4 ms·

War is the last resort of those who have nothing to offer in exchange (free trade). The US has lots to offer (both in kind and financially) in exchange to Denm

War is the last resort of those who have nothing to offer in exchange (free trade). The US has lots to offer (both in kind and financially) in exchange to Denmark in order to obtain minerary rights in Greenland

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> War is the last resort of those who have nothing to offer in exchange (free trade) "War is merely the continuation of policy with other means" [1]. You start with bag-of-money diplomacy. If that doesn't work, gunboat diplomacy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz
- JumpinJack_Cash 2y ago
  The point is that when there is no shortage of money it is very hard to find people willing to go to war, both because they are more educated, are afraid to lose their lives and they (rightfully) think they can make a bigger impact in the world using their IQ to build stuff as opposed to destroying stuff. Russia HDI is much lower compared to the US and yet the war in Ukraine is unpopular among the populace and they have to conscript people to go fight. If anything what you have described could happen in places with HDI inferior to Russia (mainly Africa) as their necessity to conscript people and sending them to the front indicates that not even at levels of wealth and HDI of Russia people are willing to go fight voluntarily or with good spirit and high morale.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > when there is no shortage of money it is very hard to find people willing to go to war This is not borne by history nor theory [1]. (Also, fundamentally, the notion of "no shortage of money" doesn't exist. There is always more.) Petrostates, in particular, tend to increase their war mongering when they get rich [2][3]. > think they can make a bigger impact in the world using their IQ to build stuff as opposed to destroying stuff Correct, "the economics of modern production means that quite a lot of countries will have absolutely nothing to gain from a war, even a successful one" [4]. But only if the political system incorporates the views of the median inhabitant [1]. (Also, plenty of invasions are pitched as bloodless.) [1] https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevault/u4/warwealth.pdf https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevaul... [2] https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/news/war-and-oil-price-cycle https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/news/war-and-oil-price-cycle [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/jinteaffa.69.1.121 https://www.jstor.org/stable/jinteaffa.69.1.121 [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=jumpcrisscross%20%22acoup%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> War is the last resort of those who have nothing to offer in exchange (free trade) "War is merely the continuation of policy with other means" [1]. You start with bag-of-money diplomacy. If that doesn't work, gunboat diplomacy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

JumpinJack_Cash 2y ago
The point is that when there is no shortage of money it is very hard to find people willing to go to war, both because they are more educated, are afraid to lose their lives and they (rightfully) think they can make a bigger impact in the world using their IQ to build stuff as opposed to destroying stuff. Russia HDI is much lower compared to the US and yet the war in Ukraine is unpopular among the populace and they have to conscript people to go fight. If anything what you have described could happen in places with HDI inferior to Russia (mainly Africa) as their necessity to conscript people and sending them to the front indicates that not even at levels of wealth and HDI of Russia people are willing to go fight voluntarily or with good spirit and high morale.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > when there is no shortage of money it is very hard to find people willing to go to war This is not borne by history nor theory [1]. (Also, fundamentally, the notion of "no shortage of money" doesn't exist. There is always more.) Petrostates, in particular, tend to increase their war mongering when they get rich [2][3]. > think they can make a bigger impact in the world using their IQ to build stuff as opposed to destroying stuff Correct, "the economics of modern production means that quite a lot of countries will have absolutely nothing to gain from a war, even a successful one" [4]. But only if the political system incorporates the views of the median inhabitant [1]. (Also, plenty of invasions are pitched as bloodless.) [1] https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevault/u4/warwealth.pdf https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevaul... [2] https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/news/war-and-oil-price-cycle https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/news/war-and-oil-price-cycle [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/jinteaffa.69.1.121 https://www.jstor.org/stable/jinteaffa.69.1.121 [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=jumpcrisscross%20%22acoup%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...