This cost must be taken into account.
At any rate, the narrative that the Somali shilling maintained its value is directly contradicted by Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_shilling#Modern_history
It starts with "Following the breakdown in central authority that accompanied the civil war, which began in the early 1990s, the value of the Somali shilling was disrupted" and gets worse from there. The currency became worthless and they dollarized.
The only reason the shilling is - very recently! - recovering is because they once again have a central government and a central bank.
As bitcoin becomes more popular and stable, it's "appreciation" relative the fiat currencies will reveal how much value governments are secretly stealing through inflation.
Exactly what goldbugs have always claimed about gold, since fiat currencies displaced commodity representational currencies (particularly gold-denominated) currencies.
The thing is, insofar as inflation can be said to “steal” from anything, it's idle holders of dollar-denominated assets. But it's pretty easy to mitigate by moving holdings other than for short-term liquidity into productive assets (which itself promotes real, not merely nominal, economic growth) rather than (or by borrowing against) dollar denominated assets.
Meanwhile, it benefits those with dollar denominated liabilities. Mild, slowly changing inflation (volatility in either price or inflation rate is a problem) isn't much of a problem for anyone in practice, and there's a pretty small audience that is receptive to the scare tactic (and Bitcoin fever has already fully reached that audience.)
No it has not. The "multiple countries" of which you likely refer to is in fact two: Iraq and Libya, and the declared reason in neither case involved oil. The US went to war against Iraq ostensibly because of Saddam's WMD programs (which were only later conclusively found not to exist), and the intervention in Libya was at the bequest of the United Nations following the popular revolt and civil war against Muammar Qaddafi, itself largely deriving from similar uprests started after a Tunisian set himself on fire and improbably drove the Tunisian dictator on the exile.
In neither case was control of oil a declared reason. And in neither case has control of oil ever been clearly demonstrated to be an actual reason for going to war.
This position assumes the US is completely incompetent and invaded a country for a fake reason. I’d argue that’s nonsense- they knew exactly what they were doing but the reason wasn’t palatable to the American people so they had to fabricate a “better” reason.
Just because the US manufactures some other excuse doesn’t mean it’s true. Why would you believe the invader?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/11918082011...
Hmm, let me think. The number of countries that were invaded to prop up the USD was... uh... zero.
The US has certainly waged imperialistic wars almost purely for the benefit of its corporations (see, e.g., the Banana Wars), but that has nothing to do with maintaining the power of US currency.