The World Is Fragmenting, Making Us More Poor and Isolated
The sanctions that punish Russia are shattering the global economy.

The idea that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has pitted Russia against the world enjoys wide popularity, hampered only by the fact that it's not entirely true. While much of the world's population is horrified by the revival of wars of conquest, the united front of western governments and businesses (though with some arm-twisting behind the scenes) and the weaponization of trade and finance against Moscow have chilled even those unsympathetic to international predators. By demonstrating the ability to turn supposedly neutral institutions against those who anger powerful elites, the West prompted the world to seek out alternative channels, if only out of self-preservation. That may guarantee the end of relatively free global exchange and the return of competing economic blocs.
"The suggestion that Putin is isolated may still be something of a Western bias — an assumption based on a definition of the 'world' as places of privilege, largely the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan," Anthony Faiola and Lesley Wroughton noted earlier this month for The Washington Post. Even among those unsympathetic to Putin's aggression, there's a tendency to see just another "Machiavellian tug of war between Washington and Moscow," they added.
Why the lack of enthusiasm for what strikes many people as a classic struggle of good vs. evil in the invasion of relatively free and democratic Ukraine by its authoritarian neighbor?
"While enthusiastic Western liberals hail the imposition of sanctions on Russia, the increased willingness of the Western powers to weaponize the global economic system horrifies leaders in many countries who think the West is too powerful already," warned Bard College's Walter Russell Mead in The Wall Street Journal.
Russian shock at the extent of such sanctions was on display when Putin seethed, "Now everybody knows that any assets could be basically stolen," in a March 16 speech in response to the seizure of foreign reserves held overseas. But it's easy to see how other countries, whole industries, and individual enterprises could worry about becoming future targets if they get crosswise with western political and business elites who seem to work in lockstep and are willing to use their clout to compel compliance. Financial titans boasting about the impact of such clout doesn't help to soothe concerns.
"The invasion has catalyzed nations and governments to come together to sever financial and business ties with Russia," Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the giant international investment fund, exulted in a letter to shareholders published yesterday. "United in their steadfast commitment to support the Ukrainian people, they launched an 'economic war' against Russia. Governments across the world almost unanimously imposed sanctions, including taking the unprecedented step of barring the Russian central bank from deploying its hard currency reserves."
"Capital markets, financial institutions and companies have gone even further beyond government-imposed sanctions," he went on. "As I wrote in my letter to CEOs earlier this year, access to capital markets is a privilege, not a right. And following Russia's invasion, we saw how the private sector quickly terminated longstanding business and investment relationships."
BlackRock is a punching bag in certain circles for blending trendy environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) concerns into its business strategy. The company discourages investment in fossil fuels and firearms, and promotes the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement. Fink doing a victory dance about the effectiveness of "economic war" can only excite concerns around the globe about stumbling across ideological tripwires and ending up in financial purgatory.
"The Trump administration's unilateral imposition of tough sanctions against Iran heightened international awareness of how much power the global economic system gives the U.S.," Walter Russell Mead observed. "But woke Democrats using economic sanctions to impose their views on climate, gender and other issues are even less welcome in many countries than Trumpian populists."
So, it's jarring, but unsurprising, that representatives of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the BRICS countries) met in Moscow this week as if nothing special were happening in the world. Among those countries, Brazil (along with Argentina) and South Africa lean in Russia's favor over economic ties and resentment of U.S. clout. India is pursuing new arrangements "which would let Indian exporters continue their business with Russia even after Western sanctions restricted international payment mechanisms," according to Asia-Pacific News. China sees opportunity to cultivate a fellow authoritarian regime while offering safe haven (if you choose to believe Beijing's assurances) to developing countries concerned about weaponized financial institutions.
Outside of the BRICS group, Saudi Arabia may accept China's yuan as payment for oil in place of the long-established dollar. "The Saudi move could chip away at the supremacy of the U.S. dollar in the international financial system, which Washington has relied on for decades to print Treasury bills it uses to finance its budget deficit," notes The Wall Street Journal.
"It now seems likely that the world economy really will split into blocs—one oriented around China and one around the United States, with the European Union mostly but not wholly in the latter camp—each attempting to insulate itself from and then diminish the influence of the other," commented economist Adam Posen, who supports economic sanctions but foresees long-term consequences.
