Yeah, but at least with respect to Germany, that was on the basis of the treaty of Versailles. History doesn’t offer lots of clean examples of anything, but this is a very dirty example of ‘trade, then war’.
The Great War, pre-Versailles, was a dirty example of ‘trade, then war’? I would have said it was a fantastic example, much better than pointing to French-German integration post-Versailles and pre-WWII...
Ah, I got my date wrong for the end of WWI, and so misinterpreted your comment. This is terribly embarrassing. You’re quite right (now that I look it up) that this is a very good example of ‘trade then war’.
ETA: Though now I suppose my complaint should be ‘If no trade, then war’ isn’t contradicted by cases of ‘trade, then war’. It would be contradicted by cases of ‘no trade, no war’.
Though now I suppose my complaint should be ‘If no trade, then war’ isn’t contradicted by cases of ‘trade, then war’. It would be contradicted by cases of ‘no trade, no war’.
True, logically it could just be the case that both trade and no trade lead to war… I think most people would interpret claims more meaningfully, however, in which case trade and war is useful to have examples of.
‘No trade then war’ could well be an informative causal claim, or a reliable generalization even if its also sometimes true that war follows trade as well.
It is hard for both goods and armies to cross nonexistent borders. That doesn’t say anything about what happens between nations that do share a border.
I thought the quote’s intent was more general, and that the border didn’t need to be a physical one that both countries shared. E.g., if Spain and Britain were prohibiting all trade between them, Bastiat would probably expect them to fight soon.
Of course, he also implicitly meant the quote to apply to cases where the lack of trade was due to restrictions, not to distance and lack of interest like in my counterexample.
Prior to WW2, Germany was the biggest trading partner of France.
Irrelevant. The quote is not “If goods do cross borders, armies won’t.”
And of course, one of the historical peaks of globalization and European integration was reached in 1914.
Yeah, but at least with respect to Germany, that was on the basis of the treaty of Versailles. History doesn’t offer lots of clean examples of anything, but this is a very dirty example of ‘trade, then war’.
The Great War, pre-Versailles, was a dirty example of ‘trade, then war’? I would have said it was a fantastic example, much better than pointing to French-German integration post-Versailles and pre-WWII...
Ah, I got my date wrong for the end of WWI, and so misinterpreted your comment. This is terribly embarrassing. You’re quite right (now that I look it up) that this is a very good example of ‘trade then war’.
ETA: Though now I suppose my complaint should be ‘If no trade, then war’ isn’t contradicted by cases of ‘trade, then war’. It would be contradicted by cases of ‘no trade, no war’.
True, logically it could just be the case that both trade and no trade lead to war… I think most people would interpret claims more meaningfully, however, in which case trade and war is useful to have examples of.
‘No trade then war’ could well be an informative causal claim, or a reliable generalization even if its also sometimes true that war follows trade as well.
Conversely, I doubt there is much trading between Bhutan and Tuvalu, and I don’t expect them to fight anytime soon.
It is hard for both goods and armies to cross nonexistent borders. That doesn’t say anything about what happens between nations that do share a border.
I thought the quote’s intent was more general, and that the border didn’t need to be a physical one that both countries shared. E.g., if Spain and Britain were prohibiting all trade between them, Bastiat would probably expect them to fight soon.
Of course, he also implicitly meant the quote to apply to cases where the lack of trade was due to restrictions, not to distance and lack of interest like in my counterexample.