3 ms·

> Worst case all this triggers a recession. Recession is probably the best case scenario. If only we get through this with just a recession! The world's econo

> Worst case all this triggers a recession. Recession is probably the best case scenario. If only we get through this with just a recession! The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading. Russia shows what happens when you economically isolate a country with sanctions and force them to rely on themselves economically: It reduces one of the downsides of warfighting. Do we really want an isolated, independent and self-sufficient China?

immibis 2y ago
So what you're saying is, there still won't be a world war, but everyone else might go to war with the US.
- corimaith 2y ago
  A world war for the right to sell goods to USA? That sounds like straight up imperialism.
  - immibis 2y ago
    No, just for its natural resources, land for settlements and its people as slaves.
Teever 2y ago
That isn't the lesson from Russia invading Ukraine. The lesson from Russia invading Ukraine is that the presence of authoritarians anywhere is a threat to democracies everywhere. The kind of people who crush freedom aren't content to just do so within their own borders and will eventually do so to others around them. As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible.
- nemothekid 2y ago
  This is circular reasoning. You are pretty much saying democracies should be aggressors first. If you swap `authoritarian` and `democracy` in your statement, it will also ring true. However, the parent poster paints a different picture. If people in Moscow were economically threatened by reduced trade caused by an invasion, the elite appetite for such a move would be reduced.
- ericmay 2y ago
  It's also just not the general lesson from history either. Plus you have to recall that in many cases war is about resource acquisition as much as anything else, and sometimes wars are popularized as ideological crusades when they are masquerading as resource disputes in order to motivate a populace. Something that has become apparent to me is that in our years of somewhat peaceful economic growth, we seem to have forgotten that there are haves and have-nots and that the economic system that was created to hopefully replace war with peaceful competition only works so much as the large powers decide that it works well enough. Those who are have-nots tend to not have the proportional military leverage to do something about their position. Our rejection of colonialism, mercantilism, and imperialism in favor of a "rules based international order" has blinded us a bit through abstraction and legalese to the reality of how the world works and the limits of resource availability given the size of the planet and the population numbers. > As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible. I used to think this as well, but I recently re-read George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address [1] and it aided me in coming to the conclusion that such a moral crusade is neither wise, nor moral, and least of all practical. There will always be some nations that have governments, authoritarian in our eyes or otherwise, that we disagree with from a political perspective. But we simply do not have the time, resources, or motivation to do something about all of them, and even as we try to do something about one or more of them we wind up with others popping up. Instead we should seek to treat fairly where possible, and treat not at all where necessary due to immoral behavior and stop trying to control the entire world. That doesn't mean we should never intervene or do anything, as in the case of Nazi Germany or perhaps other atrocities, but a national policy of extinguishing authoritarians seems to me to be one that isn't in our best interest. [1] https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp
corimaith 2y ago
>Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading. World War 1 begs to differ, hell even the Russian invasion of Crimea back in 2014 begs to differ. Economic interdependence dosen't stop authoritarians, it only threatens democracies with a larger margin for dissent.
- wahern 2y ago
  WWI started in countries (Balkans) with the least economic interdependence, then pulled in more Western European countries through defense alliances. While technically someone could have put the brakes on, it was an autopilot sort of thing. The lesson of WWI is that if you're going to enter into defense agreements that obligate you, be careful to whom you're wedding yourself. In particular, don't wed yourself to someone who has much less to lose than you do. One of the lessons from the prelude to WWII is to be careful about trade imbalances, as they can breed instability and radicalism. During the 1920s the US enjoyed huge trade surpluses with Europe, which caused all manner of monetary and labor dislocation in Europe. Worse, the US wasn't content with this surplus, so similar to modern China they erected additional barriers to imports to try to have their cake and eat it, too. These effects were amplified by the gold standard, which accelerated deflation and unemployment in Europe, and accelerated (stock market) inflation in the US. And of course all these ill effects were amplified again for Germany. Toward the end of the 1920s and during the 1930s, the whole system was disassembled as every country, understandably, retreated to lick its wounds. Economic interdependence is critical to maintaining global security, but that interdependence itself isn't self-sustaining. It can fall apart if dislocations aren't managed well across the system. For example, the lessons from the 1990s and early 2000s is, "just go back to college or trade school" is an absolutely horrible approach to dealing with labor dislocation. Significant changes in labor structure need to happen inter-generationally, not intra-generationally.
dmitrygr 2y ago
> The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Common misconception that trade prevents war and war prevents trade. Turns out that it is wrong: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501782466/trade-in-war/#bookTabs=1 https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501782466/trad...
- rchaud 2y ago
  There's a difference between preventing war and preventing a wider world war. Trade links persisting even when countries are opposed to each other contributes to a certain level of global order between the biggest powers.
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    If trade can persist in war then by definition trade will not prevent war If A -> B not A -> B then it cannot be said that B -> not A
    - rchaud 2y ago
      And yet it has prevented a wider military confrontation over Taiwan, Kashmir, North Korea and continental Europe after WWII.
      - dmitrygr 2y ago
        We do not and cannot so trivially assign a reason for the lasting peace since WWII. There are many theories in international relations that propose a cause, and none are currently accepted as being solely correct
tehjoker 2y ago
I think the more pointed question is: will USA aggression be unchecked if the economies disconnected? China hasn't invaded anyone. USA is conducting an active genocide in Gaza and the Iraq War wasn't that long ago. I could name so many other incidents of unbridled aggression it boggles the mind.
rasz 2y ago
russia is absolute reverse of what you believe. putin didnt even blink about all the German gas trade when attacking Ukraine. https://www.dw.com/en/the-history-of-nord-stream/a-58618313 https://www.dw.com/en/the-history-of-nord-stream/a-58618313 "In the early 2000s, however, German politicians had developed a contrary, more liberal theory — that more economic interdependence between Russia and western Europe would create peace in the long run. As trade increased, democracy would inevitably prevail." >Do we really want an isolated, independent and self-sufficient China? China being cut off from ~15%? of their market does not mean China isolation, it means US rewriting Child labor laws to fill Walmart shelves. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/31/us-child-labor-laws-state-bills/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/31/us-child-... https://www.newsweek.com/child-labor-laws-changed-five-states-2008126 https://www.newsweek.com/child-labor-laws-changed-five-state... https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/business/florida-child-labor-laws/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/business/florida-child-la...

