4 ms·
On the other hand free trade stops wars. If each party is specialized in a needed item that the other side no longer knows how to produce, its much harder to g
by admax88q 6y ago
On the other hand free trade stops wars. If each party is specialized in a needed item that the other side no longer knows how to produce, its much harder to go to war.
The fact that the US will always need steel helps ensure that they _will_ always be friends with China, so long as they also specialize in something that China needs.
- walterbell 6y agoChanging delta in values is an additional factor in changing the relationship between former partners.
- eloff 6y agoEconomists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
- missedthecue 6y agoOn the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomp 6y agoThe first 50 years of that peace was Europe being split between two nuclear superpowers. So the “peace” (more like a standoff) isn’t entirely our (European) fault.
- triceratops 6y agoFrance and the UK still maintain nuclear arsenals.
- eloff 6y agoNot really relevant to the cold war standoff in Europe though.
- eloff 6y agoI think the last 80 years have been the most peaceful in recorded human history in spite of, or perhaps because of the constant threat of nuclear Armageddon. Globalization is a part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient in itself to keep the peace.
- SomewhatLikely 6y agoBetter Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker examines this and the general decline in violence on many levels.
- avmich 6y agoSigh. If only. Do you know what happened with Crimea in 2014 - and what was going on in Debaltsevo, Donetsk region, Ukraine, in February 2015?
- WalterBright 6y agoThe Germans did suffer terribly from shortages, particularly of petroleum, during the war. In fact, one could argue fairly well that the shortage of petroleum ensured their defeat. Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft. The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply of oil, with similar results.
- eloff 6y agoYes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
- WalterBright 6y agoOn the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain. The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope we never find out if that is true or not the hard way.
- eloff 6y agoI'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept. If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that. I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly. But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.
- hyperpallium2 6y agoThough China's trajectory is to not need the USA.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoGiven that China invests gigantic sums of money in the US and has vast segments of industry dedicated to selling goods to the US, it is not very clear to me how you've concluded that.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThe US is a convenient parasite. Uplift their domestic population, throw in India and all of Africa and China can bear to lose 370 million consumers.
- jbay808 6y ago> vast segments of industry dedicated to selling goods to the US If they don't want anything from their trading partners, the output of those industries can just as easily be directed to their own population.
- foolinaround 6y ago> so long as they also specialize in something that China needs tomorrow, China may learn to specialize in that something. It is never a good strategy to depend on the weakness of others for the long term.
- admax88q 6y agoThat's the whole argument of comparative advantage though, even if China is better at everything its still in their best interest to trade because everyone comes out ahead if they specialize in what they're best at.