this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
773 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
634 readers
605 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
... 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.