4 ms·

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 w

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.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Taxation is an explicit act that is visible on your paycheck. You don't have to tax in a hard money environment, you can borrow. That's how wars have been funded in the past. You sell bonds. There's no reason to think a bond market would disappear under a hard money environment is there? You a can borrow against Bitcoin today lol. With 125X leverage! > 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 Por que no los dos? Restricting guns leads to less gun crime. Restricting financial tools leads to less financial crime. Restricting access to bomb-making equipment makes it harder to create bombs. I'm fine with all that.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  Your argument is restricting financial tools lead to less crime, yet your example is that if war criminals don't fund via debasement they'll just fund via bonds. So which is it, restricting does or doesn't help stop crime?
  - throwdecro 5y ago
    In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the character of the small number of people "hodling" the majority of the BTC. I expect it would be a catastrophe after a generation or two of inherited BTC wealth, with BTC "nobles" raising private armies attack each other and lord it over the population.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      >In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Yes I recall the great Swiss Civil War of the 1990s, when the holders of the gold backed Francs fought for spoils of each canton. Perhaps our Polish friend can chime in on the horrors of the refugees he saw. >no lending or spending would be possible without their assent Lending and spending shouldn't be possible without the assent from those which the money comes. Involuntarily spending someone else's money is also known as theft. You are indicting the greater system you think Bitcoin represents (which resembles sort of monarchy or feudalism). You ignore that this system has been overcome even with those transacting in hard currencies. This reads of fear mongering or some desire to emulate Nostradamus.
      - throwdecro 5y ago
        The greater system Bitcoin would represent, assuming wide future adoption, would be a plutocracy, which I stated in the earlier post. If early adopters maintain the anything close proportion of BTC they currently hold, they'd form a small wealthy overclass; and if the lending and spending necessary for society to function is controlled by them, they'd effectively control society. It wouldn't resemble Switzerland at all. I wouldn't expect those plutocrats to get along in perpetuity, and if there's no way to expropriate their inheritances, they'd form a permanent class of (potential) warlords.

arcticbull 5y ago

> Taxation is an explicit act that is visible on your paycheck. You don't have to tax in a hard money environment, you can borrow. That's how wars have been funded in the past. You sell bonds. There's no reason to think a bond market would disappear under a hard money environment is there? You a can borrow against Bitcoin today lol. With 125X leverage! > 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 Por que no los dos? Restricting guns leads to less gun crime. Restricting financial tools leads to less financial crime. Restricting access to bomb-making equipment makes it harder to create bombs. I'm fine with all that.

quantumBerry 5y ago
Your argument is restricting financial tools lead to less crime, yet your example is that if war criminals don't fund via debasement they'll just fund via bonds. So which is it, restricting does or doesn't help stop crime?
- throwdecro 5y ago
  In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the character of the small number of people "hodling" the majority of the BTC. I expect it would be a catastrophe after a generation or two of inherited BTC wealth, with BTC "nobles" raising private armies attack each other and lord it over the population.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    >In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Yes I recall the great Swiss Civil War of the 1990s, when the holders of the gold backed Francs fought for spoils of each canton. Perhaps our Polish friend can chime in on the horrors of the refugees he saw. >no lending or spending would be possible without their assent Lending and spending shouldn't be possible without the assent from those which the money comes. Involuntarily spending someone else's money is also known as theft. You are indicting the greater system you think Bitcoin represents (which resembles sort of monarchy or feudalism). You ignore that this system has been overcome even with those transacting in hard currencies. This reads of fear mongering or some desire to emulate Nostradamus.
    - throwdecro 5y ago
      The greater system Bitcoin would represent, assuming wide future adoption, would be a plutocracy, which I stated in the earlier post. If early adopters maintain the anything close proportion of BTC they currently hold, they'd form a small wealthy overclass; and if the lending and spending necessary for society to function is controlled by them, they'd effectively control society. It wouldn't resemble Switzerland at all. I wouldn't expect those plutocrats to get along in perpetuity, and if there's no way to expropriate their inheritances, they'd form a permanent class of (potential) warlords.