2 ms·

> Fun fact: there exist currencies that have maintained stability despite the country in question lacking any kind of military. Such as? And for a further que

by imgabe 4y ago

> Fun fact: there exist currencies that have maintained stability despite the country in question lacking any kind of military. Such as? And for a further question, would they have remained stable if other countries had not invested in their military to the point that the world in general remained peaceful? The US gets a lot of criticism for military spending, but the fact is, the rest of the world leeched off this by enjoying the peace and prosperity that was created by having one country be such an overwhelming superpower that it discouraged wars everywhere. Now, the US is starting to show weakness and with the Ukraine we immediately see the effects of not having a 500 pound gorilla in the room to keep everyone else in line.

xracy 4y ago
You're creating a really difficult causal link. Does the US' military create peace and prosperity? I would disagree with your assessment of that for Ukraine.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
> Such as? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... Mostly the European microstates and several Caribbean and Pacific islands, but if you don't count a gendarmerie as armed forces, you could include Costa Rica and Panama--two not-tiny countries--in the list. (If you do count them, the largest is the Solomon Islands). > And for a further question, would they have remained stable if other countries had not invested in their military to the point that the world in general remained peaceful? That this question is being asked is I think a concession of the underlying point: fiat currencies aren't maintained by military investment, not in the same way that Bitcon is maintained by hashing power. Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the decrease in active conflicts over the past century or so is really due to military investment. One can argue that the establishment of international communities such as the EU, or the UN charter forswearing territorial changes via war has had as much, or more, of an impact on reducing the outbreak of wars such as the War of the Pacific as American military might did.
- imgabe 4y ago
  > Mostly the European microstates and several Caribbean and Pacific islands, but if you don't count a gendarmerie as armed forces, you could include Costa Rica and Panama--two not-tiny countries--in the list. (If you do count them, the largest is the Solomon Islands). None of these places have a currency that is widely used. They may be offshore banking havens, but people keep their money there in US dollars. The only possible exception might be the Swiss Franc and they do have a military as well as the leverage of holding everyone's money. Many of those small countries don't even have their own currencies. Andorra uses the Euro, Kiribati uses the Australian dollar, Panama uses the US dollar in addition to its own currency and so on. The countries are able to exist without a military because they're under the protection of a country like the US with one.
imtringued 4y ago
>And for a further question, would they have remained stable if other countries had not invested in their military to the point that the world in general remained peaceful? You can leverage that criticism against Bitcoin because that is exactly what it depends on.

by imgabe 4y ago

xracy 4y ago

You're creating a really difficult causal link. Does the US' military create peace and prosperity? I would disagree with your assessment of that for Ukraine.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jcranmer 4y ago

> Such as? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... Mostly the European microstates and several Caribbean and Pacific islands, but if you don't count a gendarmerie as armed forces, you could include Costa Rica and Panama--two not-tiny countries--in the list. (If you do count them, the largest is the Solomon Islands). > And for a further question, would they have remained stable if other countries had not invested in their military to the point that the world in general remained peaceful? That this question is being asked is I think a concession of the underlying point: fiat currencies aren't maintained by military investment, not in the same way that Bitcon is maintained by hashing power. Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the decrease in active conflicts over the past century or so is really due to military investment. One can argue that the establishment of international communities such as the EU, or the UN charter forswearing territorial changes via war has had as much, or more, of an impact on reducing the outbreak of wars such as the War of the Pacific as American military might did.

imgabe 4y ago
> Mostly the European microstates and several Caribbean and Pacific islands, but if you don't count a gendarmerie as armed forces, you could include Costa Rica and Panama--two not-tiny countries--in the list. (If you do count them, the largest is the Solomon Islands). None of these places have a currency that is widely used. They may be offshore banking havens, but people keep their money there in US dollars. The only possible exception might be the Swiss Franc and they do have a military as well as the leverage of holding everyone's money. Many of those small countries don't even have their own currencies. Andorra uses the Euro, Kiribati uses the Australian dollar, Panama uses the US dollar in addition to its own currency and so on. The countries are able to exist without a military because they're under the protection of a country like the US with one.

imtringued 4y ago

>And for a further question, would they have remained stable if other countries had not invested in their military to the point that the world in general remained peaceful? You can leverage that criticism against Bitcoin because that is exactly what it depends on.