4 ms·

Well in that case it isn't strictly 'profit' but rather just benefit. In the same way that antisocial urban development isn't necessarily profitable per se, it

Well in that case it isn't strictly 'profit' but rather just benefit. In the same way that antisocial urban development isn't necessarily profitable per se, it just allows the people doing it to reap all the benefits while pushing the burden onto society as a whole.

philjohn 4y ago
Why do countries invade others? It's often portrayed as being for the greater good of the attacker, restoring their territorial integrity. But let's be honest, you don't spend billions if you're not getting anything in return other than pissed off invadees - it's for profit.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I mean, they are pretty honest about. Land is how countries make money. Its not a secret.
  - zopa 4y ago
    In the 1700s, maybe; today profit comes from fragile human and physical capital that don't like having bombs dropped on them. Let's look at some numbers. Ukraine, a largely agriculture country, is one of the strongest possible cases for your thesis. So consider net Ukrainian raw materials exports: <https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/UKR/Year/2019/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/WLD/Product/All-Groups https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/UKR/Yea...> Around $18 billion in 2019. To gain partial control of that revenue stream, Russia has largely smashed up the military it spends $50-$60 billion a year on. It's not a good trade. You might protest that land also has factories and such on it, and that's true, but today many of those factories look like this: <https://gdb.rferl.org/07520000-0aff-0242-a90c-08da3a5a2c06_w2395_n_st_d2.jpeg https://gdb.rferl.org/07520000-0aff-0242-a90c-08da3a5a2c06_w...> Launching wars of aggression is a bad idea because killing people and taking things that don't belong to you is wrong. But if that fails to persuade, recall that it's also a financial catastrophe, for both sides. (Edit: formatting)
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Ukraine also has some of the best agricultural land in the world, which nets exports of around $18bn. Hard to argue that’s not about the land. Then there’s the big one; Putin believes that land belongs to him. Once you get into squishy questions like how much is it worth to get your thing back from someone the financial calculus becomes much harder.
    - toast0 4y ago
      > Around $18 billion in 2019. To gain partial control of that revenue stream, Russia has largely smashed up the military it spends $50-$60 billion a year on. It's not a good trade. With my deeply cynical hat on... I mean, if they keep the territory (which seems unlikely at this moment), they get that revenue, so good for them? They also got to clear out their stores of old munitions, and run a sales demo for newer munitions. Might have been a better demo if the campaign didn't go sideways, though. Either way, lots of business for domestic producers of munitions to resupply.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      > Ukraine, a largely agriculture country Where a whole bunch of natural gas was recently discovered (Crimea specificly). To be clear though, i'm not saying that its always direct. Plenty of things can be strategically valuable but not instantly translatable to $$$. Even businesses don't always do things for the short term profit exclusively - sometimes long term matters.

philjohn 4y ago

Why do countries invade others? It's often portrayed as being for the greater good of the attacker, restoring their territorial integrity. But let's be honest, you don't spend billions if you're not getting anything in return other than pissed off invadees - it's for profit.

bawolff 4y ago
I mean, they are pretty honest about. Land is how countries make money. Its not a secret.
- zopa 4y ago
  In the 1700s, maybe; today profit comes from fragile human and physical capital that don't like having bombs dropped on them. Let's look at some numbers. Ukraine, a largely agriculture country, is one of the strongest possible cases for your thesis. So consider net Ukrainian raw materials exports: <https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/UKR/Year/2019/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/WLD/Product/All-Groups https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/UKR/Yea...> Around $18 billion in 2019. To gain partial control of that revenue stream, Russia has largely smashed up the military it spends $50-$60 billion a year on. It's not a good trade. You might protest that land also has factories and such on it, and that's true, but today many of those factories look like this: <https://gdb.rferl.org/07520000-0aff-0242-a90c-08da3a5a2c06_w2395_n_st_d2.jpeg https://gdb.rferl.org/07520000-0aff-0242-a90c-08da3a5a2c06_w...> Launching wars of aggression is a bad idea because killing people and taking things that don't belong to you is wrong. But if that fails to persuade, recall that it's also a financial catastrophe, for both sides. (Edit: formatting)
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    Ukraine also has some of the best agricultural land in the world, which nets exports of around $18bn. Hard to argue that’s not about the land. Then there’s the big one; Putin believes that land belongs to him. Once you get into squishy questions like how much is it worth to get your thing back from someone the financial calculus becomes much harder.
  - toast0 4y ago
    > Around $18 billion in 2019. To gain partial control of that revenue stream, Russia has largely smashed up the military it spends $50-$60 billion a year on. It's not a good trade. With my deeply cynical hat on... I mean, if they keep the territory (which seems unlikely at this moment), they get that revenue, so good for them? They also got to clear out their stores of old munitions, and run a sales demo for newer munitions. Might have been a better demo if the campaign didn't go sideways, though. Either way, lots of business for domestic producers of munitions to resupply.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    > Ukraine, a largely agriculture country Where a whole bunch of natural gas was recently discovered (Crimea specificly). To be clear though, i'm not saying that its always direct. Plenty of things can be strategically valuable but not instantly translatable to $$$. Even businesses don't always do things for the short term profit exclusively - sometimes long term matters.