Trade in War | Hacker News Reader

Trade in War

news.mit.edu

94 pointsLorenDB110 comments

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.

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.

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

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.

It's simple self interest. If you perceive trade as benefiting your interests (which, by definition, would imply not giving your opponent a meaningful edge in the conflict) then you trade.

It's the same thing that decides when wars end. Either side is free to surrender or withdraw at any point in a war. They continue fighting when they think that the result they can obtain (win or lose) in the future will be better than the result they can obtain in the present. They stop fighting when that no longer becomes the case, at least assuming non-insane leadership.

War isn't the end of relations. It's not infrequent that enemies today are allies tomorrow, or vice versa. Nobody ever knows what tomorrow holds, and history seems to love a nice plot twist.

Americans mental assessment of war is that it is an all out slog, you gear up the entire country and fight to the death. Of course, that image is changing as the US continues to engage in protracted conflicts in ponzi states like Afghanistan, Korea and so forth.

However - for older nations, especially european ones, war is another tool in the chest of diplomacy, and may not be viewed as 'all encompassing'. To understand that war is just another lever of power can help Americans make better sense of conflicts.

You're ignoring the principal-agent problem. Even when national leaders aren't technically insane, they will often choose to continue fighting well past the point where it could possibly benefit their country because that suits their own personal interests. So they keep sending their citizens to die because there are no personal consequences.

The GP did not say anything about war continuing due to logical outcomes or nationally-motivated ones. Most wars simply are personal pursuits wrapped in convenient excuses.

I was surprised to learn the US is still buying fertilizer from Russia: https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5496336/despite-sanctio...

The US still buys a lot more from russia. Also it seems like Exxon returning to russia was an important point inthe Trump / Putin meeting.

I for example do not understand how it can be possible that Ukraine transports Russian gas on its pipeline network. Not sure if that's still the case though.

Everyone involved and decisive are neighbours living in Dubai.

You're thinking of HAMAS and co in Qatar.

Applies to both conflicts apparently.

They stopped on January 1st 2025 when the contract with Gazprom signed in 2019 expired, costing Gazprom / Russia an estimated $5bn / year: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-g...

It's a complicated one, but legally it's a civil contract; if the Ukrainian government decided to stop the gas flowing, both Gazprom and all the companies "downstream" would be in their rights to sue for breach of contract and/or causing gas shortages, costing the Ukrainian government billions.

And you could wonder why they signed the contract anyway given Russia invaded/annexed Crimea 5 years prior, but, it's a lot of money, and at the time it was still considered a civil contract I presume.

I am completely naive,l as I don't understand much in contracts, but wouldn't war effectively nullify those contracts? I mean, if a large proportion of your adversary's economy hangs by a simple piece of paper, I'd expect one to suggest them to go and wipe themselves with it.

I'm speculating.. but...

The Ukraine needed (and continues to need) support from the buyers of that gas - the EU

The war has been going long enough, and the Ukrainian government would have made it very clear that thy would not be renewing the contract.. meaning that the EU had a chance to get their energy via some other route.

I don’t think you are naive - it’s counter-intuitive. The political context is important: Ukraine is incentivised to portraying itself as a country that respects international law and norms. The fact of life is that this includes respecting civil contracts made in good faith. This moral high ground has a cost.

> This moral high ground has a cost.

Btw, occupying the moral high ground even when it has a cost, sends a strong signal that you will also be trustworthy in the future, and not just when it's convenient.

Ie sometimes the cost is the point.

Just like the peacock's fancy tail needs to be biologically expensive to work.

Sure. War also makes Nordstream II a legitimate military target. You still have to weigh if it is worth it to risk your good relations with your allies over sabotaging infrastructure which is important for their national security.

It doesn't take a war to do that, in peacetime governments can also manufacture reasons to just not do things - up to and including just changing the law. The main defence against that is that if they are going to do that later on they simply won't sign up for the deal, so we'd expect a government to honour anything they sign on with.

