Replying to Avatar SBW

Incentive to be a soldier includes a possible prison term if one is drafted and chooses to evade, so it's not entirely money driven, and death probability is not clear most of the time. It's safe to say that as long as state can provide supplies like food, equipment and munition, there will be enough fighters.

The question then is, again, which state will fail to do that first, the one which can inflate its currency or the one which can't? Historically states which can inflate has proved they can prolong wars just fine.
Avatar
IntuitiveGuy☯️ 2y ago

Then I would say states that can inflate for a longer period are the ones with more supplies and that can provide them to their fighters, and citizens, without having them fear it can't last.

The moment the majority of soldiers and citizens lose trust in the state, that's when things starts to fall.

So probably the answer is, depends all on the credibility of the States, or the level of trust and faith the soldiers and citizens have about it.

In the end IMO, it's not the type of money, because it's just a tool, an agreement between parties on the value of something.. Bitcoin could be the best form of it, but not if just 1% consider it that way, because in the end the rest 99% will not accept it for trade if they don't agree on the value of it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.