Hacker News Reader

Only 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.

I 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.

The 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.