5 ms·

There is a penn and teller episode where they argued that globalization was creating world peace. Basically, when everyone’s economies are so entangled, they sa

There is a penn and teller episode where they argued that globalization was creating world peace. Basically, when everyone’s economies are so entangled, they said, nobody would want to go to war because of how expensive it would be. Their model, I think, only works for democracies. When a dictator controls a country, and their quality of life remains unchanged and revolves mostly around delusions of grandeur (like an impetuous monarch centuries ago), that dynamic isn’t enough of a deterrent. It only works when the leadership is sensitive to the well being of the country and it’s people

ch4s3 4y ago
Even for dictators, economic costs are a real barrier. You can’t loot from a broken economy in the future or build vanity projects if there’s no money. Economic interdependence constrains authoritarians as well, just a bit less.
- LeanderK 4y ago
  I think it is all a game of perception. If you think you can muscle your way through, either quickly enough so that no harm is done to your economy/population until your goal is reached or if you perceive a weakness in the opposition, a fear of taking action against you, then you see the move as possible. I think the line of thought that economic (co-)dependence makes conflict impossible or leads to a more harmonious relationship is probably the gravest error in german foreign strategy. I think it's a reason behind both our relationship with russia and china. But it assumes a rational actor who's concern is the well-being of its people. Putin doesn't care for his people, he cares for power. He want's to increase his power, the stability of his regime etc. He might have employed the same flawed thinking to come to the conclusion that europe won't help ukraine if it's dependent on russian energy. In reality, economic costs only become apparent after the harm is done. The greatest strategy crumbles if it is build on flawed assumptions.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I don’t think that’s the strongest version of the argument. I would boil it down to something along the lines of economic relatedness building roadblocks and off-ramps on the way to conflict. Trade gives some opportunities for low risk retaliation that can be hashed out and deescalated prior to any shooting happening. It presents resistance that can slow things down. It obviously can’t prevent a determined large nation from barreling through, but it’s a layer of defense.
dehrmann 4y ago
> There is a penn and teller episode where they argued that globalization was creating world peace. This is something that worries me about covid supply chain onshoring. > Their model, I think, only works for democracies. It's kept China in-line, but it's also made North Korea a pariah state. The other lesson we recently got in world peace is countries with nukes can do what they want to countries without nukes. Could be the US and Iraq or Russia and Ukraine.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  > countries with nukes can do what they want Tragedy of the commons: to save the world, we need to get rid of all the nukes. But unless you have nukes, you are helpless against everyone around you, so everyone has to get nukes (or a trustworthy ally who has them)
mrtksn 4y ago
> Their model, I think, only works for democracies. Completely agree but I suspect democracy is not enough. When a leader manages to assume a power that can be kept by other means like nationalistic rhetoric or cultural issues they can too engage in economically irrational politics. People often rally behind ideas about god, identity or ideology. In fact this is very natural and expected because otherwise people could have accepted offers like "if you let me exterminate this group of people I will give you gas at discount".
wongarsu 4y ago
Dictators benefit from economic prosperity just as Democratic leaders do: the propensity benefits those who keep them in power. In a dictatorship, economic prosperity rarely benefits the average citizen, but that's because the average citizen isn't important to secure the dictators power. You can see Putin paying a price for the continued economic hardships. He is absolutely risking an end to his reign, but apparently the possibility of glory is more important to him.
- landemva 4y ago
  I suspect if Putin is removed the hard-liners behind him will make things quite difficult for the west. Careful what we wish for?
mminer237 4y ago
It's notable that in 1909, people thought the world was so interconnected that there could never be another general war in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
golemotron 4y ago
> Their model, I think, only works for democracies. I think it's simplistic to rely on that dichotomy when unaccountable power dwells within countries and bodies like the EU that are ostensibly democratic, and nearly every government that is called authoritarian holds elections of some sort and is subject to regime change irregardless. It is more of a continuum than a sharp line.
origin_path 4y ago
Democracies have often gone to war. The usual formulation is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other but this is specious reasoning - it asserts causality without even bothering to speculate as to an actual underlying cause, probably because there isn't one and any attempts to argue otherwise would immediately fall apart. Democracies have been invading, overthrowing and subjugating other countries for a long time.
avgcorrection 4y ago
> globalization was creating world peace. Wait. I thought their brand was about making fun of BS? Did they peddle BS themselves as an ironic gesture? > Their model, I think, only works for democracies. Like the nominal democracy the US of A?
yonaguska 4y ago
> Their model, I think, only works for democracies I no longer believe that most "democracies" are actually democratic in the sense that people are actually represented. One keystone to a functioning democracy is transparency and an informed populace. That population also needs to be capable of shared coherent goals. Culture is programming for the masses, and was once something established through blood. Now, culture is established by media, and control by control of information. Dictators are just as beholden to culture as a tool for control as are democratically elected leaders. If culture can be manipulated in short order, consent can be manufactured, then there's really not that much difference the authoritarian by declaration versus the authoritarian by "consent". As long as people have there very most basic needs met, and they are sufficiently convinced that there is no other possibly better state of existence for them- they will live and they will die to the benefit of the leaders subsisting from their labor. The real, current example of this would be the USA- we've been in conflicts for the entire duration of my life, it hasn't been cheap, but the expenses have been neatly placed on the shoulders of people that will probably never even realize the origin of the burden they bear. In the meantime, the expenses of war need to be paid to someone, and with a democracy supplanted by lobbyists, we are saddled with a parasitical class of elected officials that do not answer to votes. tldr - Even in a global economy, wars will happen, because all wars are just wars against the lower classes. War won't stop until the standard of living of the elites are threatened, regardless of the political system.

ch4s3 4y ago

Even for dictators, economic costs are a real barrier. You can’t loot from a broken economy in the future or build vanity projects if there’s no money. Economic interdependence constrains authoritarians as well, just a bit less.

