3 ms·
> Clearly, the one with currency, because you can collaborate far better than the other, and war is won primarily by scale, which money can maintain. this is a
by keymone 8y ago
> Clearly, the one with currency, because you can collaborate far better than the other, and war is won primarily by scale, which money can maintain.
this is a weird hypothetical. i can't imagine a nation-state without currency and i don't think you can either. so how is it clear who wins?
i highly doubt isolated regime can somehow improve it's sustainability simply by manipulating money. Venezuela just had a massive devaluation - did it make Venezuela richer? did it improve it's economy or GDP? no, it's still the same corrupt country on a brink of collapse.
- javajosh 8y agoVenzuela is a great example of my point! If V got into a war right now, let's say with Columbia, how would that go? If the money is worthless in V, then how do you pay troops; how do you pay for the food for the troops; how do you pay for the gas to get the troops where they need to be; how do you pay for the weapons? If you don't pay for that stuff, how do you get it? Will people volunteer? How long can they do that until they starve? Or will you use coercion? Coercion requires troops, and also suffers from the starvation end-game, at both ends. Basically, V can't fight a war until they get their money situation in order.