Summary: The 2026 World Cup has highlighted the remarkable abundance of everyday life in the United States, as international visitors have enthusiastically embraced experiences that many Americans take for granted. This viral phenomenon reflects the country’s high standard of living while illustrating how economic dynamism, open markets, and private enterprise contribute to widespread prosperity and hospitality. The influx of foreign visitors also demonstrates tourism’s value as both a major economic export and a source of American soft power, strengthening international goodwill through personal experiences rather than government efforts.

---

As briefly mentioned in my last column for The Dispatch, World Cup tourists’ repeated astonishment with everyday American abundance has become a viral sensation—and in a very good way. Seemingly not a day goes by without some happy foreign soccer fan raving on social media or to the press about quintessentially “American” things—free drink refills, bottomless chips and salsa, ginormous sports stadiums, fancy cars, big houses, ranch dressing, frigid air conditioning, shiny hospitals, etc.—that we consider relatively mundane features of daily life in the United States. (Buc-ee’s, Costco, and Texas Roadhouse have been particularly big hits, and for good reason.)

These viral posts have delighted American onlookers and captured endless media commentary on how the foreigners’ innocent—and often hilarious—observations have helped unite a divided U.S. and remind us locals of just how good we have it. In an era of endless grousing about the U.S. economy—reflected in various surveys of American “sentiment” and sometimes even justified—the ongoing episode has been a welcome, optimistic change of pace and a loud, folk-libertarian reminder that a nation’s capital, policies, and political class are most definitely not the same as its communities and citizens.

The scenes have also raised several noteworthy economic policy points—some good, some ominous—that deserve more attention.

Yes, We Have It Pretty Darn Good

For starters, the amazement of relatively wealthy foreigners—you don’t take weeks off touring America if you’re dirt poor—at relatively middle-class American environments is real-world evidence of our nation’s immense everyday wealth. 

The timing couldn’t be better (and, no, I’m not talking about the A/C-less heatwave in Europe).

As The Economist just documented, earlier this year Nobel laureate Paul Krugman and several other elite economists got into a heated (and very wonky) online debate about whether Americans’ living standards really were zooming ahead of those of our European counterparts.  The main point of contention was how to measure individuals’ purchasing power in both places, with one approach showing an increasing wealth gap and the other (Krugman’s) a relatively steady one. You can see the difference in the chart below: Using a constant “purchasing power parity” adjustment shows France’s GDP per capita—a standard way to measure individual wealth—to be declining versus that of the U.S., while using a “current PPP” adjustment shows little long term change, and thus a different wealth narrative.

As someone who loves both visiting foreign countries and returning home to my American creature comforts, I freely admit my biases in this debate. But both sides do raise some legitimate issues about how we should measure living standards across countries, as well as what should be measured. Overall, the debate has been delightfully intense and catty—at least for nerds like me.

Yet, as The Economist points out, both sides also seem to agree on a few things: First, Europe is growing more slowly than America, thanks in large part to the economic dynamism and tech-fueled productivity here. Second, even Krugman’s pro-Europe data (see chart above)—along with many other sources—show Americans to have higher average wages and more disposable income (yes, even after accounting for out-of-pocket healthcare costs) than the average European in most places (yes, there are exceptions), due to our superior labor productivity and their leisure choices. Third, and most importantly, both sides want to support their reading of the data with an “eye test”—i.e., visiting each place and just looking around—that the economists believe will confirm their own American/European wealth story. 

Hilariously enough, thousands of European World Cup tourists—along with ones from Japan and other countries, too—have performed just that test, mere days after the economists proposed it. And the result is an absolute rout for Team America:

There are many reasons for the foreigners’ astonishment. (A big one, in my opinion, is that these folks are seeing parts of Real America, especially in the Sun Belt and Midwest, that foreign tourists rarely visit, yet—as we’ve discussed here repeatedly—allow not-rich Americans to live very comfortable lives.) And, to be sure, not all the astonishment is genuine. 

But a lot of it obviously is, and at its root lies the Great American Prosperity Machine. Deal with it, haters.

Capitalist “Charity” Is Still Good

Another fascinating and wholesome part of the foreigners’ U.S. experience has been the outpouring of support they’ve received from both normie Americans—workers, neighbors, random passersby, etc.—and a wide range of American celebrities and companies. Most notable in this regard has been German soccer (fußball) fan Freddy, whose daily adventures in Middle America have earned him a giant online following and a Forrest Gump-like amount of in-kind support from pro sports teams, hotels, airlines, and a smattering of famous athletes, entertainers, and politicians (including at least one sitting governor who volunteered to help Freddy attend Germany’s game in Toronto after a flight cancellation). Freddy’s experience is unique, but only in terms of its magnitude: A wide range of U.S. businesses, municipalities, and influencers have rolled out the red carpet for these happy foreign visitors, greatly adding to the entire feel-good experience.

