3 ms·

Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Trade and economic dependence is th

Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Trade and economic dependence is the best deterrent of war that there is. That doesn't necessarily mean that it stops all war, but it definitely raises the cost of war and costs matter. It's also IMHO the most productive and ethical way to reduce/prevent war. Maybe they shouldn't have allowed something so fundamental as energy to become a dependence, but generally speaking the principles are sound.

tivert 3y ago
> Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Trade and economic dependence is the best deterrent of war that there is. It's a saying whose truth has been greatly exaggerated, and the people who foolishly believe it have a tendency to make themselves vulnerable. > That doesn't necessarily mean that it stops all war, but it definitely raises the cost of war and costs matter. Costs apparently matter less than you think.
- amarant 3y ago
  GP has a point. While economic integration didn't work this time, it has in the past. Been a while since you last saw Germany invading Poland for example. Or France. Costs obviously do matter, but no-one is saying it's a fool-proof means of control. Also I think part of the problem in this case is that Europe failed to make Russia sufficiently financially dependent on Europe. Instead Europe made itself dependent on Russia for energy, which means that the pacifying forces of trade are leveraged more towards Europe than towards Russia. Geopolitics are complicated and messy. The more I think about them the more my head hurts.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > GP has a point. While economic integration didn't work this time, it has in the past. Been a while since you last saw Germany invading Poland for example. Or France. Is that because of economic integration, or other reasons? Since WWII, Germany and France sat on the same side of a military alliance for more than a generation against a formidable foe (which would obviously change some attitudes), and there have been other ideological developments in those countries at well (e.g. the degree that Germans are pacifists as a reaction to Naziism).
    - benterix 3y ago
      > Is that because of economic integration, or other reasons? Probably both. In any case, in spite of political tensions there haven't been any armed conflicts between EU members so far, and the attitudes of people are very friendly.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Economic integration was the main difference between the end of WWI and WWII, and we know how those turned out. One resulted in a horribly burdened and depressed German people. When a charismatic figure who could and would speak to the people emerged (Hitler) preaching nationalistic righteous anger, he rose to power to horrific results for both Germany and the rest of the world. It could have happened to any country in the same boat. After WWII, the allies learned from their mistakes and instead of saddling the German people with mountains of debt and economic punishment, they sought to rebuild, quickly established trade and economic integration. It went substantially better the second time, and to this day seems to be working.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        > instead of saddling the German people with mountains of debt and economic punishment, they sought to rebuild They did unlearn that lesson by the time Cold War ended...
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Completely agree. It's complicated and messy, and no one factor is every fool proof or even sufficient. I agree I think the main problem here is that Russia isn't nearly as dependent on Europe as Europe is on Russia. But that said, it's also very early to conclude that Russia has plans on Europe. Especially given how Ukraine went, even if the Russian leadership fully wants to invade Europe, they surely know how that would go the moment they touch NATO. Their military will be crushed and they'll be assassinated or executed if they don't end up in prison. Europe has time to correct this imbalance. Awareness of the issue seems to be one of the hardest steps however, and coming up with solutions after that is of course quite a challenge as well. It's messy and I'm glad I don't have to be responsible for it :-)
philwelch 3y ago
> There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Yes, this was the widely believed theory prior to 1914 for why another large, Europe-wide war wouldn't break out.
- ahazred8ta 3y ago
  basically yes - “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Except goods were crossing borders right up until the exact moment the war started. The theory failed.
    - ta8903 3y ago
      To be fair the theory doesn't say soldiers won't cross borders when goods do.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Also when it comes to economics and warfare, there are no silver bullets. Just very good guides. WWI broke out mainly because of entangling alliances mixed with a culture of honor (i.e. you don't break your agreements/word). But look at how WWI ended with Germany getting heaps of crippling debt placed upon them and economic devastation. That totally paved the way for Hitler and WWII. Contrast with the end of WWII where Germany was rebuilt and economically integrated, and today it would be ludicrous to consider Germany invading Europe with designs on the world! The genetics of the people didn't magically change in a couple generations. Their economic situation did, and economic-related needs are at the base of everybody's hierarchy of needs.
        dragontamer 3y ago
        How many Hundred-Billions did the USA spend building up bridges, airports, and universities in Afghanistan? Economic lifting isn't a surefire win either. What works in Germany/Japan didn't work elsewhere.