LeanderK 4y ago
I think it is all a game of perception. If you think you can muscle your way through, either quickly enough so that no harm is done to your economy/population until your goal is reached or if you perceive a weakness in the opposition, a fear of taking action against you, then you see the move as possible. I think the line of thought that economic (co-)dependence makes conflict impossible or leads to a more harmonious relationship is probably the gravest error in german foreign strategy. I think it's a reason behind both our relationship with russia and china. But it assumes a rational actor who's concern is the well-being of its people. Putin doesn't care for his people, he cares for power. He want's to increase his power, the stability of his regime etc. He might have employed the same flawed thinking to come to the conclusion that europe won't help ukraine if it's dependent on russian energy. In reality, economic costs only become apparent after the harm is done. The greatest strategy crumbles if it is build on flawed assumptions.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s the strongest version of the argument. I would boil it down to something along the lines of economic relatedness building roadblocks and off-ramps on the way to conflict. Trade gives some opportunities for low risk retaliation that can be hashed out and deescalated prior to any shooting happening. It presents resistance that can slow things down. It obviously can’t prevent a determined large nation from barreling through, but it’s a layer of defense.

dehrmann 4y ago

> There is a penn and teller episode where they argued that globalization was creating world peace. This is something that worries me about covid supply chain onshoring. > Their model, I think, only works for democracies. It's kept China in-line, but it's also made North Korea a pariah state. The other lesson we recently got in world peace is countries with nukes can do what they want to countries without nukes. Could be the US and Iraq or Russia and Ukraine.

barbariangrunge 4y ago
> countries with nukes can do what they want Tragedy of the commons: to save the world, we need to get rid of all the nukes. But unless you have nukes, you are helpless against everyone around you, so everyone has to get nukes (or a trustworthy ally who has them)

mrtksn 4y ago

> Their model, I think, only works for democracies. Completely agree but I suspect democracy is not enough. When a leader manages to assume a power that can be kept by other means like nationalistic rhetoric or cultural issues they can too engage in economically irrational politics. People often rally behind ideas about god, identity or ideology. In fact this is very natural and expected because otherwise people could have accepted offers like "if you let me exterminate this group of people I will give you gas at discount".

wongarsu 4y ago

Dictators benefit from economic prosperity just as Democratic leaders do: the propensity benefits those who keep them in power. In a dictatorship, economic prosperity rarely benefits the average citizen, but that's because the average citizen isn't important to secure the dictators power. You can see Putin paying a price for the continued economic hardships. He is absolutely risking an end to his reign, but apparently the possibility of glory is more important to him.

landemva 4y ago
I suspect if Putin is removed the hard-liners behind him will make things quite difficult for the west. Careful what we wish for?

mminer237 4y ago

It's notable that in 1909, people thought the world was so interconnected that there could never be another general war in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

golemotron 4y ago

> Their model, I think, only works for democracies. I think it's simplistic to rely on that dichotomy when unaccountable power dwells within countries and bodies like the EU that are ostensibly democratic, and nearly every government that is called authoritarian holds elections of some sort and is subject to regime change irregardless. It is more of a continuum than a sharp line.

origin_path 4y ago

Democracies have often gone to war. The usual formulation is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other but this is specious reasoning - it asserts causality without even bothering to speculate as to an actual underlying cause, probably because there isn't one and any attempts to argue otherwise would immediately fall apart. Democracies have been invading, overthrowing and subjugating other countries for a long time.

avgcorrection 4y ago

> globalization was creating world peace. Wait. I thought their brand was about making fun of BS? Did they peddle BS themselves as an ironic gesture? > Their model, I think, only works for democracies. Like the nominal democracy the US of A?

yonaguska 4y ago

> Their model, I think, only works for democracies I no longer believe that most "democracies" are actually democratic in the sense that people are actually represented. One keystone to a functioning democracy is transparency and an informed populace. That population also needs to be capable of shared coherent goals. Culture is programming for the masses, and was once something established through blood. Now, culture is established by media, and control by control of information. Dictators are just as beholden to culture as a tool for control as are democratically elected leaders. If culture can be manipulated in short order, consent can be manufactured, then there's really not that much difference the authoritarian by declaration versus the authoritarian by "consent". As long as people have there very most basic needs met, and they are sufficiently convinced that there is no other possibly better state of existence for them- they will live and they will die to the benefit of the leaders subsisting from their labor. The real, current example of this would be the USA- we've been in conflicts for the entire duration of my life, it hasn't been cheap, but the expenses have been neatly placed on the shoulders of people that will probably never even realize the origin of the burden they bear. In the meantime, the expenses of war need to be paid to someone, and with a democracy supplanted by lobbyists, we are saddled with a parasitical class of elected officials that do not answer to votes. tldr - Even in a global economy, wars will happen, because all wars are just wars against the lower classes. War won't stop until the standard of living of the elites are threatened, regardless of the political system.