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.

  • thumb
    Jun 12 2012: On the other hand, Mr. Palmer, starting a war with your creditors is a time-proven way for nations to evade repayment. Global economics can fan the flames of war as easily as extinguishing them.
    • Jun 15 2012: This is a very good point, supported by the fact that today our governments and bankers seem to be taking on irresponsible amounts of debt.
  • Jun 13 2012: A globalized economy MAY end NATIONAL wars- as in wars between nations( a community of people or peoples living in a defined territory and organized under a single government)- but it will not stop wars. Wars will only shift from national conflicts to economic conflicts. Far worse I predict.
  • Jun 9 2012: Equalizing power between males and females is the shortest cut to ending national wars and creating a just, healthy, happy world for all females and males. Then, truth will prevail and we can all live joyously ever after.
    • thumb
      Jun 13 2012: Amen, Ms. Pavis. Will economics end national wars?
      • Jun 13 2012: Depends. Macro? Micro? Impact of financial system and integrity of political system are relevant. Converting from a relatively more competitive system to a more cooperative system could have a positive impact on increasing peace. I prefer to state things in a positive manner, if possible. Instead of asking "Will economics end national wars?" this could have been expressed as "Will economics cause peace among nations?" I think it is important how you think and express things. Questions contain or control the nature of the response. I guess, since I am more interested in peace than in wars, I should not have participated in this thread, except that I sensed the originator of it, Barry Palmer, had similar values and goals. Anyway, I don't really like questions. Bye.
  • thumb

    E G

    • +1
    Jun 8 2012: Economics usually supports national wars , it's a naive thing to think that in a state of war profit is not going to be made . It always is made .
    • Jun 15 2012: Apparently I did not make my point clearly. Of course profit is made in a state of war, and always has been. Historically, war has been very profitable. Historically, our economic ties to our enemies have been rather meager, and, for the victor, the negative economic effects were slight. As the economy becomes more and more global, war will have a bigger and bigger negative economic impact on everyone. Within the aggressor nation, while some people will profit from the war, many more will see their profits plummet. Many nations around the world will also suffer economically because of their economic relationships to both of the warring nations. So when a nation is deciding whether to attack, there will be tremendous pressure, both internal and external, to keep the peace.

      A current example: I have read many articles about the possibility of the USA attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Every one of these articles mentions the effect this will have on the price of oil.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jun 15 2012: A global economy in the sense you mentioned : an economy with ties all over the world there have always been existing (the known world) , however the wars occurred . Sometimes economy slowed , sometimes didn't ; the war is a complex thing as well as the economy .
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2012: Economics would possibly end national wars if everyone had all the relevant information. Because humans naturally restrict the flow of information people are incapable of making the logical economic choices. An example is the recent financial crisis where people made a lot of bad decisions because they lacked all the information necessary for the principles of economics to work stuff out to an optimal solution.
  • Jun 8 2012: while corporations and the people within them do make a large voice in a country's decision i think your forgetting one of the bigger reasons why we might go to war. not everyone is a saint and some leaders literally get off by mass murdering their own people. while the literal cost of war might increase i sincerely doubt that we will forever stop waging wars, they solve too many problems for them to cease forever.

    there are countries who for religious beliefs, a national mindset, or just an over abundance of pride will not listen to the diplomatic talks and debates. they won't listen to peace talks. they won't listen to diplomats telling them to stop the murder and pillaging. and most have stopped listening to their private sectors to understand when doing something is bad for business. when this happens they have one last chance to listen to force, if they don't listen to force then they cease to exist and the problem is solved.

    a future without war will never happen as long as there are more than two minds occupying this world.
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2012: I agree that international economics certainly makes large scale war less and less likely.Also the ease with which information can be exchanged makes it increasingly less likely. Today it is hard not to see the human side of your enemy as it is all over the internet. If as a nation you cut yourself off (North Korea) you end up soo technologically behind that war becomes self-destructive. I also get the impression that in most western countries you won't be elected if you get big business offside.
  • 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...
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: In my opinion, economics is so important as weapons or even more important. Not only for avoiding war, but for starting them also. In a globalised world, there are so many economic ties an anyway intense relations that economis has become one of more sensitive nerves into the complicated humans' realtionship.