HN Distilled

Essential insights from Hacker News discussions

Trade in War

Original Article

Hacker News Discussion

Here's a summary of the themes from the Hacker News discussion:

The Disconnect Between Individual and State Interests

A central theme is the divergence between the interests of individual citizens and the interests of the state, particularly during wartime. While individuals may suffer, some perceive that states (or their leadership) can profit or gain from conflict.

  • "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." - eru
  • "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." - Frieren
  • "It is very simple, people trading/deciding are not the same ones as fighting." - dude250711
  • "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." - lifestyleguru
  • "I think it would be better to ask why do states allow trading with the country your state is at war with." - trash_cat

Manufactured Consent and Aligned Incentives

The discussion touches on how governments might try to align individual and national interests, often through economic means like tariffs. This can be seen as a form of "manufacturing" consent or behavior to suit state objectives.

  • "The interests of individuals can be manufactured though!" - kubb
  • "Sure, people react to incentives." - eru
  • "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." - mattashii
  • "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" - awesome_dude

Tariffs, Sanctions, and Their Motivations

Tariffs and sanctions are discussed as tools of state policy, with some users questioning their effectiveness or the motivations behind them, especially when applied to countries with which a nation is not at war. The notion that tariffs are a domestic tax that harms one's own population is also raised.

  • "Meanwhile others sanction (or tariff) countries they're at peace with for no discernible benefit to anyone." - MangoToupe
  • "Tariffs are a tax on your own population (no matter what Trump says). Which countries sanction friendly ally nations?" - victorbjorklund
  • "XorNot: 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)." - XorNot
  • "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." - herbst
  • "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." - victorbjorklund

The Complication of Trade During War (Ukraine Gas Example)

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the specific case of Ukraine transporting Russian gas to Europe while at war with Russia. This highlights the complexities and sometimes counterintuitive nature of economic relationships in geopolitical conflicts, involving legal contracts, potential financial ramifications, and strategic considerations.

  • "rho4: 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." - rho4
  • "Cthulhu_: 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." - Cthulhu_
  • "blackhaz: 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." - blackhaz
  • "awesome_dude: 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." - awesome_dude
  • "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." - XorNot

Perceptions of Gain vs. Material Profit

This theme explores the idea that "gain" in conflict isn't always material or financial, but can be driven by psychological factors like a perceived sense of victory or eliminating enemies.

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

Other Observations

  • War and Peace as a Spectrum: The idea that war and peace are not binary states but exist on a continuum.
    • "War and peace live on a spectrum" - OKRainbowKid
  • Family Shopping Across Borders: A personal anecdote about families traveling to different countries for cheaper goods, underscoring cross-border economic activity even with imposed restrictions.
    • "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." - ExoticPearTree
  • Technicalities of Pipelines: A technical point about how gas pipelines function, suggesting that simply "stopping" gas flow isn't always straightforward due to engineering realities.
    • "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." - scyzoryk_xyz
  • Historical Examples of Trading with Adversaries: A memory of the Islamic State trading in oil with other rebel groups, illustrating that trading across conflict lines can occur even in non-state actor scenarios.
    • "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." - KaiserPro
  • The Nature of Contracts in Conflict: A user questions whether war automatically nullifies contracts between belligerents, emphasizing the contractual obligations.
    • "blackhaz: 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." - blackhaz
  • Unreliable Agreements: A sentiment that agreements made between nations, especially regarding security guarantees, are not always reliable long-term.
    • "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)" - awesome_dude