The golden rule of economics is that the happiness of others is ultimately their own happiness. So, why is there still war?
Text: Zhao Xiao (Independent Economist)
Editor-in-Charge: Li Jing
Recently, China and the United States have been at odds, with frequent military exercises in the South China Sea, and Pompeo issuing speeches that are similar to "there is you without me, there is no me", "or I will change you, or I will not be changed by you", which is almost universal, and many people have begun to pay attention to the "new Cold War" between China and the United States and the issue of possible hot war.
The golden rule of economics is that the happiness of others is ultimately their own happiness. So why is there still war?
According to the Canadian Army Journal, "Since 3600 B.C., there have been only 292 years of peace in the world, 5291 years of war, and on average only 1 year of 20 years is a year of peace, and 19 years of war." In more than 5,000 years, there have been more than 14,530 wars in the world, with more than 3.64 billion dead. "A professor has calculated that from the Second World War to the present, the local wars that have risen and fallen one after another have made the world almost no days of peace, and in the whole world, there are no days of no war, only 26 days.
In previous columns, the author has proposed the concept of "life economics", emphasizing that one of the differences in life economics is that it not only thinks about human behavior from the classical perspective of traditional economic rationality, but also examines more real human behavior from the perspective of "rational irrational" behavioral economics, and also understands human behavior from the perspective of spiritual behavior beyond rationality. What kind of enlightenment can we have about war from the perspective of life economics?
1、
Traditional Economics: War is not only a continuation of politics, but also an economic continuation
From a rational point of view, war is no different from other human behaviors: it is also an act of weighing costs and benefits. Therefore, as long as the costs of war outweigh the benefits, acts of war are likely to occur. Not only that, but the two sides of the war will choose war or peace strictly based on rational trade-offs, the intensity of the war, the way of the war, and so on.
One "supply-side" explanation is that because resources are scarce, when there is an extremely tense relationship between people and resources, it will have to be resolved by war, which is considered the inevitable competition for the factors of production. Hitler's statement that "the German nation fought for the living space" is the best illustration of this explanation. Hitler once cried: "The new Reich must ... "We shall turn our gaze to the land to the land of the German plow, for the Bread of the Day to the German people" "We shall turn our gaze to the land of the East, which exists for the people who have the power to possess it." ”
The "demand side" interpretation is that wars may also occur more proactively motivated by stimulus. Keynes, the founder of macroeconomics, argued that if the Treasury had placed bottles stuffed with banknotes in mines that had been mined, then filled the mines with municipal garbage, and allowed private enterprises to dig out the bills again according to the principle of laissez-faire, then the problem of unemployment would not exist. Keynes pointed out that war has a similar effect of stimulating the economy, and "war and gold mining have already played a role in human progress – if there is no better way." The author once wrote "A thorough market economy is shameless", and the logic of the market economy is to pursue economic growth endlessly and unscrupulously, and even activate the "war demand model". Therefore, war is a continuation of politics, and war is also a continuation of the economy. War will bring about a war economy through the defense industry. The United States emerged from the Great Depression of the 1930s and ultimately relied on the military stimulation of World War II.
This means that war can happen, if not motivated by the struggle for land or other factors of production, but only to expand demand. In the perspective of static economics, people always like to ask "cannon or butter"; from the perspective of dynamic economics, cannon is equal to butter, because "once the cannon is fired, the gold is two".
In general, traditional warfare is both closely related to economic ends and an economic process in itself, even changing the economic model. For example, the "First World War" was a huge steel struggle that pushed the contest of national strength between major powers to an extreme. Hitler, the culprit of the outbreak of World War II, originated from the economic crisis. The book "Total War" published by Ludendorff, deputy chief of the general staff of the German army, in 1935, summarized the economic theory of war that sprouted in the "First World War", emphasizing that war requires the transformation of the country in all aspects of political, economic and social life; It is necessary to mobilize the strength of the whole people, including the spiritual and economic forces, to participate in the war, and to eliminate the enemy army and civilians by any means. Historically, the war led not only the Soviet economy to a highly "planned economic model" and the German economy to a "controlled economic model," but also to the Anglo-American economy to a "wartime controlled economic model."
2、
Behavioral Economics: Why does the "rational" war bring about the most irrational economic outcomes?
However, war is essentially a drain on resources and destroys the economy; therefore, a "rational" war actually brings the most irrational economic consequences.
Compared with the "non-cooperative game" and "zero-sum game" of war, human beings should obviously pursue "cooperative game" and "win-win game", and the benefits brought by human beings through division of labor and trading, innovation and cooperation are actually greater, so why can't mankind replace war with peace and perpetuity?
Therefore, it is also necessary to explain the theory of the occurrence of war from a more microscopic and refined perspective. For example, the outbreak of war may be due to the "prisoner's dilemma". The two sides of the war are essentially like "prisoners", because they do not trust each other and fear that others will start war on themselves, so they start the war first ("preemptive strike"). This could more perfectly explain many of human wars, which are rooted in the imperfections of human nature: "selfish human nature + perfect reason" leads to wars as a frequent crisis of trust. Both sides are likely to lose both sides, with no economic gain at all.
