3 ms·
Well, the article says: Trade history is too often a sideline reserved for economic historians, yet any effective study of the past four hundred years ought to
by wk_end 1y ago
Well, the article says:
Trade history is too often a sideline reserved for economic historians, yet any effective study of the past four hundred years ought to move it to centre stage, as a prime generator of war and peace, stability and chaos, prosperity and dearth. As Clausewitz might have said, shooting wars are trade wars carried on by other means. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, for instance, came after the tsar quit the Continental Blockade.
- IAmGraydon 1y agoThat entire paragraph suffers from monocausal reductionism. For example, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, while linked to the Continental Blockade, was not purely an economic maneuver. It was equally rooted in geopolitics, prestige, and the shifting balance of power in Europe. That said, besides pasting a paragraph from the linked article, I was asking what causal events you are basing your opinion on. Did you form the opinion solely from the article?