4 ms·

In your world everybody will be at war with each other. The way to deal with the risk of foreign nationalization of your assets is to price it in or to forego t

by jacquesm 10mo ago

In your world everybody will be at war with each other. The way to deal with the risk of foreign nationalization of your assets is to price it in or to forego the opportunity. Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. You can go to court if you want and if you lose you'll have to take your lumps. 1898 is a while ago (the Banana wars).

lurk2 10mo ago
> Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. At the risk of coming across as flippant: Why? I don’t think the math has worked out on most peer conflicts during the past hundred years. The cost of the operation has likely already exceeded the value of whatever infrastructure was left in Venezuela to be reclaimed. But why should we expect courts and bailiffs to enforce the law domestically and not expect soldiers to enforce it internationally?
- EtienneK 10mo ago
  Maybe because war is terrible and no one wants it? Especially if it means protecting private companies’ revenues.
  - solenoid0937 10mo ago
    There is always a cost/benefit done for these decisions, it is never as simple as "war as terrible so we just shouldn't do war."
    - solarengineer 10mo ago
      The benefits definitely do not accrue to you, though. There is no direct or indirect benefit to you supporting the invasion of another country where you can now bomb locals with impunity.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
solenoid0937 10mo ago
No, people won't be at war with each other because the cost and the likelihood of war will play a role in the decision on whether to enter war or not. In this case, the administration (correctly!) assessed that there was virtually no cost or risk (albeit, a very high profit.)
- lovich 10mo ago
  Damn man, no risk? It must be lovely to exist in a world where you think you can punch someone in the face and nothing will ever happen to you if they don’t respond immediately. Good thing the window of opportunity for retaliation is now firmly closed and we’ll never see anyone come back years later for revenge. Unrelatedly, has anyone seen the twin towers lately? I visited NYC for the first time in 30 years and I couldn’t find them anywhere.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    Indeed, and that was just a loosely knit organization of US haters that figured if they can't do anything in a direct confrontation maybe an indirect one would work. One of these days someone is going to set off a nuke in a capital somewhere and we're all going to wonder where that came from... Incidentally, I believe Bin Laden is in part responsible for Trump's election.
    - lukan 10mo ago
      "Incidentally, I believe Bin Laden is in part responsible for Trump's election." I assume you don't mean he does that from his secret base on the dark side of the moon, but rather 9/11 -> patriot act - war on terror -> ..?
      - jacquesm 10mo ago
        That and the wider division between humans with different amounts of melanin.
  - solenoid0937 10mo ago
thegrimmest 10mo ago
What if military intervention was an explicit part of the investment agreement in the first place? I’m not saying it was, but would it affect your judgement?

lurk2 10mo ago

> Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. At the risk of coming across as flippant: Why? I don’t think the math has worked out on most peer conflicts during the past hundred years. The cost of the operation has likely already exceeded the value of whatever infrastructure was left in Venezuela to be reclaimed. But why should we expect courts and bailiffs to enforce the law domestically and not expect soldiers to enforce it internationally?

EtienneK 10mo ago
Maybe because war is terrible and no one wants it? Especially if it means protecting private companies’ revenues.
- solenoid0937 10mo ago
  There is always a cost/benefit done for these decisions, it is never as simple as "war as terrible so we just shouldn't do war."
  - solarengineer 10mo ago
    The benefits definitely do not accrue to you, though. There is no direct or indirect benefit to you supporting the invasion of another country where you can now bomb locals with impunity.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

solenoid0937 10mo ago

No, people won't be at war with each other because the cost and the likelihood of war will play a role in the decision on whether to enter war or not. In this case, the administration (correctly!) assessed that there was virtually no cost or risk (albeit, a very high profit.)

lovich 10mo ago
Damn man, no risk? It must be lovely to exist in a world where you think you can punch someone in the face and nothing will ever happen to you if they don’t respond immediately. Good thing the window of opportunity for retaliation is now firmly closed and we’ll never see anyone come back years later for revenge. Unrelatedly, has anyone seen the twin towers lately? I visited NYC for the first time in 30 years and I couldn’t find them anywhere.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  Indeed, and that was just a loosely knit organization of US haters that figured if they can't do anything in a direct confrontation maybe an indirect one would work. One of these days someone is going to set off a nuke in a capital somewhere and we're all going to wonder where that came from... Incidentally, I believe Bin Laden is in part responsible for Trump's election.
  - lukan 10mo ago
    "Incidentally, I believe Bin Laden is in part responsible for Trump's election." I assume you don't mean he does that from his secret base on the dark side of the moon, but rather 9/11 -> patriot act - war on terror -> ..?
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      That and the wider division between humans with different amounts of melanin.
- solenoid0937 10mo ago

thegrimmest 10mo ago

What if military intervention was an explicit part of the investment agreement in the first place? I’m not saying it was, but would it affect your judgement?