4 ms·

I used to listen to people like Ron Paul, and he would say something like... The stronger our economic ties and dependencies, the less likely we are to commit a

by dgzl 8y ago

I used to listen to people like Ron Paul, and he would say something like... The stronger our economic ties and dependencies, the less likely we are to commit aggression against each other. I believe he supports the non-intervention policy. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventi...

throwaway2048 8y ago
That was also the argument for why WW1 could never happen, yet it did.
- dgzl 8y ago
  Could you explain this?
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Norman_Angell%27s_The_Great_Illusion https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Norman_Angell%27s_The_Grea... An excerpt from a book by Norman Angell, (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lecturer, journalist and MP) in 1910 as to why wide scale war could not happen between major powers. [War] belongs to a stage of development out of which we have passed that the commerce and industry of a people no longer depend upon the expansion of its political frontiers; that a nation's political and economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide; that military power is socially and economically futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity of the people exercising it; that it is impossible for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade of another -- to enrich itself by subjugating, or imposing its will by force on another; that in short, war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which people strive. It was a fairly widespread view at that point in time.
    - lgleason 8y ago
      I guess the leaders at the time forgot to read his book ;)
  - bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
    Does a higher degree of globalization lead to a higher degree of stability and peace? This is a classical and interesting discussion. The world before World War I was arguably highly globalized. I failed to find a comprehensive summary of the arguments and counter-arguments, but here a few links: “The First World War in the History of Globalization” https://www.etown.edu/offices/president/2014-11-14-WW1-Globalization.pdf https://www.etown.edu/offices/president/2014-11-14-WW1-Globa... The world today looks ominously like it did before World War I https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-world-today-looks-ominously-like-it-did-before-world-war-i/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-w... Globalization = No War? Does an increasingly economically interconnected world cut the chance of war? Maybe, but it doesn’t eliminate it. https://thediplomat.com/2011/08/globalization-no-war/ https://thediplomat.com/2011/08/globalization-no-war/ We mustn’t fall for The Great Illusion again https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9555708/We-mustnt-fall-for-The-Great-Illusion-again.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570... The Great Illusion https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html IMHO, the argument is partially true. But on the other hand, it increases the complexity of the system, and makes many otherwise unlikely "failure modes" possible.

by dgzl 8y ago

throwaway2048 8y ago

That was also the argument for why WW1 could never happen, yet it did.

dgzl 8y ago
Could you explain this?
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Norman_Angell%27s_The_Great_Illusion https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Norman_Angell%27s_The_Grea... An excerpt from a book by Norman Angell, (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lecturer, journalist and MP) in 1910 as to why wide scale war could not happen between major powers. [War] belongs to a stage of development out of which we have passed that the commerce and industry of a people no longer depend upon the expansion of its political frontiers; that a nation's political and economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide; that military power is socially and economically futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity of the people exercising it; that it is impossible for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade of another -- to enrich itself by subjugating, or imposing its will by force on another; that in short, war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which people strive. It was a fairly widespread view at that point in time.
  - lgleason 8y ago
    I guess the leaders at the time forgot to read his book ;)
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
  Does a higher degree of globalization lead to a higher degree of stability and peace? This is a classical and interesting discussion. The world before World War I was arguably highly globalized. I failed to find a comprehensive summary of the arguments and counter-arguments, but here a few links: “The First World War in the History of Globalization” https://www.etown.edu/offices/president/2014-11-14-WW1-Globalization.pdf https://www.etown.edu/offices/president/2014-11-14-WW1-Globa... The world today looks ominously like it did before World War I https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-world-today-looks-ominously-like-it-did-before-world-war-i/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-w... Globalization = No War? Does an increasingly economically interconnected world cut the chance of war? Maybe, but it doesn’t eliminate it. https://thediplomat.com/2011/08/globalization-no-war/ https://thediplomat.com/2011/08/globalization-no-war/ We mustn’t fall for The Great Illusion again https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9555708/We-mustnt-fall-for-The-Great-Illusion-again.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570... The Great Illusion https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html IMHO, the argument is partially true. But on the other hand, it increases the complexity of the system, and makes many otherwise unlikely "failure modes" possible.