Yes, I think the real takeaway is that people are not rational actors and people in positions of massive power even less so.

I think there was an assumption baked into globalism that heads of state would behave in the best interest of their citizens, but that's only even approximately true when the country is a functioning democracy. In an authoritarian state, what's good for the leader may vary wildly from what's good for the people. One could argue that the entire point of autocratic power is for the leader to be able to do what their people don't want.

And once you have someone with that level of power and no obligations to the masses, there should be no expectation that they will be have rationally or in the economic interests of the entire country. As long as it benefits their perverse psychology or isolated offshore bank accounts, it's on the table.

Pretty thin experiment to be making conclusions on though.

There can be lots of scenarios where the last 70 years saw lots more war.

Especially the "people in power are even less rational" part. The 99% might seem more predictable than the 1% only because the law of large numbers smooths out the random, unpredictable irrational acts.

That's a good point. It may simultaneously be true that globalism doesn't prevent irrational war to the degree that we had hoped, but it does still prevent it more than some other economic alternative.

(Personally, I think the best way to prevent war is non-corrupt democracies with little autocratic power concentration and a strong fair press. Most people don't want to go to war and kill others, so when you give the entire populace agency over what the military does, you get a lot less irrational wars.)

> I'd bought into the idea that heavily intertwined economies tended to prevent war

Hardly a novel error, at least: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

I think given the speed of information today people have too high exceptions just how fast something like sanctions would take to work.

it is not a "One Click, Buy now, next day delivery" Amazon Prime type of thing, we have come to expect INSTANT RESULTS, that is just not how Geo Politics works

I also find it amusing when people say Gas price increases are due to Russia... Those are comming for sure, but no there has not been enough time for Russia's action to impact gas prices.. not yet.... But brace for it...

Politicians love to Cease on current events to explain economic results that are actually months or years in the making

Prices change in anticipation of changes to supply and demand, even if those changes have not occurred yet. The stock market will swing down on the announcement of an interest rate hike, even if such a hike hasn't taken place yet. So it's entirely reasonable to attribute price increases to current events (although it is still worth pointing out that it's only a contributing factor, since inflation has been quite high for months).

You forget one critical thing, there is vast difference between stock and Commodity trading which is 100% speculation based vs Physical goods pricing which is not.

The idea that business are adjusting their physical goods sold pricing based on news events is laughable, I know of ZERO businesses that do that.

The price of gasoline seems to follow extremely tightly with the price of crude oil.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2501/crude-oil-vs-gasoline-price...

Yeah I think it takes only one madman at the rudder to grind global trade and diplomacy to a halt.