4 ms·

I see ships being overloaded a good problem to have. The more countries trade with eachother, the less reason they have to fight wars with eachother.

dmitrygr 6y ago
My sister wrote & defended her PhD thesis disproving this intuitive but wrong connection. Plenty of states happily trade with their enemies during wars. So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war. States are most likely to cut off trade during war in very long wars - which are no longer possible between nuclear powers. http://mariya.gr/research.htm http://mariya.gr/research.htm If you have counter-arguments other than "But, but, but that FEELS wrong", i am sure she'd like to hear them, her email is on the site"
- throwaway4594 6y ago
  The summary of her dissertation is really interesting, thanks for sharing! But I think OP's point was "countries who trade with each other are less likely to go to war", not "countries who trade with each other never go to war". And I think OP is right. "So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war." Seatbelts do not stop people dying in car accidents. But seatbelts do reduce the chances of dying in a car accident. I know I'm being pedantic, but it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Even a prophylactic that works 1% of the time is better than nothing.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Yes, war doesn’t stop trading, but it makes it more expensive. My favourite example is the Kula ring that used 2 monetary instruments circling between islands in different directions as a proof that other islands are not in war with eachother: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
chrisco255 6y ago
Really? The U.S. was founded on a war with its primary trading partner.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  That freight didn’t so much fall overboard as get pushed.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Well, alternatively, the war was (in large part) triggered by Britain _restricting_ open trade via the stamp act / granting a monopoly on tea imports to a single company.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    The stamp act was a tax, not a restriction, right? Britain was attempting to recoup losses from the French-Indian War if I'm not mistaken. And the colonists had no say in it and then realized that even after lobbying for years to remove it (hell, the U.S. sent Benjamin Franklin, the best statesman in history and even he couldn't get them to budge), that they would always be subservient to the Crown. The tea imports was just salt on the wound.
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      Yeah, the Tea Act was the monopoly grant. The Stamp Act was just a tax.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  That’s not really relevant given the fact the the colonies were subjects of Britain not just their trading partner. It is a little different.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  That trading partner wasn’t a democracy. King George has a pretty famous quote acknowledging that if George Washington actually gave up power (as the Presidency required) it would make him the greatest man in the World.
dariusj18 6y ago
The basis of the modern liberal world order.
dragontamer 6y ago
> The more countries trade with eachother, the less reason they have to fight wars with eachother. WW1 pretty much proved that wrong. Europe was trading a lot with each other. That didn't stop all the rivalries from starting up and causing the general "Great Game" feeling between powers. For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. Democracies don't like fighting against other democracies: it seems like in most cases, convincing the other country through communication yields actual results.
- walleeee 6y ago
  The President of the United States, 2 days ago: "We’re in a competition with China and other countries to win the 21st Century." The leading global purveyor of DEMOCRACY is deeply embedded in the dangerous game you describe
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you are aware of the term "Great Game". But it refers to a particular philosophy which has been dead since the early 1900s. The "Great Game" was a huge reason why WW1 broke out. Back then, social Darwinism was considered a good thing. To win a war and prove that you're superior was honorable. Imperialism was reaching its highest points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game Under the "Great Game" mindset: war between powers was good. War encourages innovation. War encourages progress. Its why World War 1 happened: so many political powers believed that humanity would be advanced by fighting. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
    - walleeee 6y ago
      If there is no longer any desire among the democracies of the world to war against rival nations, why have the leading democratic power and its allies been involved in constant covert and overt warfare for the better part of the last century? Why are we talking about "winning" the next century if, as you allege, democracy has superseded geopolitical competition? We may affect more opposition to war in the present day, and we may wage it more subtly, but by no means has it ceased
brobinson 6y ago
Unfortunately, this has never been true to my knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
betwixthewires 6y ago
You don't have conflict with people you don't need anything from, usually. It might seem counterintuitive but there's weight to the idea that interdependence increases risk of conflict.
- roachpepe 6y ago
  Agreed, physical conflict is basically just an extreme form of negotiation, and it will continue as long as it's potentially profitable to the aggressor. "The idea is to apply kinetic force to the other group until its behaviour changes as desired."