"With less economic interconnectedness, the world will see lower trend growth and less innovation. Domestic incumbent companies and industries will have more power to demand special protections. Altogether, the real returns on investments made by households and corporations will go down," he added.
"The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades," agrees BlackRock's Fink, despite his enthusiasm for weaponizing finance in ways that promote such fragmentation. He predicts that "a large-scale reorientation of supply chains will inherently be inflationary."
Interestingly, both men see cryptocurrencies as holding potential for breaching the world's rising economic and financial barriers unless governments bring them under control.
So, the "unified" world opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine may largely share horror over the invasion of one country by the armies of another, but much of the same world is also nervous about the economic penalties imposed in response to that invasion. Governments and businesses will establish new barriers and alliances to insulate themselves from future weaponization of trade and finance. And in that fragmented world to come, we'll all end up a little more isolated, and poorer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
War only benefits the munitions makers. True from the start of history.
What this article misses is the connection to the rise in authoritarianism. Putin problem with Ukraine was not a connection to NATO but a connection to the EU and with that a loss of Russian influence. As President Xi Jinping has been strengthening his rule at the expense of the Chinese economy. Authoritarians leaders will attempt to isolate their people to maintain power. This isolation will include elements of economy.
What we need is more openness and with that more trade.
While I don't disagree we had more of authoritarian problem before whatever this is with Putin. See Jacinda Arden, Trudeau, Biden, western government covid.
Strange how TooSilly is only this upset now.
No, not really.
How, precisely, has more open trade done a thing to open China and make it less authoritarian?
It was the refusal of the US to supply Japan with scrap metal and oil that precipitated their attack in 1941. Does this mean that, if the US had just allowed free trade we would live in a better world today, with China and Korea part of Japan and Europe either Nazi or Stalinist?
Wars cost, sanctions cost, most things that are hard to do cost.
Better for whom? A world in which Nazi Germany and the USSR, and China and Japan, had bombed each other into the stone age, might not be better for the Germans, Russians, Japanese, or Chinese, but it would likely be better for the US.
US intervention in WWII caused the MIC, massive US government spending, endless US involvement in foreign wars, the Cold War, the rise of the CCP as a political and economic powerhouse, and the increasingly authoritarian EU under German leadership.
Your comment reads like someone who learned history from novelizations of historical events rather than actual history.
Aside from a world where Nazi Germany became a nuclear power would not have turned out better for anyone, the US history of foreign intervention predates WWII and the initial reluctance of the populace to support joining the allies was driven by that experience.
And how would Nazi Germany have become a nuclear power after losing to Stalin?
It most certainly does. Americans also didn't want to join WWI. Propaganda was literally invented to manipulate Americans into supporting entry into WWI.
You say that as if that reluctance was a bad thing.
As a matter of fact, I learned history from many sources, including my parents who barely survived WWII, and from growing up among the ruins of WWII. Does that answer your question?
damiksec - Maybe you're young.
See Mao.
They're killinh thousands NOW.
So, again, the improvements?
"How, precisely, has more open trade done a thing to open China and make it less authoritarian?"
Check out the number of passports issued to Chinese today vs a generation ago. Check out the number of foreign trips taken by Chinese today vs a generation ago. There's been increased freedom of movement of people, goods, and ideas in China during that period. It doesn't add up to the level of Europe, for example, but Chinese prefer things as they are today than the less free past.
"number of passports issued to Chinese today"
LOL. As if Chinese authoritarians being more comfortable with, and capable of asserting their control over people abroad has nothing to do with that.
You are falling into the fallacy of overestimating the central government control over the country. They have trouble controlling the provinces. And the government is afraid of the populace, the armed guards posted outside public buildings including police stations, is testament to that. The lack of ability to control society is seen in all the strikes and demonstrations that occur in China, Another example is something I saw when the government decided for whatever reason to institute daylight saving time, putting the clocks ahead by an hour. Total chaos ensued and the measure was rescinded almost immediately.
Fang Fang approves.
Given that they are under surveillance that Mao could have only dreamed of and have their lives ruined in a way Mao could not have even dreamed of...I do not see this increased freedom.
You mean via smart phones? Chinese going abroad are not required to take their smart phones. The ability to travel, study, work and live abroad is seen by citizens as an increase in their freedom, even if you don't. I suggest you get out and talk to them if you want to know how they think about things. It might surprise you. During the years of Mao, a passport, a driving license, a private house, their own business were almost an impossible dream. These days it's not so uncommon. None of it adds up to the freedoms enjoyed by South Koreans or Japanese, but Chinese overwhelmingly prefer the freedoms of today over the restrictions of Mao. Just ask them if you doubt me.
