TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Will economics end national wars?

In a global economy, if you start a war, you will be attacking either your customers or your suppliers, or both. In any event, you risk hurting your own economy more than your enemy's.

When India and Pakistan started rattling their nuclear sabers, the US corporations threatened to pull out, and peace was achieved.

There is serious talk about a future war between the USA and China. I believe this is impossible. First, China holds too much USA debt; the interest on this debt is a significant revenue for China. Second, corporations would not allow it.

We may have to deal with terrorist groups for a long time to come, particularly those motivated by religion, but I believe that, soon, wars between countries will no longer be economically feasible.

If you watch Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift, try counting how many times he says internet.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 11 2012: While it may be true that supply chains become interrupted by war, you're forgetting the massive amounts of money that are made once a war is finished, a la Halliburton. Also, it has been suggested that war is an effective way to bring a country OUT of a recession, which is what happened after the Great Depression and WWII. Lastly, some countries believe that by invading and replacing a government with one more favourable to themselves the boost to trade following the war may seem to outweigh some of the costs. Taken together, I think that economics overall contributes to wars rather than preventing them. I mean, just think of how many wars will be sparked in the coming years once oil prices shoot through the roof...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.