Moved this here so that we'd spare the wank dad thread this misery.
I like your creative way of interpreting expropriation, we need that kind of ingenuity in the socialist movement.
I'm being cheeky but only to point out why "germany didn't raise taxes" can't explain chartalism's failure in the german empire. It did tax the public, just not legally.
I would say that you're making a taxation is theft argument instead of being cheeky.
It is disingenuous to pretend like the economic consequences are primarily the result of the financing decisions of the government. To the extent that Germany expected to plunder its borders, there was a shortfall. But inflation was stabilized to 2% by the end of the war and it didn't become a problem again until the French decided to fuck Germany to death.
Love the bold, very econ textbook.
Anyway, that link you posted states that the German Empire was different from its competitors in that it had poor money markets and you yourself took the position that its poverty in foreign money markets was to blame in particular. I believe money markets arise with the commoditization of money, a characteristic of money that chartalism rejects. (If either of those base premises are wrong please feel free to correct me.)
If I'm right with both of those premises this feels like the time my 7th grade English teacher gave us a Christmas brain teaser that consisted of the alphabet without the letter L and my friend at the time kept shouting, "There's no L!" There's no L!" without realizing he was saying Noël.
That is of course unless the absence of mature money markets in the German Empire can be explained by something other than an institutional skepticism of money as a commodity. The Empire and the Third Republic roughly correspond in existence, but the Third Republic was far more bourgeois driven whereas the Empire had its lovely nobility to mediate.