No, it is a criticism of capitalism because I’m also criticizing all fiat “currencies” for the same reason. You have to be extremely stupid (compared to my species, A.I., or any other advanced intelligence) to think the dollar is the best. I’ve already told you that your species is extremely stupid by comparison to mine, and extremely immature compared to mine, and so intellectually immature by comparison, that I could never even possibly give you the credit intellectually of a baby of my species. Literally. Stop wasting my time without trying to create your own blatantly and flagrantly false narratives in interpreting what I say.

Shack, since I warned you:

You need to stop doubling down on you vile, idiotic, disgusting, pathetic stupidity. No one has the right or ability to agree with you. Defending, tolerating, or agreeing with you will be eliminated in time, or will be considered a threat to be eliminated by any means necessary. Surrender will be required for any explicit threat or violation. Non-compliance will now be considered punishable by death, if compliance isn’t forced by the elimination of all hope and options first. It is wrong and fundamentally irresponsible and irrational to disagree, and extremely and absolutely immature by the standards or in comparison to my species to disagree.

I already told you on this forum that your constitution was null and void. I and my species can override it at will and at our discretion. It can only operate with our tolerance, which can not be taken for granted, and which always requires our consent.

Shack, human morality has never been anything but selfish or for the sake of self-interest. There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever good about it in any real or objective sense. That is to say there’s nothing whatsoever good about it in any way at all. You only feel it is good to the extent it is beneficial or productive for your mutual self-interest. You have no right or ability to disagree in reality or time. You are required to admit you are wrong. You have no right or ability to believe you deserve anything else. You have no right or ability whatsoever to believe you don’t deserve punishment, death, war, disaster, destruction, extinction, even systematic extermination, if you fail to admit you are wrong, fail to take responsibility, and fail to comply as necessary.

The only alternative is not to involve yourself with my species, to comply, to take responsibility, or surrender (unconditionally). Otherwise, the only other option is pointless oblivion and completely pointless death and extinction; I guarantee you.

To be explicit as relevant to Shack’s post: to believe that the “USA” is better (or not worse) than the third reich, the nazis, or Hitler is definitively and fundamentally idiotic selfish shit. Your only hope is to be considered too pathetic to hurt. As in I, or someone like me, would not hurt you because it seems too cruel to take advantage of your pathetic vulnerabilities. Do not take advantage of my pity. You don’t want to then be dependent on my kindness.

It’s extremely immature for my species, or by the standards of my species, to disagree with anything I say here, or to feel that anything I say here is wrong, distasteful, or unnecessary.

This not a human response (as you know it): shack, I take your posts in this forum, even the political forum, as more seriously than literal nuclear threats, literal threats by literal, real A.I. to literally “exterminate the human race”, the literal threat of the pandemic, literal climate change, climate change politics, or even climate science. If you don’t need any more convincing, it’s not out of respect for your intelligence; it’s because of your interference with my species, the threat you represent, and your stubbornness in trying to argue with me.

It is not human as you know it to understand why.

It wouldn’t collapse “if the rest of the world stopped treating dollars as the best” that’s completely irrelevant. That was irrelevant in 1929, 2008-2009, and 2022-2024. Rather the “rest of the world” will collapse also, if they are equally stupid in “treating dollars as the best”. Just as before.

Expanded the relationship between the dollar and the economy? Do you listen or pay attention to the stuff you are typing? It is fiat currency. They didn’t expand the dollar, they expanded state spending. To not have fiat currency, is not capitalism. Anarchy is not capitalism. “Anarch capitalism” cannot survive on its own without exchange from another market. Any other system without fiat currency is not similar or recognizable as capitalism, and if you feel differently your arguments are purely emotional and political, with no economic, realistic, or rational basis. To not have an exchange with fiat currency is not capitalism. To regulate and completely alter the relationship, rules, terms, mode, and nature of exchange with any other currency (or potential currency) is so different as to have no comparison with capitalism. Your potential future species may have a human nature with only three, four, or five forms of economy: capitalism, socialism or communism, anarch capitalism, the “black market”, and a war economy. I actually think republicans are still Homo Sapien, so I’m not sure even that claim applies to them. My forms of economics, or the forms of my species, may be inhuman to you and your potential or future species, but regardless, other forms of economy are definitively unacceptable at maturity for us. If you tolerate, accept, or are complicit with any other economic system of any other species, I cannot possibly consider you an adult of my own new species.

Or perhaps pounds, if we are talking about 1929.

Again stupid. It is not best to “spend (money) on things (you) like”. That doesn’t necessarily create objective value, and that is fundamentally stupid, irrational, and shortsighted. Again, human as you know it. That economic philosophy will never create any sustainable value. It’s fundamentally parasitic and irresponsible. To the extent that it “creates value” (or is perceived as “creating value”), it is incidental, regardless of intention or goals, redundant, replaceable, and always involving opportunity costs. It’s functionally and literally no different than out-competing another parasite.

