The thing is, only the participants themselves can truly know what their goals are, so there is no one in a position to gainsay
In that case, your entire argument is tautological. Two parties entering into a transaction both benefit. How do we know? Because they entered into it, so it must be good for them. How do we test this supposition? We can't, because there is no way to accumulate a list of voluntary transactions and see whether the parties benefitted or not.
By the same token, we can argue that anyone taking a decision benefits. How do we know? because they took a decision. Junkies benefit from heroin. Consumers benefit from sub-prime debt. Lending institutions benefitted from investing in junk bonds. I benefit from spending time at work arguing this point with you.
I am going to go my way and leave you to go yours. If you believe that anything two nations do voluntarily is automatically good for both of them, who am I to undermine your faith?
In that case, your entire argument is tautological. Two parties entering into a transaction both benefit. How do we know? Because they entered into it, so it must be good for them. How do we test this supposition? We can't, because there is no way to accumulate a list of voluntary transactions and see whether the parties benefitted or not.
By the same token, we can argue that anyone taking a decision benefits. How do we know? because they took a decision. Junkies benefit from heroin. Consumers benefit from sub-prime debt. Lending institutions benefitted from investing in junk bonds. I benefit from spending time at work arguing this point with you.
I am going to go my way and leave you to go yours. If you believe that anything two nations do voluntarily is automatically good for both of them, who am I to undermine your faith?