It was a good start, but China's slipping back now. Too bad.
Yeah, we operated under the hypothesis that more economic integration and openness would cause other nations to become more free and less authoritarian. Obviously, that has failed when it comes to China, Russia, and the Islamic world. As it turns out, totalitarianism and free trade co-exist happily in the same country. This is no doubt a surprise to many progressives, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who knows history.
More openness and more trade with China has allowed China under CCP leadership to become an economic, military, and political powerhouse, to make the US dependent on Chinese manufacturing and raw materials, and to infiltrate US universities and institutions.
You're all over the place here. Economic integration wasn't supposed to thwart the rise of authoritarians but rather make the types of aggression we're seeing now in Ukraine too costly to pursue. With the sanctions being imposed on Russia we're seeing the first real test of this so calling it a failure is a bit premature.
Obviously Putin underestimated both the Ukrainians and the western economic powers so lets see how this plays out before passing judgement.
That is false. Progressives and globalists argued over and over again that political liberalization would come along with economic liberalization. They were wrong.
That is false as well. Progressives and globalists argued that countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. That is, economic ties were supposed to act as a deterrent. They were wrong.
I have seen no evidence that Putin underestimated anything. Europe is still buying oil and gas from Russia; NATO membership is off the table, and the US isn't going to intervene.
The only thing that Western powers have demonstrated is that they are willing to confiscate property without due process, manipulate the financial system for political purposes, use the war to generate new orders for the MIC, and engage in massive censorship and propaganda. None of that is going to hurt Russia much, but it is certainly hurting Western societies, badly.
"...That is false. Progressives and globalists argued over and over again that political liberalization would come along with economic liberalization. They were wrong..."
This is false.
In both China under Mao and the USSR, travel was controlled, speech could get you shot and so forth.
Econ liberalization did as it was hoped, not 100%, but a long, long ways.
I'd suggest you can it until you do some reading; you're making an ass of yourself.
You got cause and effect reversed. The USSR and Mao didn't end because of economic liberalization; rather, they ended for political reasons, and the new rulers liberalized the economy to some degree while still holding on firmly to power. Furthermore, the political liberalization in Russia and China is reversing, with both nations becoming more and more authoritarian again.
Take your own advice, Sevo.
Progressives and globalists argued that countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. That is, economic ties were supposed to act as a deterrent. They were wrong.
The fact that it doesn't always succeed as a deterrent does not mean that it doesn't act as a deterrent. "Deterrent" does not mean "absolute preventative."
And when has it actually acted as a deterrent?
"Society doesn't exist" - Margaret Thatcher.
There is only Me, Me, Me, Me, Me.... Any Libertarian.
Consumer-Voting might be the most powerful tool for a positive outcome, by essentially expanding the “Fair Trade” labeling process to include things like human rights, democratic rights, worker rights, safety rights, etc.
By having a bottom-line aggregated score by trading nation, allows consumers the “choice” (not a government mandate) to pay slighter higher prices for products from nations heading in the right direction. There is no tax increase unless consumers choose to pay more.
This system “score-based” also prevents isolationism in world trade, where Americans simply boycott entire nations. Longterm this could have a real impact to minimize tyrant nations and tyrant alliances. Let consumers decide, not governments.
Great in theory, but as with all measures that work to elicit a specific outcome it always comes down to who gets to keep the score. The 'organic' labeling system is an excellent example of this. With a 'score' system also comes regulation, then monetary influence for outcome, then corruption. Soon the idea of social score is muddied at best, fully corrupted at worst.
Wouldn't the best tactic be to allow each individual to purchase based on what they can learn about the individual companies and the products that individual consumer chooses to buy? The onus is then on you, the consumer, to decide how much each of those elements, fair trade, safety, human rights etc., is important in your choice of product. You can choose to purchase accordingly.
Regulation and labeling only seems to add more layers of bureaucracy to the process.
We will end up with so many labels on the package, you can’t see what’s in it.
Or the print so tiny you can't read it.
The real flaw in this reasoning is the dependency on a rational or engaged consumer base. The idea would flounder on the border between the average apathetic consumer who only sees the impact of the price on their own existence and the Karen Brigades yelling from roof tops about he doom of not feeding your kids free trade organic almond butter made by the right kind of people and urging boycotts.