I'd imagine the logic goes something like Ukraine believes they are benefiting and Russia is too, but they aren't sure which side is gaining more from the movement of gas through Ukraine (which, note, in real terms is supporting the economies that are arming Ukraine). In that situation, the obvious thing to do is just let things play out as contracted. If it was obvious that Russia was gaining a lot more from the deal than they are then they'd just stop.

Also because the gas itself went to customers outside Ukraine.

Ultimately the general public is capricious in its beliefs: cutting the gas off and causing energy prices to spike in Europe means someone will call for the head of whoever's nearest to blame.

Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.

> Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.

There's been a change in the administration (and therefore strategy) of the USA, which changed the way the game was being played.

I think that (almost) everyone that has actual skin in that particular game also knows that none of the agreements that any of them make are reliable for a long term (I saw recently that the Ukranians gave up the Nukes they had at the behest of the US government, and on the.. I don't know if it was explicit, implicit, or just assumed.. understanding that the USA would provide some sort of security guarantee (which, of course, has never materialised)

Ukraine gave up its nukes in the same sense that Germany would "give up its [American] nukes" if it exited NATO.

They also had about as much latitude to keep those nukes as Germany would. Some people act like Ukraine owned and controlled the nukes and had a meaningful choice. They never did.

It wasnt given security guarantees either, it was given a promise that its independence wouldnt be infringed upon in a memorandum (not in a treaty).

As the Americans stated themselves in 2013 when they violated their promises within the Budapest memorandum, that memorandum wasnt legally binding. It was treated like toilet paper first by the Americans in 2014 and subsequently the Russians in 2014.

When you edit your response, can you do so by clearly labeling your changes.

They were Soviet nukes, not Russian. No different from the tanks and uniforms Ukraine inherited from the Soviet Union. Very different from the borrowed US and Soviet nukes both Germanies had in their inventories.

Ukraine didnt inherit the soviet nukes, the Soviet debts or the soviet seat on the UN security council either.

Fair doesn't exist in international politics, and it's extremely obvious that handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

Whereas try collecting a debt from a nuclear power who's uninterested in paying it.

>Fair doesn't exist in international politics

Tell it to the people caterwauling about the budapest memorandum, not me.

>it's extremely obvious that handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

It's the furthest possible thing from obvious. Ukraine couldn't maintain the weapons and was in desperate need of economic assistance it would never have gotten if it kept the nukes.

Moreover, if they tried to keep them Russia would likely just have taken them or rendered them unusable by force and we likely would have supported that.

> handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

There was absolutely no way for Ukraine to keep the nukes, not only because both the West and the East/Russia were against it but more importantly, the powers that be in Ukraine had other plans.

Also, I wouldn't comment on a fait accompli unless doing so pointed to information important for understanding today's realities.

The US did not violate the Budapest memorandum[0]. That’s a false narrative from Russia and violated it when invading and occupying Crimea.

[0]: https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/budapest-memorandum-myth...

Your citation isn't. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. It doesn't back up what you said. In fact, it agreed with me on one key point which you just trashed as Russian propaganda:

>Absent the 1994 agreements, many seem to believe Ukraine could have maintained a nuclear arsenal. In fact, it would have encountered likely insurmountable challenges.

Here is where the Americans said "look, this memorandum isn't even legally binding" while they also try to pretend they didn't violate it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usem...

Just FTR, I never said "its nukes" I said the "nukes that they had"

> Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons [...].

I find this fascinating: the US is a net oil exporter so 'as a country' would benefit from higher oil prices.

But it seems in the US your average Joe who tops up his car at the petrol station has more political power than the oil industry.

But it seems in the US your average Joe who tops up his car at the petrol station has more political power than the oil industry.

Pretty much. A common absurdity is politicians railing against Big Oil for causing climate change while simultaneously promising to lower gas prices.

> A common absurdity is politicians railing against Big Oil for causing climate change while simultaneously promising to lower gas prices.