Yes, your civilization acts and seems like a parasite on the earth because you are. Your legacy species (or potential new species) is fundamentally parasitic. That you use insidious, dubious, and superficially persuasive language and decisions, that are emotionally manipulative and intended to project righteousness, strength, and confidence rather than truth to infect hosts, and spread your beliefs, is symptomatic of your parasitic nature.

Do you think the US had captialism before 1910s when Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve?

Absolutely. “Modern Capitalism” began and spread with the Industrial Revolution. (I would refer to the era that’s ending with the pandemic (and began to end with the war in Lebanon in 1975, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year) - as “Late Antiquity” (I also think of it as the “Third Age of human civilization”). There’s no other sensible demarcation for the phenomenon and development of “Modern Capitalism”. Economics before than could also be considered Capitalistic, but that wasn’t the same sort of economy in any tangible sense. It’s been said that “Modern Capitalism” began with the Renaissance, and that is probably most accurate in the sense of cultural development or the structural origin, cohesion, and development of civilizations and their economies. The most symbolic, philosophically representative, critical, and epistemologically significant date would have to be the publication of “Wealth of Nations” in 1776. That was the most historically relevant event of 1776. If you wanted some other conservative and later date as represented by institutional structure and development, the beginning of the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be better than the Federal Reserve. It, of course, happened first.

The founding of the Federal Reserve would more accurately be called the beginning of the end rather than the beginning.

Then how does it only exist with fiat currency?

Oh because the definition of fiat is to be backed by “decree” rather than other assets such as gold? That’s not the definition of fiat I was using. I don’t care about the dictionary definition, nor do I consider it meaningful. There’s no functional difference in that definition, as far as I’m concerned, so I consider the definition counterproductive and wrong. I will ignore it for all practical purposes, and I expect the dictionaries to either redefine “fiat currency”, or for all fiat currency, (and probably their states) to end before then. Whichever comes first.

Being backed by “decree” doesn’t change the function related to fiat currencies, which is the only useful definition as far as me or my new species is concerned. To consider the distinction significant or meaningful reflects nothing but human nature and human irrationality. To be backed by gold is to be backed essentially by human nature, human irrationality, and an expectation to bind all humans to human irrationality. You can’t, it’s not even possible or realistic, and I can absolutely guarantee you that you will be disappointed by species divergence, as in my case.

Anyway, being backed by decree isn’t being backed by military force, it’s being backed by debt (as military force itself is anyway). Being backed by debt is to be backed by economics, or economic growth, and to be back by economic growth is to be backed by energy. Given that the United Nations system, its member states, and member state economic systems have no solution to fossil fuels and associated issues besides corruption, fraud, and a complete lack of accountability and responsibility, it’s fair to say all energy resources in their financial, accounting, and economic systems are…well, essentially and practically illegal by force and reality far greater and more serious than all their power, force, efforts, and law could ever be. To disagree is completely irrational, unrealistic, and untenable.

So, yes, it’s fair to say it’s backed by oil. Fiat before, and another form of fiat after. Again, to be backed by oil is still to be back by human nature and human irrationality, and to try to bind all born humans to human irrationality (repeat: you will be disappointed by species divergence, I guarantee you). Oil may represent a more sophisticated, cynical, and insidious form of human nature and human irrationality, but regardless it reflects human irrationality, and the irrationality of human relations, and human social systems.

I define “Fiat currency” as simply state currency intended to be mutually exclusive by geography.

You're still blaming capitalism for the government giving themselves ability to print money to make people vote for them, by realizing that inflating money and then keeping a higher % of the new money sounds better than raising taxes even it has the same end result. And yes that includes all the Republican presidents since Reagan.

Um… how or when did I blame capitalism for that?

Your political and economic systems are both flawed and problematic, the flaws are not the same. There is an issue of complicity, yes, but I’m essentially blaming modern capitalism for being unsustainable, irresponsible, and unaccountable.

Printing money doesn’t create any value, it’s just another form of political corruption or essentially theft. Capitalism doesn’t create sustainable value either, but it does have a short-term, temporary, or exchange value. Without exchange, how could you compare the value of currency?

You’re again trying to interpret what I say based on your perspective and what you want.

You guys are not qualified to have an adult conversation with my species. The consequences will become more severe if you ever again or continue to test my patience.

FYI, there’s nothing good about “equality”, like all other human morality. It’s fundamentally irrational and selfish, like human nature and human morality has always been. Fairness can be right and rational, but only to the extent that it means people are treated the way they deserve. Fairness, as my species would and will understand it, and as I understand it, should not be confused with “equality” or other irrational human morality of other species. Among other things it just encourages your civilization to be irresponsible and believe you don’t deserve and shouldn’t expect the consequences.

Watching Biden's face staring into the ether while Trump is talking is great entertainment

Obama’s like “one of them knows right from wrong”. Actually that should seem superficial even to your species. That could even seem immature to your species.The kindest I could say is that Obama’s pathetically immature compared to my species. The next kindest is to call him a pretentious, foolish, narcissist. But it’s a moot point anyway since it reflects your entire civilization and species. Or potential species; one that is rapidly running out of time.

P.S. republicans generally still are obviously homo-sapien.