12 ms·

Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economi

Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economies so we have strong incentives to avoid wars?

lucideer 4y ago
It's interesting that you see this as an incentive to avoid wars. A large proportion of wars have been caused by resource interdependence (invasions to secure external resources that are relied heavily upon), not avoided by it.
- adrianN 4y ago
  It seems hard to me to quantify the number of wars prevented by any measure.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Interdependence of resources was the primary reason the EEC (later forming the EU) was created. The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that. There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo.. https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of-violent-war-related-deaths-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...
- zarzavat 4y ago
  It’s meta-stable. War is very expensive. Resource interdependence is usually a disincentive to war. However when resources are either extremely valuable or essential, usually either oil or water, then it can overcome the disincentive and become an incentive to conflict.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    > War is very expensive. Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession. The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
    - imtringued 4y ago
      War is profitable because you are taking what someone else has built or what was already there and claiming it as your own. The costs are borne by the losers of the war. Either through loss of life or the loss of the seized capital.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Couldn't you just give people money and avoid the part where you set part of the economic output on fire? I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
      - cuteboy19 4y ago
        This paradox was resolved by economist Bastiat in 1850 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
        FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Well, it's not really a fallacy if you account for political impediments to just giving people money. In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
        4y ago
- hnbad 4y ago
  Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food. I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA). Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).
  - lucideer 4y ago
    I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
  - 4y ago
mhandley 4y ago
Interdependence can be complicated and assymetric. Russian gas dependency indeed provides a disincentive for Germany to support Ukraine against Russia, but at the same time it emboldened Russia because Putin likely believed the EU was weak due to its dependency on Russian gas.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  The EU is weak due to Russian gas. We basically have to commit suicide to get out of this.
coffeeblack 4y ago
Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now. But I don’t think so. Russia assaulted its neighbors several times before, so Putin had reasons to assume that the West would not react, just like before. The West neglected to follow through 15 years ago.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now. Hardly. It just hadn't on gone long enough and far enough. I'd say that the entire cause of the war is just that- that the interests of the two sets of elites didn't line up yet. They eventually would have because ownership would have become much more distributed as always happens as a result of neoliberalism.
cseleborg 4y ago
I think we're recognising that this strategy was a mistake and simply didn't work with Russia. If we trade with them, they'll become more like us, was the thinking, and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  > and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years. Seeing what the likes of Gerhard Schröder is doing and given other economic incentives that favoured Germany I don't think that was the main idea behind it.
  - cseleborg 4y ago
    Well, there's Schröder, of course, definitely a bit embarrassing now. But there were also those for whom this actually was a legitimate foreign policy strategy. I do believe DE's current president and former foreign policy minister, F.-W. Steinmeier, genuinely thought increasing business with Russia was the way to keep Europe's annoying neighbour civil.
    - modo_mario 4y ago
      Was Germany during this time not opposed to the idea of essentially group buying Russian gas rather than letting it be used as a political bat? If so, why?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I don't think it was a mistake. It just wasn't deep enough because it wasn't given enough time. 20-30 years is nothing.
bregma 4y ago
Every economic theory I've ever encountered fails to account for human stupidity.
eru 4y ago
> Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economies so we have strong incentives to avoid wars? That's at best a nice side-effect, if it actually works. Nah, the main reason is that specialisation and trade is just so much more efficient. You get more from less.

lucideer 4y ago

It's interesting that you see this as an incentive to avoid wars. A large proportion of wars have been caused by resource interdependence (invasions to secure external resources that are relied heavily upon), not avoided by it.

adrianN 4y ago
It seems hard to me to quantify the number of wars prevented by any measure.
- dijit 4y ago
  Interdependence of resources was the primary reason the EEC (later forming the EU) was created. The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that. There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo.. https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of-violent-war-related-deaths-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...
zarzavat 4y ago
It’s meta-stable. War is very expensive. Resource interdependence is usually a disincentive to war. However when resources are either extremely valuable or essential, usually either oil or water, then it can overcome the disincentive and become an incentive to conflict.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > War is very expensive. Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession. The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
  - imtringued 4y ago
    War is profitable because you are taking what someone else has built or what was already there and claiming it as your own. The costs are borne by the losers of the war. Either through loss of life or the loss of the seized capital.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Couldn't you just give people money and avoid the part where you set part of the economic output on fire? I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      This paradox was resolved by economist Bastiat in 1850 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Well, it's not really a fallacy if you account for political impediments to just giving people money. In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
        4y ago
hnbad 4y ago
Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food. I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA). Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).
- lucideer 4y ago
  I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
- 4y ago

mhandley 4y ago

Interdependence can be complicated and assymetric. Russian gas dependency indeed provides a disincentive for Germany to support Ukraine against Russia, but at the same time it emboldened Russia because Putin likely believed the EU was weak due to its dependency on Russian gas.

guerrilla 4y ago
The EU is weak due to Russian gas. We basically have to commit suicide to get out of this.

coffeeblack 4y ago

Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now. But I don’t think so. Russia assaulted its neighbors several times before, so Putin had reasons to assume that the West would not react, just like before. The West neglected to follow through 15 years ago.

guerrilla 4y ago
> Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now. Hardly. It just hadn't on gone long enough and far enough. I'd say that the entire cause of the war is just that- that the interests of the two sets of elites didn't line up yet. They eventually would have because ownership would have become much more distributed as always happens as a result of neoliberalism.

cseleborg 4y ago

I think we're recognising that this strategy was a mistake and simply didn't work with Russia. If we trade with them, they'll become more like us, was the thinking, and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years.

modo_mario 4y ago
> and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years. Seeing what the likes of Gerhard Schröder is doing and given other economic incentives that favoured Germany I don't think that was the main idea behind it.
- cseleborg 4y ago
  Well, there's Schröder, of course, definitely a bit embarrassing now. But there were also those for whom this actually was a legitimate foreign policy strategy. I do believe DE's current president and former foreign policy minister, F.-W. Steinmeier, genuinely thought increasing business with Russia was the way to keep Europe's annoying neighbour civil.
  - modo_mario 4y ago
    Was Germany during this time not opposed to the idea of essentially group buying Russian gas rather than letting it be used as a political bat? If so, why?
guerrilla 4y ago
I don't think it was a mistake. It just wasn't deep enough because it wasn't given enough time. 20-30 years is nothing.

bregma 4y ago

Every economic theory I've ever encountered fails to account for human stupidity.

eru 4y ago

> Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economies so we have strong incentives to avoid wars? That's at best a nice side-effect, if it actually works. Nah, the main reason is that specialisation and trade is just so much more efficient. You get more from less.