Or putting / upholding tariffs on imports of solar panels.

I believe it's in part due to the actual way the pipelines work - gas isn't simply piped into one end and out the other like fluid or switched on and off like energy systems.

Switching it off on one end would require storing it somewhere at the source and switching it off on the other could destroy the actual piping. You can't just "take" it from one and easily transfer it to another customer.

AFAIK it's the engineering but that other comment about neighhbors in Dubai is yeah

Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia.. in effect funding and prolonging the war. They seem to be playing both sides. Saying how horrible the Russian regime is, while directly giving it more money. And then giving weapons to Ukraine..

It seems completely morally bankrupt... If instead of Russia it was ISIS, would they still send money just so they have cheap gas? Like at what point would they stop? Do the Russians need to be impaling babies and goosestepping through Red Square?

I also don't understand why Ukrainians don't feel a deep sense of betrayal about this

> Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia

Because the alternative isn't buying gas from somewhere else, it's not buying the gas. This turns a foreign war into a major major domestic issue.

I'd be curious to hear what Europeans actually think of it on the ground. Is it not a major domestic issue that your governments are funding a genocidal regime? Do people just kinda pretend it's not happening b/c it's inconvenient to talk about? Just kinda blush, say sorry, and carry on?

I don't really understand the psychology of it. Are people for instance actively trying to use less gas in their personal lives?

edited, not feeding the troll

Look at the name, he is likely trolling people.

you're right

Most Europeans see it like watching someone drown, they want to help, but not at the cost of drowning themselves in the process.

I mean, the compassion ends when your bills increase twofold - it's that simple.

I don’t speak for others, probably a minority opinion. I vividly remember the protests against the switch to Russian oil and against the pipeline. There’s a saying here: if you burn your ass you sit on the blisters.

In Czech Republic upgraded our infra and stopped using Russian gas and oil.

Might have something to do with Russia orchestrated terrorist attack agains Czech munition warehouses that killed two people in 2014[0].

Or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968[1] - just because the local communist leaders happened to be a bit too much enlightened for their tastes.

Just a few days ago I went past memorial plague for the girl killed in protests against the Soviet invasion in 1969[2][3] - forever 18 years old...

There were lots of flowers, people still remember.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunitio...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czec...

[2] https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu%C5%A1e_Muzik%C3%A1%C5%9...

[3] https://encyklopedie.brna.cz/home-mmb/?acc=profil-osobnosti&...

I see different degrees of genocide and support.

I am generally against arms deliveries, especially to Israel and Russia.

Sanctions should above all be effective. Russia is difficult to sanction especially if China and India do not play along.

The energy sanctions hurt Germany more than Russia, so I don't support them.

Specifically, I heat with gas in winter and try to reduce my consumption.

Can’t they just increase their imports from the US?

They can and they already do, LNG from the US is flowing in. But swapping dependence on Russia for dependence on the US isn’t the clearcut win people imagine. Washington is in the middle of its own trade war, and Europe is one of the targets. Pax Americana is over, and Europe is treated less as an ally than as a vassal. The US openly exploits Europe’s fear of Russia, turning a legitimate threat into a lever for domination. What Europe gets is dependency and vulnerability, while the US extracts obedience and profit.

The irony is that the US slaps higher tariffs on most European countries than it does on Russia itself. As the old saying goes, "it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal".

Are you sure that is accurate? My research found that since the invasion, Russia’s MFN was revoked and Column 2 rates + import bans make US barriers on Russian goods much higher overall than on EU goods.

1. https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/930201/download

2. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-117publ110

3. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summ...

4. https://media.bis.gov//about-bis/bis-leadership-and-offices/...

5. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/15/2022-05...

6. https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1024

7. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-fact...

8. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...

As I understand it the issue with that was not enough terminal capacity and storage, but they've been working on that[1].

[1]: https://valvesector.com/lng-ships-and-storage-wars-how-europ...