tivert 3y ago

> Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Trade and economic dependence is the best deterrent of war that there is. It's a saying whose truth has been greatly exaggerated, and the people who foolishly believe it have a tendency to make themselves vulnerable. > That doesn't necessarily mean that it stops all war, but it definitely raises the cost of war and costs matter. Costs apparently matter less than you think.

amarant 3y ago
GP has a point. While economic integration didn't work this time, it has in the past. Been a while since you last saw Germany invading Poland for example. Or France. Costs obviously do matter, but no-one is saying it's a fool-proof means of control. Also I think part of the problem in this case is that Europe failed to make Russia sufficiently financially dependent on Europe. Instead Europe made itself dependent on Russia for energy, which means that the pacifying forces of trade are leveraged more towards Europe than towards Russia. Geopolitics are complicated and messy. The more I think about them the more my head hurts.
- tivert 3y ago
  > GP has a point. While economic integration didn't work this time, it has in the past. Been a while since you last saw Germany invading Poland for example. Or France. Is that because of economic integration, or other reasons? Since WWII, Germany and France sat on the same side of a military alliance for more than a generation against a formidable foe (which would obviously change some attitudes), and there have been other ideological developments in those countries at well (e.g. the degree that Germans are pacifists as a reaction to Naziism).
  - benterix 3y ago
    > Is that because of economic integration, or other reasons? Probably both. In any case, in spite of political tensions there haven't been any armed conflicts between EU members so far, and the attitudes of people are very friendly.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Economic integration was the main difference between the end of WWI and WWII, and we know how those turned out. One resulted in a horribly burdened and depressed German people. When a charismatic figure who could and would speak to the people emerged (Hitler) preaching nationalistic righteous anger, he rose to power to horrific results for both Germany and the rest of the world. It could have happened to any country in the same boat. After WWII, the allies learned from their mistakes and instead of saddling the German people with mountains of debt and economic punishment, they sought to rebuild, quickly established trade and economic integration. It went substantially better the second time, and to this day seems to be working.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      > instead of saddling the German people with mountains of debt and economic punishment, they sought to rebuild They did unlearn that lesson by the time Cold War ended...
- freedomben 3y ago
  Completely agree. It's complicated and messy, and no one factor is every fool proof or even sufficient. I agree I think the main problem here is that Russia isn't nearly as dependent on Europe as Europe is on Russia. But that said, it's also very early to conclude that Russia has plans on Europe. Especially given how Ukraine went, even if the Russian leadership fully wants to invade Europe, they surely know how that would go the moment they touch NATO. Their military will be crushed and they'll be assassinated or executed if they don't end up in prison. Europe has time to correct this imbalance. Awareness of the issue seems to be one of the hardest steps however, and coming up with solutions after that is of course quite a challenge as well. It's messy and I'm glad I don't have to be responsible for it :-)

philwelch 3y ago

> There's a common saying that sort of derives from Frédéric Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies don't." Yes, this was the widely believed theory prior to 1914 for why another large, Europe-wide war wouldn't break out.

ahazred8ta 3y ago
basically yes - “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”
- philwelch 3y ago
  Except goods were crossing borders right up until the exact moment the war started. The theory failed.
  - ta8903 3y ago
    To be fair the theory doesn't say soldiers won't cross borders when goods do.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Also when it comes to economics and warfare, there are no silver bullets. Just very good guides. WWI broke out mainly because of entangling alliances mixed with a culture of honor (i.e. you don't break your agreements/word). But look at how WWI ended with Germany getting heaps of crippling debt placed upon them and economic devastation. That totally paved the way for Hitler and WWII. Contrast with the end of WWII where Germany was rebuilt and economically integrated, and today it would be ludicrous to consider Germany invading Europe with designs on the world! The genetics of the people didn't magically change in a couple generations. Their economic situation did, and economic-related needs are at the base of everybody's hierarchy of needs.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        How many Hundred-Billions did the USA spend building up bridges, airports, and universities in Afghanistan? Economic lifting isn't a surefire win either. What works in Germany/Japan didn't work elsewhere.