3 ms·
Governments can only spend money to conduct war when either (a) their citizens knowingly give them money; or (b) they can print money. Bitcoin is a potential s
by javert 13y ago
Governments can only spend money to conduct war when either (a) their citizens knowingly give them money; or (b) they can print money.
Bitcoin is a potential solution for (b), were it to truly become dominant and replace non-government demand for Federal Reserve notes.
I fully support the US defending itself, and in that regard, I'm not sure that "the citizenry" would make better decisions than the Bush/Obama war complex. So I'm not saying this is a perfect utopoan solution. Just something to think about.
- jacques_chester 13y agoYou forgot (c), wars financed with borrowed money. These have happened in conditions regardless of currency configuration (fiat, pegged, silver, gold, bimetallic, whatever).
- javert 13y agoTrue, but nobody will loan money to a country that is not fiscally responsible (i.e., able to pay it back). A country that must be fiscally responsible to finance its wars will not semi-permanently invade multiple foreign countries. The US gets out of this by being able to do quantitative easing.
- jacques_chester 13y agoSomeone will always lend you money if you have the power to tax.
- jacquesm 13y ago> I fully support the US defending itself So do I. The problem is that they are confusing attack and defense.
- javert 13y agoNo, they declare wars with no termination condition that can lead to nothing but self-sacrifice of American lives and dollars while accomplishing no legitimate objective whatsoever. If someone has the means and intent to attack you, by all means, a preemptive attack is a good means of defense. Attack and defense are not fundamentally different. Force is force. The question is who initiated it or threatened to initiate it. That is the bad guy.