←back to thread

Trade in War

(news.mit.edu)
94 points LorenDB | 2 comments | 28 Aug 25 14:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
eru ◴[01 Sep 25 07:59 UTC] No.45090571[source]▶
Interesting topic.

Though keep in mind that it might be states being at war with each other, it's usually (but not always) individuals or companies that are trading.

The interests almost never align.

replies(4): >>45090602 #>>45090957 #>>45091030 #>>45091050 #
kubb ◴[01 Sep 25 08:03 UTC] No.45090602[source]▶
The interests of individuals can be manufactured though!
replies(2): >>45090615 #>>45090718 #
eru ◴[01 Sep 25 08:05 UTC] No.45090615[source]▶
Sure, people react to incentives.

Btw, the interest of states aren't monolithic either, they are made of people after all. (That's why corruption can happen in the first place.)

replies(1): >>45090835 #
Frieren ◴[01 Sep 25 08:49 UTC] No.45090835[source]▶
Most times that a country attacks another is a tragedy of the commons situation. A few people at the top will profit from the war even if most citizens from both countries lose because of it.

The country as its citizens does not profit from war. The country as its leaders sometimes it does, or at least it may do so in the short term.

replies(3): >>45090927 #>>45091338 #>>45093993 #
1. energy123 ◴[01 Sep 25 16:17 UTC] No.45093993[source]▶
Which is why the recent wars between Israel and Hezbollah, Iran and Houthis are so paradigm shifting. It's the first time in all of human history that the leaders are the ones to die first. If this is the new status quo due to modern intelligence capabilities and stealth fighters, then you're dealing with a whole different set of incentives.
replies(1): >>45097837 #
2. eru ◴[02 Sep 25 00:21 UTC] No.45097837[source]▶
The first time in recent history, yes. Not sure about the first time in all of human history: human history is long, and often leaders used to lead from the front.