Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. There's a wishful thinking picture by some economists that trade is always beneficial to all parties involved, and countries that trade cannot go to war, bla, bla. The funny thing is, those theories were at their peak around 1900 too, "surely global trade as it is now will end wars etc" and we know what followed then.
Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them? Then, one thinks, why pay X for oil, and be subject to the seller's demands and/or willingness to prefer my over other buyers, when I can just get there and just take it?
"Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them?"
No, they weren't. Afghanistan has very little oil. They had some other trade but it was relatively small and inconsequential even before the Soviets invaded (and it hasn't gotten better since).
Iraq clearly has a lot of oil. But your history is a little short there. Prior to them invading Kuwait we were trading heavily with them, but then they invaded Kuwait. There were a lot of countries that showed up to push them back into their own country. Then they became the subject of sanctions, no-fly zones, WMD inspectors etc. There was a lot less trade at that point. THEN the US went in an invaded. Truthfully it kind of makes the OP's point that trade is a good way to prevent war, because there was a notable lack of trade before the US invaded in the 2000s.
> Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war.
Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea.
All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."
Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade.
Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea.
In this naive worldview there are only two parties that trade. It also presumes, "getting into a war" means you don't get to trade anymore. Like, how Japan and Germany do not trade with the US after WWII, right? The only thing it means is that you get to dictate the terms for subsequent trading.
But the worst about this view is that it also presumes this traded material comes out of thin air: ie. it forgets that trade can lead to war for control of natural resources, trade routes, and, of course, markets.
Here's a funny story:
= = =
The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in Britain in 1909 and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great Illusion. (The "Great Illusion" of the title was the belief that there would soon be another major and destructive European war.)
According to John Keegan "Europe in the summer of 1914 enjoyed a peaceful productivity so dependent on international exchange and co-operation that a belief in the impossibility of a general war seemed the most conventional of wisdoms. In 1910 an analysis of prevailing economic interdependence, The Great Illusion, had become a best-seller; its author Norman Angell had demonstrated, to the satisfaction of almost all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably to be caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it speedily to an end."
= = =
We know how that one ended.
All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."*
Yeah, except most marxists have also studied thoroughly traditional and liberal economists of their time, from Ricardo and Smith to Hayek and Friedman. Including Marx himself, who was a walking encyclopedia of political economy. Criticizing something does not mean you are ignorant about it. While not a Marxist, I'm with the camp that calls the entrenched political economy a "dismal science", 90% ideology and 10% applied mathematics.
That observation of how peaceful and interdependent the world looked at the dawn of the 20th century is also how Niall Ferguson's book The War of the World starts.
It really is quite sobering to appreciate how people back then really believed that mutual dependence and globalization would make large-scale warfare impossible.
It's arguable whether that's really trade then - it's a bit more like a mugging.
Well, historically large scale trade has been more like mugging. Perfect "free trade" only exists in dogma/ideology. Just consider the "East India Company", how the rich cities of the american South worked, etc. Also of so-called Banana Republics, Africa colonialism and post-colonialism, etc. (Not to miss the party, USSR also had a whole array of "socialist" countries to buy their production and "trade"). Of course, there are millions of examples of political pressure to "buy our stuff", "give our companies your resources at our terms", etc. A multinational is seldom cosmopolitan -- they go where the might is.
I'm reading it at the moment and, to be honest, I'm finding it utterly fascinating but also a bit depressing. If even half of what that book says is true then I really was very naive about how utterly corrupt the world is at a large scale.
Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. There's a wishful thinking picture by some economists that trade is always beneficial to all parties involved, and countries that trade cannot go to war, bla, bla. The funny thing is, those theories were at their peak around 1900 too, "surely global trade as it is now will end wars etc" and we know what followed then.
Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them? Then, one thinks, why pay X for oil, and be subject to the seller's demands and/or willingness to prefer my over other buyers, when I can just get there and just take it?