Assuming “the next monetary system” retains the same property system, whhich it might, or might not, and assuming not only that the basic system is the same but that there isn’t a one-time compulsory change of ownership of the assets in question, which is also possible.
Of course, the idea that the US Government is seeking WWIII to prevent the reinstallation of the previous President and install a new global financial system under the IMF and UN is, well, beyond ridiculous, but if I was insane enough to believe such a paranoid fever dream, I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
It would be more like a return to feudalism, which was the system in place before capitalism. The barter system becomes relevant again.
They thought they could, then the Ghost of Hayak was heard laughing from Coast to Coast.
MMT literally argues that the monetary/fiscal division is artificial, and that the only constraint on fiscal policy is the monetary impact of net spending in the context of whatever traditional “monetary” policy is pursued, when you operate in your own fiat.
There being a monetary impact of either net spending or traditional monetary policy is not a blow to MMT.
No, that’s never been the case. If it was, loose monetary policy to prevent incipient deflation (which is exactly causing inflation compared to the status quo ante) wouldn’t work (and, conversely, leaving the loose money policy engaged too long would lead to inflation, like it did after the brief COVID recession.)
The US having the ability to borrow in its own currency (which is closely related to the dollar being a global reserve currency, but slightly different) means that it always has the theoretical capacity to monetize the debt.
On the other hand, you know, war with a nuclear power with plausible escalation scenarios where 'who won the presidency' and 'who owes whom money' become utterly irrelevant questions.
The DoS isn't that stupid. But the conspiracy media producing this FUD is.
You don't just write down some debt. You default on all sovereign debt and introduce a brand new monetary system, entirely digital so that everything can be tracked.
The amount the world and Europe in particular has changed since WWI is astounding. The entire world was deeply belligerent in a way that really surprised me and seems foreign to our modern sensibility. The only country of today that acts/thinks this way seems to be Russia, but leading up to WWI almost every single country in Europe was still planning for the conquest and destruction of their neighbors. Everyone (the major powers anyways) just assumed “ya, we’re gonna fight a huge multi-million person war and we’re gonna win.” I really don’t see that kind of belligerence in the minds of the world anymore.
Of course, there were some academics at the time of WWI saying the same thing, so…
They can't get through eastern Ukraine. What world war? They have no means (and the mediocre means they had before the beginning of the war in Ukraine, have been slashed in half, to say nothing of vast degradation of still quasi-operating hardware), they'd get stomped by NATO within a month and throw the nuclear card on the table to end it.
Iran? Trivial to contain within their own borders, and we'd ignite an armed revolution by flowing massive amounts of weapons into Iran.
Belarus? Barely has a military worth mentioning in this context.
And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
Why take back Taiwan when they can take back parts of Russia that Russia previously annexed?
There is the potential for great misery and destruction from NK, but that's mostly due to the fact that a lot of well off urban areas are within NK artillery range.
I'm not so sure about Taiwan, either. Ukraine is right on the border of Russia, no shipping, no mountainous terrain, and no direct treaties with the US. China has already said in the event of a shooting war they'd consider US allies as legitimate targets, so a Taiwanese war means Japan, Australia, SK, and maybe NATO entering the fray. It would be an ugly, mountainous fight, possibly leading to a guerilla war / insurgency.
In 20 years after technology (chips, etc.) transfer back to the US there isn't really any reason for the US to give a shit. Why risk Ukraine-ing yourself when you can just let economic and demographic forces do it for you?
That's what everybody assumed all along that World War III meant. Russia's antiquated invasion of its neighbor is quaintly parochial compared to that... so long as that's where it stays. But if somebody, somewhere, gets an itchy trigger finger at just the wrong time, everybody everywhere becomes part of WWIII all at once.
That's why people keep referencing Russia and WWIII.