In the end all that this idea would do is highlight the supremacy of apathy among the populace while the message seekers try to derive meaning from meaningless statistics.
Indeed. People already vote. Best bang for the buck is the top priority.
I like the idea of consumer voting. This could best be accomplished by private groups setting up scoring. Transparency is criteria. It would be best if the group listed its criteria for scoring and reported this for each sector of a countries economy.
"Consumer-Voting might be the most powerful tool for a positive outcome, by essentially expanding the “Fair Trade” labeling process to include things like human rights, democratic rights, worker rights, safety rights, etc."
So long as the government is not involved, it might, but as soon as the government is involved, it's simply another tool in planned economies, and the DO NOT WORK.
So, you're finally recognizing that government policies, like any other form of engineering, involves making trade-offs. And the trade-off for the benefits of globalism is the loss of autonomy.
Tell me this - am I more free for being able to buy cheap junk from China, or am I more free if I'm in a position to tell China to take their cheap junk and shove it?
Linky to the Mead article. It's paywalled but this worked for me.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west-vs-rest-of-the-world-russia-ukraine-dictators-south-america-asia-africa-11647894483?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos5
"am I more free for being able to buy cheap junk from China, or am I more free if I'm in a position to tell China to take their cheap junk and shove it?"
That's a false dichotomy. They go hand-in-hand.
I assume you have a very different understanding of our current supply chain issues than most of us do.
Why has freedom in the US steadily diminished since going full globalist then?
So... It has been overtly displayed that governments and businesses leverage any means available to exert influence or control on others...
...and TooSilly is surprised by this coming to light, all while moaning the departure from one world banking.
Seriously, how many years have actual Libertarians been seething at the lack of domestic production? Globalist hack.
The world isn't "fragmenting", the world is fragmented, by ideology, by religion, by culture, by ethnicity. The idea that the West can somehow unify this fragmented world through global trade and a "rules based world order" is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that.
And while the US and Europe have widely opened their borders and their markets to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, those regimes have not reciprocated: their markets and their societies remain closed and hostile.
Having said that, sanctions on Russia are stupid and pointless; Russia is largely irrelevant to America. Russia may be a concern for Europe, but that's for Europe to deal with. The US should be sanctioning China and ceasing trade with China, because China is actively trying to destroy the US and US society.
Yeah NOYB, but the US, Europe, and even China and Russia have been doing what you say is impossible - no serious wars since 1945 - and our greatest advances are from cooperation not competition. The world is too small for 19th century thinking and our survival as a species depends on understanding that.
I made no such statement; I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
Here are the facts. There have been wars going on constantly around the world. The number of conflict-related deaths is currently below average by historical standards but hardly unusual.
Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that brought us eugenics and fascism: "our survival as a species", "cooperation", and "great advances".
Sorry, those are the wrong priorities. The first priority needs to be liberty. Everything else is secondary to that.
NOYB. the world has not experienced a major war in 76 years, That's a fact. There has not been an attempt at a total invasion of another country by military means in the developed world for 75 years. That's a fact. Your chances of dying at the hands of another human have been in this period and up to the present, the lowest ever. That's a fact. The world has been made smaller by nuclear weapons, but also by international trade and cooperation. That's a fact. This has nothing to do with eugenics and as another fact, racism and nationalism are both thankfully declining as motivators, and especially among the young.
Can this all change? Yes, of course, but all the more reason for us to understand and appreciate the critical point, as well as the privileged position we are in historically, and no throw it away for emotional appeals to tribalism.
No, that's not a "fact" because "major" is simply a weasel word.
You have no idea what my chances of dying at the hands of another human are. I think what you are trying to say is that the global average rate of conflict related deaths is at a historic low. But the fact that totalitarian regimes like China and Iran are not at war and are instead becoming more and more powerful is not, in fact, a positive development.
We aren't talking about what is "thankfully happening", we are talking about your political preferences and priorities. And you have made it clear that you are prioritizing an absence of conflict and "survival of the species" above all else. That has everything to do with totalitarianism. Your kind of evil political views arise from the same roots as eugenics.
Again, no need to repeat myself but your detachment from reality is concerning.
