« Broder Unwittingly Helps to Expose the Beast | Main | Improving Forensic Evidence» Don Boudreaux
May 17, 2008
Peace and Free Trade
Don Boudreaux
Here's a letter that I recently sent to the Wall Street Journal:
Mark Helprin correctly points out that as the Chinese grow more prosperous their military will grow more mighty ("The Challenge From China," May 13). He advises that Uncle Sam dramatically increase the size of his own arsenal.
Regardless of this suggestion's merits or demerits, the more vital course is for Uncle Sam to immediately eliminate all trade and investment restrictions with China, and for politicians to stop threatening further restrictions. Such moves would speed the integration of China's economy with our own. Being economically integrated means being economically reliant on each other - a happy recipe for prosperity and peace.
Want evidence? See the important work of economists Solomon Polachek and Carlos Seiglie. Their empirical research leads them to conclude that "international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world."* Want more evidence? Ask yourself how likely are even a well-armed Canada or Japan to have any interest in shooting their countless customers and suppliers throughout the U.S.? The answer, of course, is no more likely than we are to want to shoot our customers and suppliers throughout those countries
Donald J. Boudreaux
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Trade | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e552316a9a8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Peace and Free Trade:
Comments
Considering that we've already exploded on this forum the myths of the rational voter and consumer, why should we put any trust in rational politicians?
Posted by: David P. Graf | May 17, 2008 7:45:04 PM
There was a time when Japan did shoot their suppliers. The U.S. was a major supplier of machine tools, industrial equipment, and the spares to keep it all working. That stopped after Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: Max | May 17, 2008 9:53:53 PM
Stemming from the survive/reproduce instinct, one motivation dominates your typical politician: election/re-election.
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 17, 2008 9:54:02 PM
Election/re-elections? I'd have thought that be a good thing. It's better than other nations where it's kill your way to power/kill everyone who threatens your power.
Posted by: Gil | May 18, 2008 1:15:39 AM
Generally, I'm more in favor of free markets than democracy, but in this instance, history argues better for democracy as the path to peace.
Consider that England, France, and Germany have proved throughout their histories unable to go much more than 30 years without attacking each other. Who, today, after 60 years of peace, could even imagine a war between these nations breaking out?
True democracies simply don't declare wars against each other.
Posted by: M. Hodak | May 18, 2008 1:25:26 AM
M. Hodak - sure, if we define a true democracy as a democracy that doesn't declare war.
Why do democracies work mostly only in countries with history of rule of law and subsequently rich trade? How would a democracy look like in a country with no history of rule of law? We can see that in africa.
Also, the wars in 19th century were much less bloody then the 20th century wars, there is also an argument that in monarchies the wars are viewed as 'war between the monarchs' while in present times, because the ruler are the people, the war is viewed as 'war between people', which leads to much more bloodshed.
I would say that democracy is especially unlikely to wage war against a trading partner, however I don't see why they should be unlikely to wage war against a country that is not their trading partner.
Posted by: andy | May 18, 2008 7:42:19 AM
"That stopped after Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: Max | May 17, 2008 9:53:53 PM"
Actually it did not. Read "Trading with the enemy" by Charles Higham.
Posted by: vidyohs | May 18, 2008 10:59:36 AM
I recently took a political sciences course on International Relations, and they found that Democracies are actually just as likely to go to war than non-Democracies, holding other things like trade, proximity, and cultures constant. Sometimes it is easier to drum up support in a democracy for war, as you can get the 'rally behind the flag' effect, similar to what happened in the us between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War (though not to as great of extent as some other times).
Posted by: EconStudent | May 18, 2008 11:00:50 AM
Gil...
Once again making rebuttals against arguments that aren't being made.
Keep trying...
Posted by: John V | May 18, 2008 1:07:18 PM
Election/re-elections? I'd have thought that be a good thing. It's better than other nations where it's kill your way to power/kill everyone who threatens your power.
It's all relative, or course. Would you rather have a murdering thug or a con-man as a roommate?
If you have a free choice, you would probably choose neither. If you were being thrown into a cell with one of the above, you might choose the con-man, though eventually, you might become a murderer.
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 18, 2008 2:10:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