Because Europeans need gas to heat their homes and run their economies. They have rapidly built new LNG terminals to diversify away from Russian gas pipelines: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/liquefied-gas-doe...

Morality has nothing to do with it, no democratic government will survive freezing its own people for some abstract principle.

It's not abstract. The money goes directly to committing war crimes and the bombing of cities. Civilians are dieing as a direct result of their funding of the regime. As far as I can understand, it's not ambiguous that they have blood on their hands

Because the alternative is energy prices spiking so high that governments would collapse under mass protests. Cutting Russia off overnight would mean blackouts, factories shutting down, and heating bills people simply couldn’t pay. That kind of chaos would destabilize Europe faster than any Russian offensive.

Europe can’t defend Ukraine by destroying itself.

> They seem to be playing both sides.

They are (arguably) playing for themselves first.

Actual EU action in this conflict has been pretty well aligned with citizen/voter interests in my opinion; this is not strictly a good thing, you could uncharitably call it "emergent unprincipled EU hypocrisy".

Many voters want energy safety, inflation to be kept in check and to minimize spending on foreign conflicts and national defense. Lots of Europeans agree with keeping Russian expansionism in check, but they don't really want to pay for it nor risk escalation.

Generally, sacrificing trade for ethical/moral reasons sounds like an easy sacrifice to make, but this comes at a real price (getting overtaken by "immoral" nations that don't, possibly ending with ethically worse global situations in the long term), and things like this get fierce opposition in a democracy where you have to balance ideology with the economical well-being of your voters (ideological voting is much more achievable if you can at least pretend that it aligns with economical self-interest somewhat).

To me, EU feet dragging in the Ukraine war is a bit sad but unsurprising.

Morality wise, I'd say several middle-eastern petro-states are significantly worse than Russia (non-democratic government, human rights violations at large scale epsecially against foreign workers), and trade with those has been going on for decades...

It is not that much different with the US policies in the middle-east. If anything EU is at least not supporting coups in pro-russian satellite states. But I think that is mostly because the EU can't operate at that level of intervention as a federation, it is up for individual states and that can get them into big trouble with the EU.

But yeah, it is not great look for democracies when they can't support good causes because it will cause harm domestically which leads to less votes.

Nor do I understand ... Saying how horrible the Russian regime is, while directly giving it more money.

It's nigh on incomprehensible when political leaders' actions contradict their words, since politicians are always truthful. It seemingly happens often but will remain forever a mystery.

FWIW, USA buys uranium from Russia, e.g. see: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2025-06-18/rus...

The issue is complex. Now there is a US president who wants to control all energy supplies to Europe while still talking about new oil deals with Russia:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russian-officials...

And wants to control Russian gas to the EU:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-investors-eye-str...

Nord Stream has been sabotaged, a huge US LNG deal was forced on the EU in the tariff negotiations. The US leased a corridor from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Turkey that could be a new energy choke point for fossil fuels from Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan (lots of natural gas) to the EU.

The EU is in a pretty bad position right now where it can be blackmailed with energy cutoffs not by Russia but by the US.

The Ukrainians can't feel betrayal because they have kept their own transit pipeline open until 2025, long after Nord Stream was blown up (allegedly by Ukrainians on a sail boat, see the recent arrests).

> huge US LNG deal was forced on the EU in the tariff negotiations

It wasn't really, as the EU have no ability to make member states do basically anything around energy, so that clause accomplishes basically nothing.

The reasonable countries, such as for example Czech Republic stopped using Russian gas and now also oil while the ones corrupted by Russian interests did not & could not be expected to until either their government realigns with the res of EU or the stuff stops flowing.

Guess what happened with the pumping stations once the last reasonable countries stopped importing & the transfer contracts were no longer valid. Yes, boom.

And of course there was much wailing from those corrupted countries that did nothing to get ridd themselves from dependency on Russian energy - how very expected.

