 |
Today at 02:11:43 AM |
|
Your opinion is interesting, but we need to separate two things: the ability of major actors to exploit crises for profit and the evidence that they orchestrate war scale geopolitical crises for profit. From a macroeconomic and international political perspective, there is indeed a strong precedent for the defense industry to benefit from conflict. However, the narrative of orchestrating a geopolitical war purely for financial gain is a scenario fraught with uncertainty, internal political costs, sanctions risks, and potential global economic damage that far outweighs the financial gains. In modern capital markets (algorithms, hedge funds, short sellers, and market makers), large-scale manipulation is also difficult to carry out undetected (short interest spikes, block trades, regulatory alerts). Stock markets are liquid, regulated, and monitored. A crash-then-buyback strategy requires significant capital, impeccable timing, and regulatory risks (market manipulation laws, insider trading investigations).
So it is more realistic to see this phenomenon as a combination of political actors who sometimes push pro-defense policies, companies looking for opportunities, and opportunistic investors who buy during panic rather than a conspiracy that deliberately triggers war for stock profits considering that the elite is not a monolith, they are fragmented, have diverse interests (financial industry vs. defense vs. domestic politics), so total coordination is difficult and expensive.
|