Anyone not concerned with survival of the species - by the way NYOB, that would include you, me, and our kids and grandkids - in a time of nuclear arms and climate change is seriously detached from reality. Nothing about that concern suggests eugenics.
Anybody should be privately concerned "the survival of the species".
But you veer from "concern" into "totalitarianism" when you start using "survival of the species" as the basis of justifying government policies and as the basis of attacking inalienable rights.
Joe Friday is a fucking shill, a partisan machine. He will use any moralizing nonsense to introduce more government. This time it’s “survival of the species”. What a collectivist loser.
NYOB, glad we agree that survival of our kids, grandkids, and on and on is a proper and primary goal of humans. That you think this can be accomplished somehow by "private concerns" is funny if not so pathetic. Of course we need to act on an national and international level and the fact that the leadership for this movement is mostly by democratic nations, you know, the ones like ours where the leaders are elected by the people.
Yes. Progressives, for example, can start by ending their hostility to families and by ending their false belief that the world suffers from "overpopulation".
I don't think there is anything to "accomplish". There are few existential threats to our species, and none that humans have any control over.
We have "acted on national and international levels" for decades; those actions have failed to produce even the limited outcomes they promised. What you call "acting" is a fig leaf for massive crony capitalism and authoritarianism.
Just like the former Soviet Union then.
NYOB, are you capable of continuing a discussion without stereotyping the other person? First, you assume I am a warmonger (though in reality I have opposed in real time the 2 major conflicts the US has involved itself in since WWII, while you won't make clear if you did or not), and now I am anti-family though I have been married to the same woman for more than 50 years and have 2 successful good citizen children with grandchildren. Our parents on both sides spent their final years in our house and under our care, but somehow you assume I am anti-family.
We don't agree that there is plenty of room on earth and it's resources for unlimited population growth.
The existential threat to our survival is nuclear war. An existential threat not to our survival, but to our present civilization and the lives of many of the 7.5 billion humans is climate change.
The outcome we have achieved is an international order of mostly peace and world trade and no major wars since 1945. Your failure to understand this can be chalked up to a typical spoiled American upbringing and complete lack of perspective, including for what "tyranny" means - in your case, having to get a shot I suppose - and how bad things have been and can be in short order.
The Soviet Union was not a democracy. Are you that numb?
There are over 7 billions humans currently alive. We don’t appear to at risk of dying out.
There has not been an attempt at a total invasion of another country by military means in the developed world for 75 years. That's a fact.
We'll just ignore the invasion of Kuwait because we're all friends here.
And, you know, all those invasions by the Good Guys...
No major wars. Just ignore Korea. Vietnam. Russia's obliteration of uprisings in the Eastern bloc. Afghanistan. Middle East.
damiksec, see WWI and WWII. maybe you've heard of them?
Implicitly labeling those other wars “minor” to suit your narrative shows what a pathetic partisan husk you are.
"because China is actively trying to destroy the US and US society."
So is our globalist ruling class.
Many of whom are owned by the CCP.
Important issue and not a bad column, but it overlooks the existential threat to the international rule of law - not invasions - which while not perfect is much superior to what preceded it in the 1st half of the last century and before that. Yes, the damage to global trade and therefore heightened international cooperation and dependence - the alternative will lead us to WWIII and our own possible extinction - will be serious, but there is no choice. By the way, China will not put bank their future on an axis with Russia, India, and various 3rd world countries. They'll try to play to that world, but the EU is their biggest trade partner and where their bread is buttered.
There is no "International rule of law". The idea that the West can impose rules on the rest of the world is a delusion of people like Dick Cheney, people who themselves admitted that those rules are stuff they make up as needed to serve their political interests.
NOYB, well somehow we have avoided a major war for 76 years. It's called "enlightened self interest" by all the major players, not just the US, though we dominated the immediate post war period.
That's absurd. The US has been involved in foreign conflicts constantly for the past 76 years, spending more than half of the federal budget on the military. We have toppled dozens of regimes, caused revolutions, and caused the deaths of millions abroad. We have engaged in a military occupation of Europe and Japan for the past 76 years, which is why those areas have been (mostly) peaceful.
You're stuck in some sort of Thomas Friedman fantasy land. Get back to reality.
NYOB, let me type that louder: WE HAVE NOT HAD A MAJOR WAR ON EARTH IN 76 YEARS. I said it wasn't perfect and it never will be, but the international cooperation - some of ity strong armed - we have experienced is unprecedented and nothing to disparage, in your case not even recognize, or discard.
