this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
766 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
634 readers
832 users here now
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by Piefed.social terms and conditions
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ron Paul was right all along, I blame fiat currencies, if they had to actually raise taxes to fund their military adventurism instead of just debasing paychecks then voters would kick their ass to the curb.
We also wonder why houses can be 10x income now gatekept by 30 year mortgages, its because its underwritten by the money printer.
I really don't think you understand fiat currency. Or the national budget.
Whats hard to understand. They use the CPI to determine the money supply should grow at roughly 7% on average, as they survey boomers that bought their house for a sack of potatoes what they would rent their own house for to determine housing inflation, as they deduct the inflating price of goods based on subjective measures of technological improvement like Doby speakers that may or may not offer any tangible benefit, and when people get too poor and substitute to cheaper goods they change the basket.
This then lets them spend large deficits with no fear of default, because their debt gets cheaper to pay back as more currency circulates.
"The government is lying to us about living standards" doesn't relate to the issue of taxes and the national budget, unless you think people are deciding their reaction to declining living standards based on whether the government is telling them their living standards have declined, improved, or stagnated.
Would you like to trace the national debt, defense spending, and deficit through the past century, just in the US? Or should I talk about the massive deficits ran up by European countries even in the golden age (ha) of representative commodity money?
As I said initially, if the government had to directly tax them for all this then they'd actually care about the cost. If their living standards fall thats more of a mystery to them, they blame corporations or whatever their political leaning dictates.
I dont think we did have as large of military waste historically, in fact I think even entering WWII was resisted. Of course places like France and the UK had a well funded military, in order to colonize.
... would they? The fucking government under the GOP reduces taxes and increases spending. Functionally, what is the difference between that and increasing spending without increasing taxes? What would be different, in this scenario, speaking from the perspective of the electorate, under a non-fiat currency?
If you think that government policy is only being pursued because it IS sustainable under a fiat system, and that if it wasn't sustainable, it wouldn't be pursued, I have a whole case file of fascinating-yet-horrifying actions of governments and orgs throughout history.
... and also feel the need to point out that it's not sustainable under this system either.
Then what is the relevance of the entire subsistence basket point?
We had dozens of interventions in Latin America and Asia during the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s. The only differences are that life was cheaper then, both politically and financially, and extraction of 'reparations' from occupied countries was more acceptable.