1) Because the transport fee that Gazprom used to pay to Ukraine was one of the safest rents in the (very dysfunctional) Ukrainian economy(the other being the Odessa port). If you really want to go that far back, the gas dispute in 2008-2009 is when things really started going bad between Russia and Ukraine.

2) Because this gas was needed in Europe.

I would go as far as to say that if there is any peace in Ukraine within the next few years then Ukraine will probably demand that if any gas goes from Russia to Europe it would go through Ukraine.

Or how European countries have bankrolled Russia's invasion with billions per year (100b since the war started) in payments for gas. While paying lip service to optics announcing ever harsher sanctions - like freezing one or two bank accounts of irrelevant family friends of Putin.

Sadly war means western countries will keep printing money, while also funding the military industrial complex. For some, this is a goal.

Something worth adding and reading about is how the very existence of the European-Russian gas relationship has it's roots in German 70's and 80's realpolitik initiative that led to the pipes-for-gas contracts between Germany and the USSR. Neither the USSR not Russia had the internal industrial capacity to build this kind of infrastructure to begin with. The belief was that "they" would become reliant on "us". Who could predict that "they" would want to abuse "us"?

I need to search for it in the FT archives, but I do remember them trying to quantify the amount of oil traded between the various rebels in syria and the syrian state.

At one point islamic state (or one of the similar groups) had either ownership of a few oil fields, or transit between them, and were actively trading petro chemicals with each other for a good while.

Someone else fights, someone else trades, the elites from both groups from both sides cooperate. The groups of the opposite fighters less, the groups of the opposite traders more. The arrangement is mutually beneficial and cleansing. For anyone unimportant enough to read this comment - nationalism is the worst poison.

I also find the last point which is teased in the article interesting: "States very infrequently get forecasts about the length of war right".

I can see why that happens, but are there any good counterexamples? Are there any conflicts that actually were as short as the initiating party expected?

The Six Day War took about as long as either side expected.

The 1991 Gulf War ended faster than the attacking coalition forces expected. Only a few Iraqi military units stood and fought; most surrendered or retreated.

Meanwhile others sanction (or tariff) countries they're at peace with for no discernible benefit to anyone.

so you say only nothing or harm to all?

War and peace live on a spectrum

Tariffs are a tax on your own population (no matter what Trump says). Which countries sanction friendly ally nations?

It amazes me how the right wing in America is so pro Russia

The reveal of much of the right wing influencer network being funded by Russian state actors makes this more understandable. https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential... It goes from bottom to top with Tulsi Gabbard parroting Russian talking points on Russian state TV then from the White House and now those right wing influencers repeating Russian talking points at White House press conferences. It's probably the most successful adversarial state sponsored social engineering effort ever.

I actually had Iran in mind. Russia at least ostensibly behaved in a way that's worth sanctioning by destabilizing the world. Iran just held some hostages 50 years ago, as best I can tell, and it's hard to be angry at that. Israel has harmed many times more Americans than Iran has, but Israel also seems to be the reason we continue to sanction Iran. It makes no sense on the face of it.

Guess you missed how Iran is actively working on destabilizing the region with proxy forces in other countries.

I mean, so are we. So are the Saudies. So is Israel. So is Turkey. So is the UAE. I'm sure I missed some interests. I think we have the greatest responsibility to unwind our own efforts.

I mean friendly nations can coexist with tarriffs structures perfectly amicably.

What's not normal is trying to use tarrifs the way the US is, and the frequency of their adjustment, as well as stated motivation (punitive rather then achieving any sort of strategic goal).

Switzerland has plenty of tariffs around farmed goods to keep our farmer market healthy. But it does indeed make products more expensive (and higher quality) and everybody here knows and most accept that.

Funny you're mentioning Switzerland where whole families travel to France for cheaper products just to meet the quota per person when you come back from your weekend shopping.

Can't really comment on "more expensive = higher quality" since I'm biased towards France where I believe they're better at cultivating tomatoes than the Swiss.