dmitrygr 6y ago

My sister wrote & defended her PhD thesis disproving this intuitive but wrong connection. Plenty of states happily trade with their enemies during wars. So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war. States are most likely to cut off trade during war in very long wars - which are no longer possible between nuclear powers. http://mariya.gr/research.htm http://mariya.gr/research.htm If you have counter-arguments other than "But, but, but that FEELS wrong", i am sure she'd like to hear them, her email is on the site"

throwaway4594 6y ago
The summary of her dissertation is really interesting, thanks for sharing! But I think OP's point was "countries who trade with each other are less likely to go to war", not "countries who trade with each other never go to war". And I think OP is right. "So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war." Seatbelts do not stop people dying in car accidents. But seatbelts do reduce the chances of dying in a car accident. I know I'm being pedantic, but it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Even a prophylactic that works 1% of the time is better than nothing.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  Yes, war doesn’t stop trading, but it makes it more expensive. My favourite example is the Kula ring that used 2 monetary instruments circling between islands in different directions as a proof that other islands are not in war with eachother: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

chrisco255 6y ago

Really? The U.S. was founded on a war with its primary trading partner.

lostlogin 6y ago
That freight didn’t so much fall overboard as get pushed.
bpodgursky 6y ago
Well, alternatively, the war was (in large part) triggered by Britain _restricting_ open trade via the stamp act / granting a monopoly on tea imports to a single company.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The stamp act was a tax, not a restriction, right? Britain was attempting to recoup losses from the French-Indian War if I'm not mistaken. And the colonists had no say in it and then realized that even after lobbying for years to remove it (hell, the U.S. sent Benjamin Franklin, the best statesman in history and even he couldn't get them to budge), that they would always be subservient to the Crown. The tea imports was just salt on the wound.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    Yeah, the Tea Act was the monopoly grant. The Stamp Act was just a tax.
macinjosh 6y ago
That’s not really relevant given the fact the the colonies were subjects of Britain not just their trading partner. It is a little different.
throwaway_kufu 6y ago
That trading partner wasn’t a democracy. King George has a pretty famous quote acknowledging that if George Washington actually gave up power (as the Presidency required) it would make him the greatest man in the World.

dariusj18 6y ago

The basis of the modern liberal world order.

dragontamer 6y ago

> The more countries trade with eachother, the less reason they have to fight wars with eachother. WW1 pretty much proved that wrong. Europe was trading a lot with each other. That didn't stop all the rivalries from starting up and causing the general "Great Game" feeling between powers. For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. Democracies don't like fighting against other democracies: it seems like in most cases, convincing the other country through communication yields actual results.

walleeee 6y ago
The President of the United States, 2 days ago: "We’re in a competition with China and other countries to win the 21st Century." The leading global purveyor of DEMOCRACY is deeply embedded in the dangerous game you describe
- dragontamer 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you are aware of the term "Great Game". But it refers to a particular philosophy which has been dead since the early 1900s. The "Great Game" was a huge reason why WW1 broke out. Back then, social Darwinism was considered a good thing. To win a war and prove that you're superior was honorable. Imperialism was reaching its highest points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game Under the "Great Game" mindset: war between powers was good. War encourages innovation. War encourages progress. Its why World War 1 happened: so many political powers believed that humanity would be advanced by fighting. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
  - walleeee 6y ago
    If there is no longer any desire among the democracies of the world to war against rival nations, why have the leading democratic power and its allies been involved in constant covert and overt warfare for the better part of the last century? Why are we talking about "winning" the next century if, as you allege, democracy has superseded geopolitical competition? We may affect more opposition to war in the present day, and we may wage it more subtly, but by no means has it ceased

brobinson 6y ago

Unfortunately, this has never been true to my knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

betwixthewires 6y ago

You don't have conflict with people you don't need anything from, usually. It might seem counterintuitive but there's weight to the idea that interdependence increases risk of conflict.

roachpepe 6y ago
Agreed, physical conflict is basically just an extreme form of negotiation, and it will continue as long as it's potentially profitable to the aggressor. "The idea is to apply kinetic force to the other group until its behaviour changes as desired."