Hacker News Reader

Comment by eru | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Was about to write roughly the same.

But it's much more than that I think: when the stuff you sell to the other side can easily be substituted, from another supplier, domestically or by changing to ways that get by without, where's the benefit of stopping trade? Those 0.5% the other supplier has been more expensive (if it even is, might very well have just been inertia keeping them buying from you) won't meaningfully harm their war effort.

I'm with you - I always thought that when countries go to war they made it illegal for their citizens/companies to "trade with the enemy"

With the government of the day making exceptions as they feel fit

> interests almost never align

When they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

The interests of individuals can be manufactured though!

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.)

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.

They don’t materially profit, but they have a perception of gain (eg. killing hated enemies).

That's a prime example of the GGP's point about the interests of individuals being manufactured.

[Edit] Ha! Didn't see you were the GGP. I got your point, even if I am an unobservant idiot.

aka war on Iraq and Afganistan made $trillions for war p. and army dealers. this is a fact. Could be more than $10T

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.

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.

Two states are at war, and their constituent citizens are helping each other despite the war, and you imply that's the manufactured part? Heaven help us, we should all be so lucky if whoever's manufacturing that happens to improve their assembly lines a bit. Maybe they'll manufacture all of us being interested in no wars again, ever.

I think what they refer to is that while the interests of the individual and the country almost never align, the government can work to align these interests; e.g. through tariffs on trading with that other country. By doing so, a country can reduce/remove the incentive to trade with that other country's individuals, thus aligning the interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com