As I was saying: I have no idea what a "major war" is supposed to be; you are using "major" as a weasel word.
By objective, historical measures, the past 76 years have been a bit more peaceful than average, nothing more.
The cause for that isn't "international cooperation", it is the fact that major war mongers around the world (Germany, France, China, Japan, etc.) were destroyed in WWII and that the US ended up as the sole superpower, and on top of that engaged in military occupation of much of Europe and Asia.
And you have failed to explain why wars between totalitarian regimes abroad should concern Americans to begin with. If communist and Islamofascist regimes want to engage in a destructive war, we should cheer them on. Instead, you somehow seem to think that avoiding war by integrating such regimes into a global world order is a good thing.
We disagree NYOB, but I don't see a need to repeat myself or the facts which you claim to have not noticed - look up WWI and WWII, both the result of nationalism.
I have explained why wars like the Ukrainian invasion should concern us - beginning in my 1st post but inherent in the reality of a small globe and increased need for international order - and see no need to repeat those arguments again either.
Your "facts" are a mix of weasel words and fantasies.
You haven't made any arguments, you just repeat the platitudes of globalists and progressives since Woodrow Wilson. And you can see the result of that "international order" in the bloodiest century in human history.
Instituting an "international order" in a world in which the vast majority of countries are fascist, communist, or dictatorial is a recipe for the self-destruction of free societies. But then, that's really what you want anyway.
"Drawing on the work of the archaeologist Lawrence Keeley, Steven Pinker recently concluded that the chance of our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors meeting a bloody end was somewhere between 15% and 60%. In the 20th century, which included two world wars and the mass killers Stalin and Hitler, the likelihood of a European or American dying a violent death was less than 1%.
Pinker shows that, with notable exceptions, the long-term trend for murder and violence has been going down since humans first developed agriculture 10,000 years ago. And it has dropped steeply since the Middle Ages. It may come as a surprise to fans of Inspector Morse but Oxford in the 1300s, Pinker tells us, was 110 times more murderous than it is today. With a nod to the German sociologist Norbert Elias, Pinker calls this movement away from killing the "civilising process”.“........
On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture: Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.
Zooming in by a further power of ten exposes yet another reduction. After the cold war, every part of the world saw a steep drop-off in state-based conflicts, and those that do occur are more likely to end in negotiated settlements rather than being fought to the bitter end. Meanwhile, according to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent......"
https://aminotes.tumblr.com/post/10416268270/steven-pinker-on-the-history-and-decline-of
I agree, it has! Furthermore, violence has also decreased in the post-WWII period, and wars have decreased as well. None of that is in dispute.
And that tells you that the cause of the reduction in deaths was a specific political event (the fall of the USSR), not increased economic integration or the international rule of law (both of which were and continue to be slow, gradual processes).
Thanks for providing the data that destroys your argument.
You didn't agree above NYOB, nor did the other reactionaries here. But glad we settled that by almost any metric humans are doing much better than we had been doing before nuclear weapons and increased trade made major wars obsolete and the margin for error costly and dangerous. Advocating for nationalism and decreased international cooperation is back ward looking reaction lacking a realistic view of world events and the dangers we have avoided and need to keep avoiding.
I agree that the world has become less violent since hunter-gatherer days. But that's not what were have been discussing.
You claimed that the world has experienced an unprecedented absence of military conflicts because of the globalism imposed by governments. That is an entirely different statement, and it is false.
I agree. And nationalism and decreased international cooperation is exactly what you advocate for. That is, you want centralized, top-down decision making, and you want to use government policy to direct global trade and cooperation. Your mindset is firmly stuck in the totalitarianism of the 1930's.
I want subsidiarity, local government, individual liberties, and economy/trade that is free from government interference, all things you oppose.
We have not had a major WWIII style war on earth, but we have a constant state of low-to-mid-grade military conflict throughout the world for decades.
That's not better. If you think it is, you're an idiot.
Count deaths, destruction, trade, any metric you want, idiot.
By the way, the biggest conflicts since WWII were wars of choice by US paranoids in VN and Iraq.
Global conflict related deaths are currently below historical averages, but not unusually so.
Yes, people like you, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, etc.; people who insisted on imposing a "rules-based international order" and Western-style society on other countries (usually aided by a good deal of corporate cronyism).