Most of the wars in Chinese history are cold-blooded massacres without trust and without any bottom line, and the so-called "historical massacres" of "red land and thousands of lands" and "ten rooms and nine voids" have been staged again and again, which in the past were usually called the "chaotic cycle" of Chinese history, Huang Yanpei called it the "law of historical cycles", and Professor Pan Zhichang called it the "Tacitus Trap".
In contrast, the fact that there has never been a war between democracies around the world after World War II is probably based on trust in common values and institutions that breaks through the "trust trap" because of it. This provides an important solution to the difficult problem of reducing war for mankind.
Israel has adopted a "tit-for-tat" game strategy for terrorists, that is, Israel generally does not launch attacks first, but as long as Israel suffers terrorist attacks, Israel will inevitably take escalated retaliation, thus greatly deterring terrorists and suspending the "terrorists" attacks on Israel to a considerable extent.
In addition to this, the war of mankind has also escalated. The "terrorist equilibrium" of nuclear deterrence to "ensure mutual destruction" miraculously suspended the possibility of a hot war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the competition between the two sides had to turn to a "cold war."
The biggest purpose of the Cold War was to be "cold" enough. If a new Cold War really breaks out between China and the United States, it is also necessary to ensure that there is no "calmness" that does not destroy each other!
From the "Iraq War" to the recent past, the United States has further upgraded the modern war model: no longer targeting land and manpower, but winning wars with asymmetric warfare, decapitation operations, electronic warfare, special forces, etc.
3、
Suppose that the "Cold War" is no longer denied, then the top priority is to establish a "wall" and a stability mechanism!
Chinese think tanks have much to discuss about the possible Outbreak of a Cold War, but few constructive comments. Recently, Shen Dawei, a well-known Us expert on China, proposed that China and the United States have entered the "Cold War 2.0," so we should stop talking about the "Cold War," but should accept the "Cold War 2.0" and adapt to it, but we should restrict it; since it is an illusion to return to the framework of "cooperation" and "contact," it is now time for the two sides to reconstruct their relations into "managing all-round competition."; it is very important to establish a "wall" and a stability mechanism Both sides should carefully revisit the lessons and tools of Cold War 1.0 and learn from them in due course.
Shen Dawei suggested that both China and the United States need to adopt the conceptual framework of "détente".
At present, there is no bilateral strategic arms control agreement between the two nuclear powers (unlike the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War 1.0 era) and no "traffic regulations" to control the escalation of the conflict. It's too dangerous! Therefore, it should be imperative to have bilateral nuclear arms control negotiations (rather than tripartite negotiations with Russia, as proposed by the Trump administration), focus on medium-range ballistic missiles, strengthen existing communication mechanisms between the two militaries and national security agencies, and establish very precise procedures to control the escalation of events in the event of an unexpected military conflict. In the Asia-Pacific region, the imposition of limits on the deployment of conventional forces may be out of reach (despite the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which was concluded during the Cold War). Ideally, however, a comprehensive framework for relations in the style of the Helsinki Accords should be explored.
During Cold War 1.0, the United States and the Soviet Union not only had their own "red lines," but also built a variety of mechanisms and cultural exchange agreements for conflict avoidance, confidence-building, crisis management, and cultural exchanges. The U.S.-Soviet détente was a long-term, multi-layered consolidation process. The earmarked but unofficial "Track II" expert exchanges, as well as the establishment of so-called "knowledge communities", have played an important role in reducing mutual misunderstandings.
All of this is also worth learning from Both China and the United States.
I appreciate all the rational discussions, and I appreciate the constructive ideas. But at the same time, I would like to point out that there are countless uncontrollable factors in war, and many wars in history may have broken out just because of a little Bit of Mars; and reading the declassified materials of the Cold War also makes people break out in a cold sweat: because not only the Cuban missile crisis, in fact, the United States and the Soviet Union have faced the danger of bringing mankind and the earth into nuclear war many times.
Therefore, based on the fact that human beings often behave in an "irrational rational" or "irrational manner", if China and the United States recognize that the two sides have entered the Cold War stage, they should promptly set the red line of war, establish a management mechanism to avoid the escalation of war, and at the same time establish various measures for the survival and protection of human beings. War also needs the bottom line of war and the ethics of war!
4、
Beyond Reason: Let's Pray for Avoiding War!
From a super-rational point of view, such as the revelation from the Bible: human wars are derived from human sinfulness, so the fundamental way for mankind to eliminate war lies not only in the innovation of institutions, but also in the renewal of life: man confesses his sinful nature and repents completely. This, without a doubt, also brings us great enlightenment!
……
If you desire peace and oppose war, from a hyper-rational point of view, there is at least one thing you can do, and that is to pray for world peace! Of course, it all depends on whether you believe in the spiritual power of prayer or not.
Source: Chinese and foreign management