pull down to refresh

8 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Sep -100 sats \ parent \ on: Don't Count on Growth to Fix the Debt bitcoin charts_and_maps econ

At least attempt to contribute to the reasoned dialogue on the topic raised by the post- or is that too hard?

Iran war is the USA pushing back against Chinas growing challenge to the petrodollar. With the development of mBridge and CIP enabling Yuan denominated oil trade and that trade expanding to more and more gulf states who joined mBridge protocol.
How much fiat debt issuance has USA expended upon the Iran war?

https://m.stacker.news/158727

Would the US petrodollar be able to even launch the Iran war if it operated on the Bitcoin Standard and was already $40 T in the red? No.
Iran war is last hurrah as the petrodollar empire is flogged like a dead horse by its Zionist puppet masters as they launch their Greater Israel land grab to build a regional hegemony resistant to Chinas emerging dominance.

https://m.stacker.news/158726

Bitcoin fine as a refuge - a virtual tax haven and SoV hedge against the insolvency and collapse of the petrodollar...but it does not and cannot enable you to debase all citizens savings in a war and that is a fatal strategic disadvantage for any nation state where control of territory and trade routes is fundamental to both credibility and ultimately, survival.
Suez-Hormuz-End of Empire.

https://m.stacker.news/158209

https://m.stacker.news/158210

https://m.stacker.news/158211

write
compose
8 sats \ 0 replies \ @coffeebadger 25 Sep
but it does not and cannot enable you to debase all citizens savings in a war and that is a fatal strategic disadvantage for any nation state where control of territory and trade routes is fundamental to both credibility and ultimately, survival

You're way overestimating the cost of blowing up Iran's bridges.

Why would you assume that debasing civilian savings is necessary for a war? Isn't the goal of a war to accumulate more money than your enemies?

Oh, I see, you view the common people as a featureless mass of flesh-fodder that exists only to be consumed by an army on top of it. You don't view commoners as sovereign individuals who possess rights and freedoms, and who are an army unto themselves. You see them as subjects who exist not for their own happiness, but to serve a collective higher purpose as defined by one royal clique that needs no argument. Do I have that right? That seems to be the defining difference in worldview here.

reply