immibis 2y ago

So what you're saying is, there still won't be a world war, but everyone else might go to war with the US.

corimaith 2y ago
A world war for the right to sell goods to USA? That sounds like straight up imperialism.
- immibis 2y ago
  No, just for its natural resources, land for settlements and its people as slaves.

Teever 2y ago

That isn't the lesson from Russia invading Ukraine. The lesson from Russia invading Ukraine is that the presence of authoritarians anywhere is a threat to democracies everywhere. The kind of people who crush freedom aren't content to just do so within their own borders and will eventually do so to others around them. As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible.

nemothekid 2y ago
This is circular reasoning. You are pretty much saying democracies should be aggressors first. If you swap `authoritarian` and `democracy` in your statement, it will also ring true. However, the parent poster paints a different picture. If people in Moscow were economically threatened by reduced trade caused by an invasion, the elite appetite for such a move would be reduced.
ericmay 2y ago
It's also just not the general lesson from history either. Plus you have to recall that in many cases war is about resource acquisition as much as anything else, and sometimes wars are popularized as ideological crusades when they are masquerading as resource disputes in order to motivate a populace. Something that has become apparent to me is that in our years of somewhat peaceful economic growth, we seem to have forgotten that there are haves and have-nots and that the economic system that was created to hopefully replace war with peaceful competition only works so much as the large powers decide that it works well enough. Those who are have-nots tend to not have the proportional military leverage to do something about their position. Our rejection of colonialism, mercantilism, and imperialism in favor of a "rules based international order" has blinded us a bit through abstraction and legalese to the reality of how the world works and the limits of resource availability given the size of the planet and the population numbers. > As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible. I used to think this as well, but I recently re-read George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address [1] and it aided me in coming to the conclusion that such a moral crusade is neither wise, nor moral, and least of all practical. There will always be some nations that have governments, authoritarian in our eyes or otherwise, that we disagree with from a political perspective. But we simply do not have the time, resources, or motivation to do something about all of them, and even as we try to do something about one or more of them we wind up with others popping up. Instead we should seek to treat fairly where possible, and treat not at all where necessary due to immoral behavior and stop trying to control the entire world. That doesn't mean we should never intervene or do anything, as in the case of Nazi Germany or perhaps other atrocities, but a national policy of extinguishing authoritarians seems to me to be one that isn't in our best interest. [1] https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp

corimaith 2y ago

>Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading. World War 1 begs to differ, hell even the Russian invasion of Crimea back in 2014 begs to differ. Economic interdependence dosen't stop authoritarians, it only threatens democracies with a larger margin for dissent.

wahern 2y ago
WWI started in countries (Balkans) with the least economic interdependence, then pulled in more Western European countries through defense alliances. While technically someone could have put the brakes on, it was an autopilot sort of thing. The lesson of WWI is that if you're going to enter into defense agreements that obligate you, be careful to whom you're wedding yourself. In particular, don't wed yourself to someone who has much less to lose than you do. One of the lessons from the prelude to WWII is to be careful about trade imbalances, as they can breed instability and radicalism. During the 1920s the US enjoyed huge trade surpluses with Europe, which caused all manner of monetary and labor dislocation in Europe. Worse, the US wasn't content with this surplus, so similar to modern China they erected additional barriers to imports to try to have their cake and eat it, too. These effects were amplified by the gold standard, which accelerated deflation and unemployment in Europe, and accelerated (stock market) inflation in the US. And of course all these ill effects were amplified again for Germany. Toward the end of the 1920s and during the 1930s, the whole system was disassembled as every country, understandably, retreated to lick its wounds. Economic interdependence is critical to maintaining global security, but that interdependence itself isn't self-sustaining. It can fall apart if dislocations aren't managed well across the system. For example, the lessons from the 1990s and early 2000s is, "just go back to college or trade school" is an absolutely horrible approach to dealing with labor dislocation. Significant changes in labor structure need to happen inter-generationally, not intra-generationally.

dmitrygr 2y ago

> The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Common misconception that trade prevents war and war prevents trade. Turns out that it is wrong: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501782466/trade-in-war/#bookTabs=1 https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501782466/trad...

rchaud 2y ago
There's a difference between preventing war and preventing a wider world war. Trade links persisting even when countries are opposed to each other contributes to a certain level of global order between the biggest powers.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  If trade can persist in war then by definition trade will not prevent war If A -> B not A -> B then it cannot be said that B -> not A
  - rchaud 2y ago
    And yet it has prevented a wider military confrontation over Taiwan, Kashmir, North Korea and continental Europe after WWII.
    - dmitrygr 2y ago
      We do not and cannot so trivially assign a reason for the lasting peace since WWII. There are many theories in international relations that propose a cause, and none are currently accepted as being solely correct

tehjoker 2y ago

I think the more pointed question is: will USA aggression be unchecked if the economies disconnected? China hasn't invaded anyone. USA is conducting an active genocide in Gaza and the Iraq War wasn't that long ago. I could name so many other incidents of unbridled aggression it boggles the mind.

rasz 2y ago

russia is absolute reverse of what you believe. putin didnt even blink about all the German gas trade when attacking Ukraine. https://www.dw.com/en/the-history-of-nord-stream/a-58618313 https://www.dw.com/en/the-history-of-nord-stream/a-58618313 "In the early 2000s, however, German politicians had developed a contrary, more liberal theory — that more economic interdependence between Russia and western Europe would create peace in the long run. As trade increased, democracy would inevitably prevail." >Do we really want an isolated, independent and self-sufficient China? China being cut off from ~15%? of their market does not mean China isolation, it means US rewriting Child labor laws to fill Walmart shelves. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/31/us-child-labor-laws-state-bills/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/31/us-child-... https://www.newsweek.com/child-labor-laws-changed-five-states-2008126 https://www.newsweek.com/child-labor-laws-changed-five-state... https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/business/florida-child-labor-laws/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/business/florida-child-la...