It's more of an excuse for a drive for me tbh. When I compare prices between DE and CH now, the difference isn't that big anymore.

DE is still cheaper for some products but not by much. I have no idea how do they manage there since salaries are like 2x less.

To be fair, the costs are just less hidden in the swiss model.

If you do internal subsidies (the EU/US approach) instead of tariffs on imports, then a fraction of your taxes gets diverted to farmers instead.

Sadly this whole issue is difficult to side-step completely because if you do neither subsidies nor tariffs, your local food industry just dies and that is a really undesirable outcome if you want to avoid famines.

I love going to France, and really like their quality approach. But try going to Germany or Austria. Basically the same price or more expensive at the same or worse quality.

Products are not higher quality… the only thing these tariffs accomplish is basically they allow agriculture industry to do the things the old way. Keep status quo, aka remain extremely uncompetitive and unproductive.

If Switzerland opened to EU competition then they would’ve seen multi store farming like in Netherlands. Subsidies would fare better.

That is what you say. If we don't get chlorine chicken, mass farmed cow meat and stuff like this many of us are already very happy.

I’m obviously operating within the assumption that Switzerland would follow EU regulations. So no chloride chicken. I agree with beef, much needs to be done. But… bells attached to cows are considered as torture.

https://www.thetimes.com/travel/inspiration/ski-holiday/endl...

Did you finish reading the article? Most swiss cows only wear a bell one day per year.

Yea sure? Of course. If US wanna tax their own population for imports it's fine (just like most countries have import taxes aka tariffs). But my question was about sanctions.

I think it would be better to ask why do states allow trading with the country your state is at war with.

The article is a bit ambiguous. It mentions "trade via neutrals" in passing, and it is not clear if all or most of examples are trading through neutral states (whether knowingly or not).

Anyone here know anything about where and how the cotton for bandages for the Union wounded was obtained during the US civil war? India and the Middle East being so distant, I'm guessing that some kind of smuggling or trading happened, but I've never read of it. But I have read of some traveling merchants who were allowed by the Union to exit the areas the Union controlled. Even more postmodern is the likelihood that printers in the Union states propped up the Confederacy by flooding the states in revolt with counterfeit confederate paper money. There being a dearth of competent printers, genuine Confederate cash was so shabby looking that no one would have trusted it, and the Southern economy would have collapsed even sooner than it did because no one would take money like that seriously. But the bogus money from the North was typically so respectable in appearance that it had a street value above the coin of the local realm, giving said revolting realm a stronger medium of exchange.

During WWII, one of Hitler's higher ranking underlings let the Allies know that they could spare the lives of a large number of Hungarian persons bound for the death camps in exchange for trucks shipped through Spain, approximately 1 truck for each 10 lives saved, but that offer drew no genuine response.

Because they are not atomic bodies?

It is very simple, people trading/deciding are not the same ones as fighting.

I think you could fairly easily find examples when even the people fighting engaged in trading. The world is complicated and tradeoffs are made all the time.

I'll have to ask my friend Thomas Pynchon

This sounds very optimistic. A more realistic interpretation is that the companies which control governments don't have moral principles and don't pick sides. In the case of weapons manufacturers, they may sometimes back both sides. It may also be profitable for banks to back both sides of a war if they don't currently have much collateral in the affected countries. Providing loans to rebuild countries is a great way to profit from war and establish a presence there.

Big companies like to lobby governments into creating problems for which they have solutions to sell.

I mean just look at what happened with companies like Mercedes Benz and Hugo Boss which were selling tanks and uniforms to the Nazi government... Still very successful today, didn't even change their names. They didn't have any problems finding customers or investors. Clearly it means that nobody who matters economically cared about the war. Quite remarkable when you realize that we're talking about WW2. In the business world, it's as if WW2 didn't happen.

> has its roots in research Grinberg started as a doctoral student at the University of Chicago

A reminder that not long ago this was a functioning institution of higher learning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com