Maggie's Farm

I agree 100% with what was written about the future, but disagree on a minor detail. He's right about the people leading us there - curious, innovative and strong-willed people of talent.

But generally speaking, most of the young people today are essentially cargo-cultists. The idea of producing something to develop wealth runs counter to the popular Progressive themes running through the Clinton/Sanders campaigns, and while they don't run counter to many of the Trumpians, Trump himself has some bizarre and unsubstantiated views of economic progress.

But other than that, yep, I'd agree.

I don't know that what you wrote is radically different from what I wrote.

But I disagree with bob sykes that instability will lead to chaos war and collapse. Collapse is an easy term, but it's something that has rarely and truly occurred.

War, on the other hand, is always a possibility, even when times are good.
But as trade increases(ed), war becomes less likely, not more so. Interdependency makes confrontation costly and dangerous.

However, myth-making and misunderstanding the nature of interdependency is fairly common, and that is what usually leads to war.

I'm not saying it will happen. It's certainly a possibility. But I still think it's highly unlikely. There's too much to lose. However, I've noticed that many people remain blissfully unaware of just how much they have, and continue to complain about what they perceive they lack. A myth, to be sure, but one which can help lead to bob sykes' potential outcome.

And yes, all that does relate back to your Portlandia comment, because they are the myth-makers.

There was no free trade prior to WWI or WWII. In fact, protectionism and trade restrictions/taxation only increased as war grew closer.

I didn't say war isn't possible. Nor did I say it trade would make it impossible. I said it makes it less likely. In fact, the proof of this exists today in the varied alliances which have bound together nations which, prior to both WWI and WWII were the main warring parties. France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. have all continued to grow closer through trade. In fact, that trade has peaceful benefits has yielded more and more trade pacts, and increased opportunities for peace (if not peace itself).

But I'm not a Pollyanna, either. I recognize that problems exist. However, look at the source of those problems. They usually emanate from totalitarian nations, or from democratic nations with politicians who foster mildly (or hardcore) totalitarian points of view. The casual dismissal of trade providing opportunity for peace as a 'myth' is precisely why it can remain a 'myth' - simply because missing the evidence of its role in providing peaceful relations is something so many of us choose to willfully engage.

As long as you and I engage in reasonable dialogue, the likelihood of either of us throwing a punch remains low. Chances are, over time, we will either come to a common point of view or agree to disagree. The third option, throwing that punch, remains a lower probability. Trade represents reasonable dialogue.

So no, I did not say trade would make war outdated and impossible - and Tuchman was not correct. In fact, in MacMillan's recent work, "The War That Ended Peace" only pollyannas ran around saying war was impossible and unlikely. In fact, most politicians and primary personalities felt war was inevitable. It was barely averted 2 or 3 times prior to 1914. There were limited and mild attempts to reach out across borders and find common ground. It was believed, incorrectly, that restrictions on arms were the best method to halt the war talk. But this was misguided because it either led to innovations which skirted the restrictions or outright ignoring them.

As for bob sykes being a pessimist - maybe you, maybe you aren't. I have no idea. I'm 54 and while I see things in society that bother me and I find uncomfortable and disconcerting, I also see many things which are wonderful and uplifting. I believe these outweigh the negatives. I'm not an optimist. I'm a realist. Bad things happen all the time, unfortunate trends and uncomfortable ideas take root constantly throughout humanity's existence. But it's the unique ability of humanity to make things which are seemingly bad work in our favor.

As a realist, I tend to be cautiously optimistic. Because declaring myself a pessimist means I just become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

http://cafehayek.com/2006/11/trade_promotes_.html

just one of many which support the POV.

Remember, part of the reason the Soviet Union fell was because it was incapable of feeding itself. Trade was essentially necessary, and trade opened its doors to alternative points of view which slowly eroded its infrastructure of political stagnation and opposition to all things capital.

China opened up for a variety of similar reasons.

While we are still often having tense moments with these nations, the fact remains we are closer to having peaceful relations with them than we were 50 years ago, and much of that is due to trade.

Consider the nations with whom we currently have limited trade relations, like North Korea. The more limited and restrictive our relationships, the more hostile the interaction.

Trade has everything to do with it.

The Mid East is a cauldron for many reasons, and trade has actually made it more stable and predictable. If we were to stop trading with most of those nations, the problems wouldn't get better, they'd get much, much worse. Iran itself is what I'd classify as a 'special case'. I don't think we needed to do a deal with them, nor should we have. But in the event that we have, I don't see the massive downsides that others do. Most of the population there is predisposed positively toward the US. In the long run, numbers win, and they are more likely to be on our side than the Sunnis.

As for North Korea, there's no doubt that's an unstable regime and too controlling to be of much interest to us at the moment (beyond defense). But if we were to open up trade agreements (though they have little to nothing we can use), there is undoubtedly a massive improvement likely to occur.

Cuba needed us, we didn't need Cuba. Cuba opened its doors to us long ago...we kept them at arms length. As time goes by, we'll see improvements there.

If China were trading more freely, they'd see more benefit and be less inclined to take what they want. They have already seen the huge benefits free trade bestowed on Hong Kong, and have used that to lever benefits for themselves, but on a more restrictive level. Their lack of free trade is what is driving their foreign policy, not the other way around. The cyberwarfare they engage in is industrial in nature, primarily, because they are still playing catch up. The size of their economy is huge, but it's a numbers game. On a per person level, they are still far behind the US. Let's also not forget we have done little to let them back down. Our own foreign policy has been too aggressive for too long.

As a nation, we'd be better off returning to a neutral footing and stop being the world's policeman, and stop seeing threats around every corner.

Threats exist. But they are not as numerous or as dangerous as our politicians make them out to be. We are a trading nation, and our focus on using trade as a form of war is what is hurting us today.

The fact you pointed to the calculation of the cost/benefit of trade within the war rationalization shows exactly why MORE free trade is better rather than less. When you have more of it, the impact will be greater, faster.