5 ms·
> The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil This is the funniest escape from cognitive dissonance that is used in the US in this topic. The US did rob Iraqi oil:
by unity1001 4y ago
> The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil
This is the funniest escape from cognitive dissonance that is used in the US in this topic.
The US did rob Iraqi oil: Forcing Iraq to continue selling its oil for dollars is directly monetizing Iraqi oil. Its worse than robbing it, because in a robbery you get the actual quantity. By forcing it to be traded for dollars, the US was able to print an unspecified and unquantifiable amount of dollars, even over what the actual quantity of Iraqi oil that was sold for dollars would support - the uncontested dominance of dollar as foreign exchange currency forced everyone to stash more dollars than they needed 'just in case' they needed to buy oil and other commodities.
It was literally a money-printing operation. Over someone else's oil.
- jasmer 4y agoThat's some QAnon Economics right there. The suggestion that the US benefits more on a dollar basis than a nation selling a commodity in that currency is very false. Iraq is the primary beneficiary of it's Oil exports irrespective of the currency it uses, and those exports are protected by the US. If the US did not enable open commerce in the region, there would be no Iraq. Or Saudi Arabia for that matter. If collectively those nations want to switch currencies, they can absolutely do it, but it means they are on their own in terms of security and they don't want that. The US does gain a bit of an advantage from seigneurage, but it actually has benefits for everyone else as well. It's no some existential thing.