[plonk]

> It's not a choice if the consequences of making the 'wrong' choice is being invaded, bombed into the stone age and have your country pillaged and its assets handed off to reserve currency alligned corporations.

Is there a reason everybody here seems to believe in that threat? I don't think the US is keen to repeat the 200X invasions. Plus Saudi Arabia, a US ally is threatening to switch to China's currency despite that?

[blkhawk]

So your argument is that it doesn't happen all that often? Also you have to remember that war isn't the only option the US has pulled. I mean the general low cost solution was just paying some terrorists to boot out the government to install a friendly Dictator. This fucking happened several times and it ruined whole regions and the aftereffects killed hundreds of thousands and affected millions.

Do the planners not know this will happen? Probably. They might have predicted those outcomes as worst case scenarios. History seems to point to it being the usual outcome. Bias I guess.

For them this is a trolley problem on one set of tracks is economic harm to the US and on the other as an indirect effect 500k deaths of people not anywhere near the US. Heck if they don't pull the lever somebody else will.

Anyway the practice of the US to externalize their inflation will cause extreme instability in the US if it can't wean itself off it.

[plonk]

I'm looking for actual evidence or reasoning. Of course I have nothing against the US government strong-arming others into using the dollar, but I don't think you have a lot supporting that hypothesis either. The dollar's preeminence could just as well be explained by the fact that the whole world already accepts it, and it's mostly free of exchange controls contrary to e.g. China's currency.

And yeah, the US is known to be a fan of regime change, but again, what indicates that this was done to support the dollar as reserve currency specifically?