3 ms·
Isn't a war the complete opposite of protecting capital? I mean if by capital we mean things like know-how and assets, it's the opponents goal to destroy as muc
by js8 6y ago
Isn't a war the complete opposite of protecting capital? I mean if by capital we mean things like know-how and assets, it's the opponents goal to destroy as much capital as possible.
I would say based on this, the best way to protect personal capital is to invest in the war itself, i.e. buy war bonds, buy infrastructure to build weapons and train soldiers, etc.
- VoodooJuJu 6y agoI would say a majority of wars are fought purely as a means of transferring ownership of capital, not destroying it. You wouldn't want to destroy the factory for producing weapons - it's too valuable to destroy. Rather, you'd probably want to capture it.
- firebird84 6y agoThe article is talking about this from a unilateral perspective. Yes, multi-laterally the optimal strategy is to invest together in the war. This looks like a classic prisoner's dilemma to me.
- Spooky23 6y agoOnly if your side wins. It's also unclear how to do that sometimes. For example, Post-911 you could invest in companies that make munitions, airport scanners, etc. But it turned out that companies like Google and real estate ended up being the best value. In the end, it's difficult to know what to do. If you're living in a warzone, protecting you and your family is the priority. Beyond that, real property and commodity assets are the thing to have. Everything else depends on the situation.