He pretends not to know that international rules need to be made by someone, and that rules-based international orders need to be enforced, and the people with the biggest guns usually get to do that. Nations cooperate when it benefits them to do so, and when it doesn't, they need to be forced to cooperate.
He's also stupid and arrogant enough to think that the US, or the West in general, will always have the biggest guns.
I opposed the VN and Iraq Wars from the beginning NYOB. How about you?
I oppose all foreign military actions by the US, period. I also oppose any regime change or any attempt by the US to democratize or impose international law on other nations.
But your position is not consistent. On the one hand, you want a "rules based international order", on the other hand, you claim you oppose enforcing it militarily.
I note you say "oppose". How about "opposed", which I did both VN and Iraq?
I did not say I oppose military action to enforce international order, and at least as importantly, opposing murderous actions by deranged assholes like Putin. Given the threat of WWIII, I do not favor our becoming militarily engaged with him, though I thoroughly support the economic pressures we can bring to bear in coordination with the rest of the civilized world.
Yes, as a matter of principle, I oppose all foreign wars, past, present, and future. It's a statement of general principles that apply throughout time.
That means, in particular, that I opposed both Iraq wars and the VN war (whatever you mean by that).
I see. So, for some reason, you're claiming you opposed war in response to "murderous actions by deranged assholes like Saddam Hussein", but for some reason, you don't object to wars in response to "murderous actions by deranged assholes like Putin."
The CCP isn't motivated by "buttered bread", they are motivated by achieving world domination. Trade and economics is a means to that end; the CCP would have no qualms losing a big chunk of their foreign trade if it gains them more power.
But it won't even come to that. Europe couldn't even sanction Russian gas and oil. The situation vis-a-vis China is much worse. Europe has become totally dependent on China for raw materials and manufacturing. China can do whatever it wants and Europe can do nothing about it.
China isn't "banking their future" on anybody other than China. They will use Russia, India, and the Islamic world as tools to erode the power of the US and Europe, nothing more.
Sure NYOB, but daily events going on for many decades disprove your world view. Yes, nations are motivated by self interest, but enlightened self interest dictates that they can best achieve those interests through cooperation. You may note that China has not invaded anyone - maybe Tibet depending on how you see that - though they throw their weight around like us. Their bread is buttered with increasing world trade, and especially the EU and us. They attempt to extend their influence in Africa, the ME, etc, and made hay while the Fat Loser was pulling in, and will continue in that effort. Fine, we can meet them and we'll fight it out in markets, not battlefields.
PS NYOB, Europe with us has just announced their intent to cut off Russia as their main supplier of gas and oil.
Good grief, you are gullible. They are stating an "intent".
The actual news is that Russian gas keeps flowing into Europe and that they keep buying Russian oil because they don't have a choice.
You live in a fantasy world.
"BERLIN — Germany released a report on Friday showing that the country was cutting its dependence on Russian energy sooner than many thought possible.
Robert Habeck, the vice chancellor and economic minister, said Germany expected to cut its imports of Russian oil in half by the midsummer and nearly end the imports by end of this year...."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/25/world/ukraine-russia-war#biden-and-eu-announce-plan-to-help-wean-bloc-off-russian-fuel
I said: Europe couldn't even sanction Russian gas and oil. That's a fact. Your article proves it.
Now, the fact that Europe is trying to correct its colossal mistake and making plans to try to reduce dependence on Russian oil over the next few years is a good thing.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have sunk in that we should be doing the same vis-a-vis China, and that we should do so before China invades Taiwan. But people like you instead are seeking more integration with China.
I mean, don't you see the inconsistency of your positions? The West sought more integration with Russia and the invasion of Ukraine was the result. Yet you keep advocating the same policy with China.
And while you claim that minimizing war deaths should be the objective of Western policy, when it comes to Ukraine, you are egging on the Ukrainians to keep fighting, even sending them money and weapons.
Uyghur who? What IS Syria?
Not MAJOR conflicts, obviously.
One of the best things we can do is disentangle our economy from China.
China isn't interested in "invading" other countries, they want to dominate them and turn them into Chinese-style totalitarian states. And China is clearly succeeding at that.
The CCP uses trade to gain power: they are accumulating gold and US debt; they are collecting intellectual property; they are destroying resource extraction and manfuacturing abroad; and they are buying off Western institutions and politicians. And they are using slave labor and a fascist economic system to make the cheap goods that allow them to do this. That's the sense in which "their bread is buttered with increasing world trade". The CCP doesn't give a f*ck about comparative advantage or the economic benefits of trade, all they want is power.
