4 ms·

Study[1] after study[2] has analyzed this. You wouldn't know it if you watched enough news, but you are currently living in a period of sustained world peace (u

by pj_mukh 10y ago

Study[1] after study[2] has analyzed this. You wouldn't know it if you watched enough news, but you are currently living in a period of sustained world peace (unless you live in a localized regional conflict) and trade is fully globalized. In fact, most of the war-torn regions in the world are ones that are economically estranged. We don't think twice about bombing the shit out of Syria because..who cares, it won't affect us. But we dare not do so with China, they buy so many government bonds! The average citizen doesn't actively think about this, but I assure you your government is (even if unconsciously). [1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade-prevent-war https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-... [2] http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/38/4/445.abstract http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/38/4/445.abstract

grzm 10y ago
Thanks for the links!
- grzm 10y ago
  I see now what you were getting at with respect to the influence of trade and war. That makes a lot of sense to me. I was pushing back at the absolutism of your statement. I agree that the trend of world violence is downward and the trend of global trade is upward. I think statements like "The world has known only ONE model of peace" don't reflect the nuance of the claims made by your references. For example, the hypothesis of "The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study" is "trade promotes peace". The Jackson paper[0] includes a stronger statement: "In the context of the alliances we have analyzed, trade motives are essential to avoiding wars and sustaining stable networks,", but all like all good science, acknowledges "in the context of the alliances we have analyzed". Like I said, the premises and findings of these papers make sense to me, and I don't find them surprising, but I don't think they support such an absolute statement. Thanks again for the links! I wouldn't have likely have come across them otherwise. Good stuff! [0]: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15277 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15277

by pj_mukh 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Thanks for the links!

grzm 10y ago
I see now what you were getting at with respect to the influence of trade and war. That makes a lot of sense to me. I was pushing back at the absolutism of your statement. I agree that the trend of world violence is downward and the trend of global trade is upward. I think statements like "The world has known only ONE model of peace" don't reflect the nuance of the claims made by your references. For example, the hypothesis of "The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study" is "trade promotes peace". The Jackson paper[0] includes a stronger statement: "In the context of the alliances we have analyzed, trade motives are essential to avoiding wars and sustaining stable networks,", but all like all good science, acknowledges "in the context of the alliances we have analyzed". Like I said, the premises and findings of these papers make sense to me, and I don't find them surprising, but I don't think they support such an absolute statement. Thanks again for the links! I wouldn't have likely have come across them otherwise. Good stuff! [0]: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15277 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15277