[dnautics]

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]

The army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.

[dnautics]

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this but that you are clueless on this matter.

[arcticbull]

Surely you have some citations.

[quantumBerry]

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]

You’re either intentionally avoiding the point or you’ve missed it yet again so I’m going to side step and say this: the amount of army won’t change regardless of which currency is used. There’s no path to reducing the size by changing the currency. It’s a separate, unrelated social policy decision. Either way I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith so I’m gonna cut this off here. Have a great evening!

[quantumBerry]

Of course! If the US Army switched to massively inflating Venezuelan Bolivars for use and its share of tax collection, it would have no impact whatsoever on the army or its size!

Clearly the one arguing in good faith is the person leading off calling all crypto a ponzi scheme because of several myths you misunderstand. Or given your financial literacy, probably intentional disingenuous portrayal.

[arcticbull]

You misunderstand my point. What the tax money is spent on is irrelevant and doesn’t create the demand. The demand is created by the obligation to pay the taxes and subsequent enforcement of non-payment. The same demand structure exists for instance in Japan without an army. Does that clarify for you?

[quantumBerry]

> What the tax money is spent on is irrelevant and doesn’t create the demand.

The maintenance of the army doesn't create demand for taxes? Are you aware this is one of the most significant historical reasons for the collection of taxes?

Could you remind me again of when the Army was abolished in Japan and why, and whether the US military (which drives part of our demand for taxes) had any role in that?

Japan pays for the Army. The US army [1].

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/17/japan-us-extend-agr...

[arcticbull]

The army doesn’t enforce taxes, that would be a violation of posse comitatus.

[quantumBerry]

That's an interesting and totally irrelevant statement that ignores the fact that taxation to pay for the army in your own words creates "base demand for dollars." Change in demand on the supply-demand curve means change in value, or perhaps I'm not up to date on your version of economics.