To the contrary: Trump wanted to impose tariffs on China precisely so that trade with non-Chinese partners would expand.
You seem to think that the more crap we by from China, the more influence we get in Africa and the ME. How exactly is that supposed to work?
But the US is losing in markets, badly. Pretty much everything that people want is manufactured in China, not the US.
"China isn't interested in "invading" other countries"
Not since Tibet at least, and their last invasion before that was an ass kicking from Vietnam.
They do have some truly wild battles with the Indians in the Himalayas though. Talking subzero temps, thousand foot drops, and barbed wire wrapped baseball bats.
I am seeing more and more proof that Reason does not include mental health services in it's benefit package.
There is no cure for TDS.
Premise: fragmented, poor, and isolated are positively correlated with more liberty.
I sure seems like coordinated efforts to promote global integration, material wealth and comfort, and inter-connected everyone necessarily degrade individual freedom. The fact that many people might choose integration and cede liberty does not alter the equation.
That's why many of the Founders preferred a rural United States.
But I wouldn't go that far. Global integration is currently being pursued by fiat. Free trade among free market-based societies would likely be more fragmented, a bit more isolated, but not necessarily an less prosperous. It certainly would be more resilient and robust than the global system that governments are creating right now.
Yes. Unfortunately, while that might even work in the short term, it fails in the long term, as the integration is also a means of exerting power. In fact, we see that already in our "free trade deals", which are really little more than laundry lists for special interest.
If global trade was actually free trade between free markets, it would likely be much less integrated than it is under the kind of global policies progressives pursue.
So, we're supposed to let totalitarian regimes run roughshod over the world 'cuz Libertarianism?
This is even more daft than Reason's arguments for open borders.
Because while Libertarianism is expressly pro liberty, in practice it is objectively pro totalitarianism.
Else, explain why a "flagship" publication is chocked full of progressives.
No one said this was going to be easy, TooChilly. You're all in this together.
Lol @ TooChilly
JD has got it upside down. The fascist invasion is what's chilling international markets, realigning trade, security arrangements and "shattering the global economy". You can't do business in Russia because there's no law in Russia. It's a fascist hell hole. The smart Russians are getting the fuck out.
It may be the right thing to do, but the chilling of international markets has been a choice made by Russia's opponents.
"places of privilege" Sorry, no. Nations that have (had) systems of laws that respected and enforced private property rights.
Property is racist.
Libertarians should share in this horror and welcome it. If this results in a fall of the dollar as the reserve currency and a splintering of the global financial system, it will be a good thing, including the West. No government, not Biden, not the EU, should wield that kind of power over the economy or the financial system.
I am watching the elites' sudden shift to 'local' economies and production fascinating. Depending on Russia for all of your energy needs turned out to not be the greatest idea, I guess.
US government does not equal America.
Globalist governments, including all the power in the US, are the greatest evil and threat to our liberty that exists today.
Our enemy is here, and it's waging war on us right the fuck now.
You can just say The Jews.
What the hell do the Jews have to do with this? He didn’t say that. Or is it that you’re showing off the anti semitism so common amongst you democrats.
Stupid cunt.
When Tony hears "globalists", he immediately thinks "the Jews". It's how anti-Semites like Tony think.
Oh so it's back to blaming Russia for things that started happening long before Russia invaded Ukraine....
"Society doesn't exist" - Margaret Thatcher.
There is only Me, Me, Me, Me, Me.... Any Libertarian.
Don't you mean Nazi's (National Socialists)... I mean they are the one's using Gov-Guns to get/steal/enslave all those *FREE* things for Me, Me, Me, Me, Me...
At least Libertarians accept things have to be earned instead of dropping from the clouds of utopia or whipped of of slaves or some other cruel and criminal way of getting them.
As libertarians, we generally follow the idea that free trade promotes peace as it places outside interests into each trading country thereby adding resistance to war by the profiting individuals within each country. So, if a country ignores that internal resistance and goes to war anyway, why not use trade as a means of fighting the war?
The World Is Being Fragmented, Making Us More Poor and Isolated
Everything is going according to the elites plan.
You guys never get enough credit for being the only actual open borders globalists just like Daddy Koch and all his free market oil subsidies.