6 ms·

How do you think the dollar keeps its value? Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and

How do you think the dollar keeps its value? Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel? Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations? No. No you haven’t. Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think.

carnitine 5y ago
I don’t get it. All of that energy expenditure not only backs the dollar, but as you say also provides goods, services and a high standard of living to millions of people. The energy expenditure of Bitcoin only backs Bitcoin.
- monological 5y ago
  If crypto was actually adopted as a means of buying and selling real world goods, instead of just being held as a speculative asset, then it would consume much less energy and be more efficient than the entire system, namely the military, that props up the value of the dollar. And that’s just the US military. Of course, the reason why you’re able to mine in the first place is because we have peace, due to the military. So calculating becomes a little more complicated than just crypto consumption versus military consumption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_S... https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of-the-worlds-military-industrial-complex-carbon-emissions-2021 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of...
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    How can you possibly imagine adoption of Bitcoin would end the US army? The US army existed for hundreds of years on the gold standard. World wars were fought on the gold standard. Exactly, step my step, please explain how adoption of bitcoin would reduce military energy consumption.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      You are missing the point. When the us was on a gold standard, the army was not required to create the dollar's value. Now that the us is on a sovereign credit-based system, the might of the military is an integral part of the dollars value, both in the obvious sense that the military protects sea lanes and in the more subtle sense that government debt and the sustained credit cycle goes in no small chunk to the military.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        The army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.
        dnautics 5y ago
        I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this but that you are clueless on this matter.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Surely you have some citations.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        Happily. "Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation" [1] Which of course completely contradicts: "The (mostly paid for by tax) army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar." [also 1] [1] comment by 'arcticbull' on 'Hacker News'
        arcticbull 5y ago
        The army doesn’t enforce taxes, that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
        5y ago
space_fountain 5y ago
Doesn’t that mean the US dollar maintain it’s price by providing useful goods and services?
- imtringued 5y ago
  Of course.
arcticbull 5y ago
> How do you think the dollar keeps its value? Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation. As the money supply is managed via fractional reserve lending, each new dollar that enters circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of that loan. When someone borrows money from a bank, the bank enters a negative balance in its ledger and the borrower gets a positive balance in their account. This is how money is created. As the loan is repaid, the money is destroyed. Dollars are fully backed by demand for dollars. It's really quite elegant. > Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel? This is utterly irrelevant. The US military existed for hundreds of years on hard money. World wars were fought on hard money. > Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations? Sure, and as a percentage of transaction count, transaction value, or basically any other metric it utterly pales in comparison. [1] > Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think. Ditto the crypto echo chamber. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
- monological 5y ago
  You’re talking about borrowing and lending money, which becomes a moot point, when a foreign country invades your country and burns everything down. That doesn’t happen because we have the military and nukes that act as deterrents. That in turn props up the dollar and allows it to have the value it does.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    And we’d still have them on a pocket lint standard. Self defense is uncorrelated.
- dnautics 5y ago
  "Base demand" I get that this is working econ theory, but is that even meaningful? Do you honestly think people hold dollars because "someone can use it to.pay taxes"?
rtkwe 5y ago
That energy isn’t a fundamental requirement of the dollar as a currency though it’s a function of it but isn’t required. BTC on the other hand requires constant energy to process a fraction of the transactions.
- monological 5y ago
  Oh it’s not fundamental? What do you think would happen to the value of the dollar if the military didn’t exist and the US was invaded by a foreign county. Connect the dots.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    If we’re going down that route, it’s more accurate to say the military impacts are actually protecting (and impacts assignable to) the economic activity itself not the particular currency it happens to take place in (because they take place in many currencies and affect the prices in a huge net that’s impossible to untangle). So the lack of military ecological costs to BTC are more of a figment of it’s place as largely a speculative asset and small slice of the economic pie, if it were to ‘win’ and become a principal currency it has all the same issues as the dollar or any other currency… And for calling it fundamental, yes BTC requires burning lots of energy to have a transaction. Even if it goes so that day to day most transactions are lightning based you still have to burn that energy continuously to provide the security for new links in the network.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    The value of the dollar depends on the land and property of the united states which is protected by the army. It takes multiple steps to get to "military props up USD".

