Mercantilism and War So, there was this economic theory called mercantilism. Basically, it said that the wealth of the world is a fixed value (cannot be creat

Mercantilism and War So, there was this economic theory called mercantilism. Basically, it said that the wealth of the world is a fixed value (cannot be created nor destroyed) and that a country's wealth was measured by the amount of gold it controlled. Now, people on this site should instantly say, "but startups are increasing the wealth of the world all the time." Yes. Mercantilism was just flat out wrong, but it did influence a lot of international politics for a while. So, if you believe mercantile economics to be correct: * Spending money on war isn't actually wasting wealth since wealth cannot be destroyed. * The only way for you to gain more wealth is to take it from someone else (another country). * The only risk in war is that you might loose. Baring loosing the war, you have gained wealth. There cannot be a situation where both sides loose wealth. * Gold is f'in magic! So, if you can't make wealth, you should set your sights on taking it from someone else. The problem is that mercantile economics is flat out false and that it's often easier to create wealth than to steal it. To put it in math terms: Mercantalism = Profits stolen. Modern Economics = Profits stolen - cost to wage the war. -- That still means that war can be profitable, but it severely decreases the likelihood. What makes it unprofitable is the value of human life. Yes, human life has a value. That value is not static. For example, I have a pretty awesome life (by historical standards). I have awesome American healthcare, a job that doesn't hurt me physically or emotionally, etc. You get the point. If I had lived 500 years ago, my life would not have been worth as much because it would have sucked more. It's not that it should be worth less. Everyones' lives should have equal value. But that isn't the case. In fact, the actions that people take show that they value themselves differently. For example, if I expected to die of a plague, I would probably act very differently - taking way more risks with my life because it's cheap; it's going to be gone soon with little fanfare. We should, as a matter of policy, treat everyone equally. So how does that impact war? Well, as the average value of human life increases, the cost of war goes up in a very intangible way. 500 years ago, we would just let soldiers die. Today, even a small number (by historical standards) of casualties is cause for anger. Why? Human life is worth more than it used to be. It also means that a lower percentage of the population is probably willing to risk their lives. It also means that we spend a ton more money on protective things. "Well, that thing by the road could be a bomb. Let's use the $50,000 robot to see if it gets blown to bits." This is a good thing! At least I think it is. But if you're into war, it kinda makes it undoable. 500 years ago, letting a soldier die didn't cost you anything and, in fact, many generals would send their highest-paid soldiers on the riskiest missions so that they would die and stop costing them salary money. Today, we would rather sacrifice lots of money than let that soldier die. That's awesome, but expensive when your business is war.