back
12 comments
This petrodollar thesis is a stretch. If anything bitcoin increases demand for oil especially due to illicit mining using stolen oil.

We park military in the Middle East mostly due to religious extremist and terrorism risk. Bitcoin does not change that. But even if we park military in the US mostly due to oil, bitcoin doesn't change that either! Bitcoin increases our need for energy.

> We park military in the Middle East mostly due to religious extremist and terrorism risk

Tall tales, unless your argument revolves around keeping the entire region so poor and fucked over that they can't afford plane tickets or other ways to go attack the US.

Or you're talking about protecting something other than the US and its citizens, in which case...

So we're just going to ignore that BTC itself can't really be used at all without a giant global supply chain that makes all the computing components it ends up consuming on top of all the electricity it burns?
You don't need anything extra for Bitcoin. The computers and devices that existed even before Bitcoin was sufficient enough to secure the network.

Profits incentivized miners to invest in specialized devices. If Bitcoin's price stood still, hash power would eventually find equilibrium, and no new resources would be invested. But if price keeps going up, of course people chase more coin.

I think the point is that such costs are also ignored when talking about the carbon/technological cost of the dollar. Our current state of centralized finance is impossible without the same giant global supply chain.
In the worst case we can just revert to the ways of the pre-computer days though. We will still have a somewhat functioning financial system.
This just seems like a deliberately misleading article. Just taking a glance at it you've got to think straight off -Well sure, dollars go to Saudi Arabia et al, and sure, some of that might end up in treasuries eventually, but let's not pretend that it's anything like responsible for all the value of the dollar.

So I looked it up. How much oil does the US import? It is a net exporter. This article takes a view of the world as it might have been in 2005, but it isn't today.

Even if you buy the idea that the petrodollar is something America does encourage (using strategic alliances with oil producing countries to keep the dollar the reserve currency in order to use it for diplomatic reasons) that has nothing to do with the carbon cost of the dollar. It's to do with the carbon cost of the US trying to project international power.

It's these sort of articles that make me even more suspicious of Bitcoin ownership.

Considering the environmental impact of the US economy and its policies is important in its own right, but applying that to the dollar is a stretch in my opinion. Also, the dollar is not the only traditional currency in the world.
I thought this was going to be the cost of producing/spending USD, not a historical tour of the petrodollar's economics. It was the latter
My thoughts exactly.
The difference is the carbon costs of the dollar are not following an exponential growth curve.
This is a meaningless argument, because the same could be said for any currency.