The very concept of debt, of exchange, is one enforced by the United States. If the United States says that I owe a million dollars or none, that is just as true whether it is measured in gold, or hens, or the capricious will of the Federal Reserve. What matters is the power of the United States to force me to pay, and that power is unparalleled by any other entity that has ever existed.

To say that the word of the United States is worthless is to ignore reality.

This may be news to you, but debt and exchange still take place internationally, have taken place internationally since long before there were superpowers, and also take place in zones where no law is enforced.

As for the word of the United States, I'm guessing you've never been to an Indian reservation.

It may be in poor taste to say it, but if the Native American nations had bought American Dollars rather than trading for goods with "inherent" value, history may have played out very differently.

It's not poor taste; it just shows you don't know much about history.

That only really goes for people on American soil. Of course, most governments that owe money to the US are in such deep shit that they couldn't pay the cleaning lady next week without a new loan this week. New loans tend to be problematic if you don't pay interest on your current loan.

That's just the tin foil talking.

Look at it this way if you must: the rich and the powerful, in the US, have vast amounts of wealth stored in USD and USD-demoninated instruments. It is therefore in their best interests to preserve the value of the USD, or at times slightly inflate it.

The risk of your second paragraph cuts both ways. If the euro collapses tomorrow, you might need only US$13 to pay that debt.

That personal slur is uncalled-for and demonstrates that you are completely unfamiliar with me and my history.

You're suggesting that US elites are systematically long dollars and have the power to control the value of the currency, including overcoming coordination problems. If that were true, we'd be seeing dollar deflation. Instead, we've seen about eight decades of uninterrupted inflation. This means one or both of your premises are wrong. I suspect both.

As for the "risk", I didn't mean to suggest that USD is particularly risky, certainly not more risky than EUR. I was just pointing out that the USG isn't "backing" USD even in the sense of Bretton Woods.

> If that were true, we'd be seeing dollar deflation.

I disagree. There are a number of benefits to inflation - particularly to those who have large amounts of debt on the books. Mortgaged real estate benefits greatly. Interest rates go up. Who stands to gain the most by decreasing the real value of loans and increasing interest rates?

> I was just pointing out that the USG isn't "backing" USD

In the abstract, nobody can back anything, because all you're relying on is their word. You could back a currency with a precious metal, but even that assumes the metal is intrinsically worth something (which has compelling arguments both ways).

The USG backs the USD fundamentally because they have power over the USD. They could instantly crush the value of the dollar if they chose to. Personally, I believe that if/when that happened, we'd have a great deal more to worry about than our wallets.

"Those who have large amounts of debt on the books" are short dollars, not long dollars, if you mean debtors (as suggested by your "real estate benefits") rather than creditors (as suggested by your "interest rates go up") — both groups have debt on the books, just on opposite sides of the ledger.

Creditors compensate by increasing interest rates on new loans, but that's, properly speaking, a response to expectations of future inflation, not a cure for past inflation.

> nobody can back anything

I can't tell if you're actually unable to understand the distinction between reserve-backed currencies and fiat currencies like the current dollar, or if you're intentionally bringing up irrelevancies to try to confuse the discussion. Your unwarranted personal attack earlier in the thread makes me want to assume the latter. In either case, shut the fuck up, because whether your ignorance is faked or not, you're not contributing to the conversation. You're just being an asshole.