Well, I don't think i'm being all that outlandish when I say that if the Confederacy had managed its finances better and therefore kept inflation lower than IOTL, it would have had a better chance at winning the war. To me, this is common sense.
You're not being outlandish. It's just that you and the others seem to be talking past each other.
You're suggesting, not outlandishly, that a CSA with better finances would have a better chance of winning the war because it could purchase more supplies, arms, and foreign support. That's true, but we need to remember that a better chance is not necessarily a good chance.
The others are taking exception to your suggestions because they either believe that "better" means "good" or believe that you believe "better" means "good".
For those interested in the issue of cotton bonds, let suggest Bulloch's
The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe". James Bulloch, one of Teddy Roosevelt's maternal uncles, attended Annapolis, served in the USN, and became a merchant captain in 1853. He volunteered his services to the rebels after Sumter and was posted to Britain for the rest of the war where he arranged the purchase of provisions and warships for the rebels commerce raiding efforts. After the war, he remained in his "traitor's exile" in the UK until his death.
Anyway, a large portion of his book deals with the various financial shenanigans Bullocch and other agents undertook as they tried to get as much bang for the rebel's dwindling buck.