4 Comments

Must say, have religiously read "three things" since the beginning of the year, and have really learnt a lot since then.

Thanks for the writings.

Expand full comment

Thanks for reading! And for sharing feedback

Expand full comment

Tend to disagree on the point that, wars would get cheaper. It'd be quite the opposite. Wars of the past were fought with human life's, and as we know there's limit. Wars ended when oppositions ran out of soldiers, or the push back from citizens (on the amount of life's lost), made the wars end. Also, previous wars were fought under a gold standard, they were financed by either taxing the citizens or issuing bonds - with the promise to pay back. Citizens wouldn't finance unjust wars, and there was a limit of bonds they could buy.

Hence, in the past, wars were limited by how much finance you had and number of human lives (soldiers). Today we can print fiat out of thin air, because we are on a fiat standard (without any need to tax out citizens or issue them bonds), and send robots to wars (this gives us an unlimited number of soldiers). With the advance of technology, this robots would be cheaper to produce.

Summary; you print money out of thin air, use it to make robots that goes to war. This would lead to unending wars as there's no finance, or human life at stake.

Expand full comment

I agree with your characterization of "fiat wars" as opposed to wars in an earlier era that were financed by taxing citizens or bonds. In fact, those bonds used to list very specifically what the funds were being used for!

In my mind, wars will get infinitely more expensive for exactly this reason: because governments can just keep printing money to finance them, with little or no accountability. Eventually there will be a war that costs infinity dollars and results in zero deaths.

Expand full comment