your paycheck; something you sign on at the end of the year. Debasement is more subtle and the common man who has little in his bank account may not even consider the effect, thus rationally would be more likely to go along with a war based on implicit debasement rather than explicit taxation. >This is social policy not monetary policy. Japan has a soft monetary system, struggles constantly with deflation and has no army. War is a social and monetary policy in a fiat currency nation; including a tacit approval for debasement to pay for that which cannot or will not be paid via other means. In the past you have argued that illegal immigrants / criminals should not be aided with easier monetary tools for their trade. If that point follows, that could be extended to the criminals who authorized the latest Iraq War and last decade of the Afghanistan war as well. Fiat debasement is just one tool in the toolbox of the criminals in legislature and Federal Reserve. [*Note: personally I do not agree with your hypothesis that we should restrict the monetary tools of criminals. I think instead we should focus on the underlying crime itself.] Of course, the rich already know all this, and seek to hold most of their wealth in assets and then hide any capital gains with any shell game they can.
- javert 5y ago
  > Yeah, they are... This is such a cheap thing for you to say. Of course I could find citations for my position, and you could find citations for yours. Grow up!

by javert 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. And yet World War 1 could? C'mon now. There is no reason to think that lending would be impossible under hard money. That's how wars are financed now lol. > The rich are getting richer by buying assets. Yes, this is social policy not monetary policy and can be addressed easily with a wealth tax. It's a question of appetite not means. > "Citations" are not the way to go. Yeah, they are...

seibelj 5y ago
Citizens of Britain were destroyed financially by WW1, and the British Empire fell apart. Afghanistan lasted far longer and had no real sacrifice of current citizens, other than debt which will be paid by debasement. The benefit of hard money is citizens actually feel the pain of taxation. With forever wars financed by fiat money, we can funnel freshly printed cash into the meat grinder forever.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Citizens of Britain were destroyed financially by WW1, and the British Empire fell apart. They were destroyed financially because they were destroyed physically. There are a lot of reasons the British empire fell apart, including losing Hong Kong to the Japanese showing the world they were no longer able to protect their territorial posessions. Pinning this on hard money is really difficult IMO but if it was actually hard money, that sounds like a great reason not to adopt it? Empire collapse sounds bad... > Afghanistan lasted far longer and had no real sacrifice of current citizens, other than debt which will be paid by debasement. What makes you think lending won't be possible in a hard money environment? Afghanistan was expensive but not that expensive. US GDP is 21T. Afganistan cost $100B/yr, or 0.47% of GDP. America can fight forever-wars because of its largesse, not its ability to create debt. That's just accounting. You can't make a $21T GDP country feel $0.1T/yr. That's a rounding error in appropriations. The Defense budget alone is $700B/yr. > With forever wars financed by fiat money, we can funnel freshly printed cash into the meat grinder forever. This is social policy not monetary policy. Japan has a soft monetary system, struggles constantly with deflation and has no army.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    The populace is easier convinced to fund a war if it is in defense immediate or perceived imminent threat to sovereignty of their territory. Vietnam and Iraq wars were no such threat. Afghanistan arguably so only to the extent of suppressing the forces responsible for the Twin Towers attack. For instance, I'm quite sure America would have defended any attack on American soil in WWII under any conceivable currency scheme. Taxation is an explicit act that is visible on your paycheck; something you sign on at the end of the year. Debasement is more subtle and the common man who has little in his bank account may not even consider the effect, thus rationally would be more likely to go along with a war based on implicit debasement rather than explicit taxation. >This is social policy not monetary policy. Japan has a soft monetary system, struggles constantly with deflation and has no army. War is a social and monetary policy in a fiat currency nation; including a tacit approval for debasement to pay for that which cannot or will not be paid via other means. In the past you have argued that illegal immigrants / criminals should not be aided with easier monetary tools for their trade. If that point follows, that could be extended to the criminals who authorized the latest Iraq War and last decade of the Afghanistan war as well. Fiat debasement is just one tool in the toolbox of the criminals in legislature and Federal Reserve. [*Note: personally I do not agree with your hypothesis that we should restrict the monetary tools of criminals. I think instead we should focus on the underlying crime itself.] Of course, the rich already know all this, and seek to hold most of their wealth in assets and then hide any capital gains with any shell game they can.
javert 5y ago
> Yeah, they are... This is such a cheap thing for you to say. Of course I could find citations for my position, and you could find citations for yours. Grow up!