4 ms·

This argument was largely discredited by WW1. Lots of theorists, Angell, iirc quite a few academics in the US made this argument pre-WW1...and, ofc, it was wron

This argument was largely discredited by WW1. Lots of theorists, Angell, iirc quite a few academics in the US made this argument pre-WW1...and, ofc, it was wrong. So you don't really find many people making this argument anymore (outside of the ignorati, like Thomas Friedman), because evidence suggests this theory is incorrect (and, to be clear, this theory was huge: Angell was one of the most famous academics in the world, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, it was probably the prevalent theory of international relations pre-WW1). And Jacob Soll, being a relatively well known historian of economic and political thought, is aware of that. Also, your economics is not accurate. Before WW1, the economy was roughly as interdependent as it is now. The world kept turning, and it would in the case of another world war. All that happens is that economies re-orient towards domestic production and everyone gets a bit poorer (and this has already been happening with China and the US, the world economy did not go up in flames). The scenario where the US is unable to fund itself has already happened in the recent past with the UK (which was actually relatively larger than the US today), with any financial shock there is a way through. I think the point is Soll is making, quite correctly, is that markets are situated within a political context. One man's "free markets" are another man's colonialism (a point Putin demonstrated a few weeks ago). So you saying there is interdependence is actually the exact problem that some people have, and the reason why strategic errors have been made repeatedly. Imo, this is an angle that is not well understood (for example, most IR theorists aren't familiar with the mid-19th century market evangelists of Britain) precisely because we have passed through this unipolar period that strips political context from reasoning (i.e. this person is rational, we are interdependent, they won't do X or Y...this is exactly what people thought in 1910).

runarberg 4y ago
This is interesting. It reminds me of learning about Homo Economicus—the believe that humans behave rationally and will always behave in a way that optimizes their profits. This myth has of course been thoroughly debunked within the scientific literature, but it has taken a long time to die within some economic circles. Just recently there was a post here on HN about nudge theory—a theory which seems as it is trying to patch up homo economicus. Your post here seems to suggest that homo economicus is still alive in theories about international relations—at least among laypeople—the believe that states somehow will act rationally—even though individuals won’t—and always act in a way that optimizes their wealth. Off course, there is always a reason to be skeptical about such absolute patterns in such a complex and dynamic system, especially if the same pattern has been debunked in other fields.
notahacker 4y ago
"largely discredited" depends which variant you mean: the utopian claim that countries with 'free markets' never fight each other which is clearly untrue, or the claim that openness to trade reduced the likelihood of conflict between countries which appears to be largely correct and along with its close cousin the "democratic peace hypothesis" has plenty of intellectual support from the tacit to the write bestselling books with bombastic titles (certainly it has substantially more support than the once-fashionable alternative: Lenin's "imperialism" in which capitalist countries become more aggressive than their mercantilist forebears in their attempts to capture increasing wealth on the battlefield rather than more preoccupied by maintaining trade).
Aunche 4y ago
> Before WW1, the economy was roughly as interdependent as it is now. This is untrue. In 1913, exports were roughly 14% of economic activity. Today, it's at 24% [1]. This effect is exaggerated when you consider that people were a lot more self reliant back then, and most of this labor doesn't get recorded as economic activity (e.g. hand-washing clothes vs using a washer, subsidence farming vs buying food at a supermarket). Today, there is also a lot more multinational corporations and international investments. For example, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, but the vast majority of its over a million workers are Chinese. As far as I can tell, you never saw Austrian elites buy a ton of Serbian real-estate, which is what China's elites are doing. Had that been the case, you'd see a lot Austrian elites fight very hard to keep the peace to prevent their investments from going into flames. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization#trade-has-changed-the-world-economy https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization#trade-has...
- runarberg 4y ago
  > In 1913, exports were roughly 14% of economic activity. Today, it's at 24% Is it as simple as just comparing these two proportions? [let alone the fact that comparing proportions is generally a bad idea when there is a difference in absolute quantity/quality between the two samples]. In 1913 a huge proportion of the world’s populations were colonized. The economic activity within these colonies is something that is really hard to compare to today’s situation of global capitalism. I think comparing these proportions is not what your parent had in mind when they stated this, and honestly I don’t think they give a good insight into how global trade was back then compared to today. Aside: Citing our world in data leaves a general distaste in my mouth. They seem to take Hans Rosling’s idea of needing a good visualization to an extreme. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink into these graphs. Missing the fact that a misleading graph can do more damage then a good graph can provide insight.

runarberg 4y ago

This is interesting. It reminds me of learning about Homo Economicus—the believe that humans behave rationally and will always behave in a way that optimizes their profits. This myth has of course been thoroughly debunked within the scientific literature, but it has taken a long time to die within some economic circles. Just recently there was a post here on HN about nudge theory—a theory which seems as it is trying to patch up homo economicus. Your post here seems to suggest that homo economicus is still alive in theories about international relations—at least among laypeople—the believe that states somehow will act rationally—even though individuals won’t—and always act in a way that optimizes their wealth. Off course, there is always a reason to be skeptical about such absolute patterns in such a complex and dynamic system, especially if the same pattern has been debunked in other fields.

notahacker 4y ago

"largely discredited" depends which variant you mean: the utopian claim that countries with 'free markets' never fight each other which is clearly untrue, or the claim that openness to trade reduced the likelihood of conflict between countries which appears to be largely correct and along with its close cousin the "democratic peace hypothesis" has plenty of intellectual support from the tacit to the write bestselling books with bombastic titles (certainly it has substantially more support than the once-fashionable alternative: Lenin's "imperialism" in which capitalist countries become more aggressive than their mercantilist forebears in their attempts to capture increasing wealth on the battlefield rather than more preoccupied by maintaining trade).

Aunche 4y ago

> Before WW1, the economy was roughly as interdependent as it is now. This is untrue. In 1913, exports were roughly 14% of economic activity. Today, it's at 24% [1]. This effect is exaggerated when you consider that people were a lot more self reliant back then, and most of this labor doesn't get recorded as economic activity (e.g. hand-washing clothes vs using a washer, subsidence farming vs buying food at a supermarket). Today, there is also a lot more multinational corporations and international investments. For example, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, but the vast majority of its over a million workers are Chinese. As far as I can tell, you never saw Austrian elites buy a ton of Serbian real-estate, which is what China's elites are doing. Had that been the case, you'd see a lot Austrian elites fight very hard to keep the peace to prevent their investments from going into flames. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization#trade-has-changed-the-world-economy https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization#trade-has...

runarberg 4y ago
> In 1913, exports were roughly 14% of economic activity. Today, it's at 24% Is it as simple as just comparing these two proportions? [let alone the fact that comparing proportions is generally a bad idea when there is a difference in absolute quantity/quality between the two samples]. In 1913 a huge proportion of the world’s populations were colonized. The economic activity within these colonies is something that is really hard to compare to today’s situation of global capitalism. I think comparing these proportions is not what your parent had in mind when they stated this, and honestly I don’t think they give a good insight into how global trade was back then compared to today. Aside: Citing our world in data leaves a general distaste in my mouth. They seem to take Hans Rosling’s idea of needing a good visualization to an extreme. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink into these graphs. Missing the fact that a misleading graph can do more damage then a good graph can provide insight.