Causes of War not Economic
On an excellent blog site, Truck and Barter (incidentally among the top three economics blogs that I have found, so far; the other two being Division of Labour and Brad Delong's semi daily Diary), a discussion has opened on economics as a cause of war.
Adam Smith considered he wars he witnessed in the 18th century as destructive of wealth and, mostly, not worth expending wealth (in his terms the products of wealth-creating resources) upon. Defence was the 'first duty of the state' he said in "Wealth of Nations", primarily against barbarian invasions, as the history of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire showed (and the more recent history of Scotland confirmed).
Some current debates claim that oil is the cause of the Iraq War; thus defies he economics: several billion dollars for oil the US can buy cheaper in world markets does not make economic sense. Looking at other wars, including the history of Euopean imperialism and Empire, the balance sheet is entirely negative. Lenin was wrong too: most European investment and export of capital went to the USA, Argentina and the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, South Africa) and not to Africa, India and Asia. What ever drove war and colinialsm it was not the economic benefits.
Adam Smith noted this in his complaint that the wars with the French over North America and the Caribbean cost £100 million for the benefits of under £20 million of trade. He remained suspicious of the proclivity of 'Princes' and Governments to fight wars over trivial issues.
A short talk with people in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Cyprus, Israel and Palestine, or most places in Africa, not to mention to Islamic militants, would soon raise questions about the 'economic' basis of their mutual hatreds.
Adam Smith considered he wars he witnessed in the 18th century as destructive of wealth and, mostly, not worth expending wealth (in his terms the products of wealth-creating resources) upon. Defence was the 'first duty of the state' he said in "Wealth of Nations", primarily against barbarian invasions, as the history of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire showed (and the more recent history of Scotland confirmed).
Some current debates claim that oil is the cause of the Iraq War; thus defies he economics: several billion dollars for oil the US can buy cheaper in world markets does not make economic sense. Looking at other wars, including the history of Euopean imperialism and Empire, the balance sheet is entirely negative. Lenin was wrong too: most European investment and export of capital went to the USA, Argentina and the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, South Africa) and not to Africa, India and Asia. What ever drove war and colinialsm it was not the economic benefits.
Adam Smith noted this in his complaint that the wars with the French over North America and the Caribbean cost £100 million for the benefits of under £20 million of trade. He remained suspicious of the proclivity of 'Princes' and Governments to fight wars over trivial issues.
A short talk with people in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Cyprus, Israel and Palestine, or most places in Africa, not to mention to Islamic militants, would soon raise questions about the 'economic' basis of their mutual hatreds.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home