That last point is really interesting. I suppose the main difference is that the hard money country would have to rely on taxation revenue (increasing taxes if the war required more funding) rather than currency devaluation to fund its war. Still theft, but at least one is visible while the other is not immediately so. And if the war is actually in the interests of the citizens of that hard money country, it shouldn't be that difficult to sell the tax increase to the bulk of the citizens relatively speaking at least, shouldn't it?
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 21 Feb
Taking the fiat side, building social support for a war could be too time consuming relative to inflation. If this is true (seems plausible), then a hard money economy would need the government to have real reserves/savings to compete with an easy money adversary.
reply