carnitine 5y ago

I don’t get it. All of that energy expenditure not only backs the dollar, but as you say also provides goods, services and a high standard of living to millions of people. The energy expenditure of Bitcoin only backs Bitcoin.

monological 5y ago
If crypto was actually adopted as a means of buying and selling real world goods, instead of just being held as a speculative asset, then it would consume much less energy and be more efficient than the entire system, namely the military, that props up the value of the dollar. And that’s just the US military. Of course, the reason why you’re able to mine in the first place is because we have peace, due to the military. So calculating becomes a little more complicated than just crypto consumption versus military consumption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_S... https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of-the-worlds-military-industrial-complex-carbon-emissions-2021 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of...
- arcticbull 5y ago
  How can you possibly imagine adoption of Bitcoin would end the US army? The US army existed for hundreds of years on the gold standard. World wars were fought on the gold standard. Exactly, step my step, please explain how adoption of bitcoin would reduce military energy consumption.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    You are missing the point. When the us was on a gold standard, the army was not required to create the dollar's value. Now that the us is on a sovereign credit-based system, the might of the military is an integral part of the dollars value, both in the obvious sense that the military protects sea lanes and in the more subtle sense that government debt and the sustained credit cycle goes in no small chunk to the military.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      The army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.
      - dnautics 5y ago
        I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this but that you are clueless on this matter.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Surely you have some citations.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        Happily. "Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation" [1] Which of course completely contradicts: "The (mostly paid for by tax) army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar." [also 1] [1] comment by 'arcticbull' on 'Hacker News'
        arcticbull 5y ago
        The army doesn’t enforce taxes, that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
        5y ago

space_fountain 5y ago

Doesn’t that mean the US dollar maintain it’s price by providing useful goods and services?

imtringued 5y ago
Of course.

arcticbull 5y ago

> How do you think the dollar keeps its value? Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation. As the money supply is managed via fractional reserve lending, each new dollar that enters circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of that loan. When someone borrows money from a bank, the bank enters a negative balance in its ledger and the borrower gets a positive balance in their account. This is how money is created. As the loan is repaid, the money is destroyed. Dollars are fully backed by demand for dollars. It's really quite elegant. > Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel? This is utterly irrelevant. The US military existed for hundreds of years on hard money. World wars were fought on hard money. > Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations? Sure, and as a percentage of transaction count, transaction value, or basically any other metric it utterly pales in comparison. [1] > Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think. Ditto the crypto echo chamber. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

monological 5y ago
You’re talking about borrowing and lending money, which becomes a moot point, when a foreign country invades your country and burns everything down. That doesn’t happen because we have the military and nukes that act as deterrents. That in turn props up the dollar and allows it to have the value it does.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  And we’d still have them on a pocket lint standard. Self defense is uncorrelated.
dnautics 5y ago
"Base demand" I get that this is working econ theory, but is that even meaningful? Do you honestly think people hold dollars because "someone can use it to.pay taxes"?

rtkwe 5y ago

That energy isn’t a fundamental requirement of the dollar as a currency though it’s a function of it but isn’t required. BTC on the other hand requires constant energy to process a fraction of the transactions.

monological 5y ago
Oh it’s not fundamental? What do you think would happen to the value of the dollar if the military didn’t exist and the US was invaded by a foreign county. Connect the dots.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  If we’re going down that route, it’s more accurate to say the military impacts are actually protecting (and impacts assignable to) the economic activity itself not the particular currency it happens to take place in (because they take place in many currencies and affect the prices in a huge net that’s impossible to untangle). So the lack of military ecological costs to BTC are more of a figment of it’s place as largely a speculative asset and small slice of the economic pie, if it were to ‘win’ and become a principal currency it has all the same issues as the dollar or any other currency… And for calling it fundamental, yes BTC requires burning lots of energy to have a transaction. Even if it goes so that day to day most transactions are lightning based you still have to burn that energy continuously to provide the security for new links in the network.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The value of the dollar depends on the land and property of the united states which is protected by the army. It takes multiple steps to get to "military props up USD".