Unsurprisingly, this support has led dismissive cynics to explain that, actually, a lot of it is just a selfish attempt to boost sales, brands, and online engagement instead of genuine generosity and kindness. Some of those allegations are clearly false, but the correct ones are hardly worth complaining about. Instead, they evoke yet another lesson from Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Scholars (ahem) often apply this quote to explain that “selfish” market transactions among free people are not only mutually beneficial but also can have broader social benefits and generate the wealth individuals need to perform charity (which Americans do a lot of, by the way). But Smith’s famous line also often applies to many “charitable” acts by corporations and celebrities: While maybe not motivated by pure altruism, these efforts are often a strategic effort to drive long-term profitability by improving brand reputation, attracting customers and workers, and generating more sales. 

There’s little reason to view such motivation as unseemly. First, the act still makes people better off in some way (and often entertains and encourages onlookers, too), so who cares whether it was done for “benevolent” or “selfish” reasons? “Dinner,” in Smith’s terms, still gets served. Second, it’s usually impossible to say why these “charitable” people and firms decided to help Freddy (and any others in need)—and it’s usually a combination of both sympathy and self-interest/promotion. On the latter motivation, see point 1 and Smith above. On the former, check out his other book.

Tourism as a Massive US Services Export (And Source of “Soft Power”)

Admittedly, the World Cup visitor story isn’t all wine and roses, and there are—as noted—some less-optimistic policy lessons buried in here, too. For one thing, all these visitors are a stark reminder of the economic and geopolitical value of foreign tourism—and its recent, policy-driven decline here in America.

As we discussed last year, one of the more interesting and unfortunate results of Trump’s tariff wars, deportations, and related overseas antagonism (threatening to invade Greenland, calling Canada the “51^st state,” etc.) has been foreigners’ independent retaliation against U.S. goods and services. And tourism—a U.S. services export—has been the trend’s most conspicuous victim. According to a May 2026 Congressional Research Service report, in fact, international visits were down in 10 of 12 months last year, with the only increases coming before Trump took office (January) and due to an abnormally late Easter (April):

This drop, in turn, hurt lots of American businesses and likely reduced U.S. economic growth last year by billions of dollars:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2023, travel and tourism (both domestic and international) accounted for approximately 3% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), a nonprofit organization that advocates for and researches global tourism, international visitor spending in the United States was approximately $176 billion in 2025, a 4.6% decrease from 2024. WTTC further noted that GDP for the travel and tourism sector increased 4.1% globally in 2025 from 2024 but grew 0.9% for the United States.

On the bright side, CRS goes on to note that the World Cup could boost foreign visits and GDP growth in 2026, and—judging from the packed bars/restaurants and sky-high prices for match tickets, airline fares, and hotel rooms—you can easily see why. Even with a few embarrassing visa-related snafus, the monthlong event has been going pretty smoothly so far and is forecast to attract almost 1.25 million international visitors, each expected to spend more than $5,000 (nearly twice the typical international tourist). None of that erases the roughly $12.5 billion in lost international visitor spending that WTTC projected for 2025, but it’s still a welcome rebound—especially for the smaller American businesses that depend heavily on foreign tourist spending each year.

The scenes of international comity surrounding the World Cup in 2026 are also a vivid, real-time reminder of how U.S. tourism is a market-based source of America’s “soft power,” improving the United States’ image abroad and advancing U.S. geopolitical objectives without spending taxpayer dollars (or doing stuff far worse than just that). Scholars call this the “contact hypothesis,” i.e., the notion that person-to-person encounters can affect overseas perceptions of a country in ways that no government messaging campaign or foreign aid package can match. World Cup visitors’ ecstatic consumption of everyday Americana is soft power in (mostly) organic form, with our culture, hospitality, and abundance doing the diplomatic work that American government officials can’t (or won’t) do.

To be clear, the goodwill America earns from Waffle House, Bass Pro Shops, Fenway Park—and the Americans who live and work near these and other iconic spots—doesn’t automatically translate into durable shifts in foreign acceptance of U.S. policy. But at a time when America’s global image has taken a few (ahem) hits, having a million-plus foreigners document their travels and return home as amateur American ambassadors is a welcome development, reminding people everywhere that the words of one guy in the Oval Office don’t represent a 350 million-person country. 

The only question is whether the foreign tourism boost—and good vibes—can continue after the World Cup ends. The answer, unfortunately, will probably not be in Costco’s hands.

Seeing the Linkages Between Trade and Peace

Relatedly, all these good vibes are a nice reminder of one of the ways that trade—in this case both foreign tourism and global sports entertainment—can help encourage peace. As I documented in a 2020 paper, a wide body of research finds that heightened foreign trade can meaningfully reduce (but not eliminate) the chances of armed international conflict through several channels: 

First, by making countries more commercially interdependent, trade encourages these nations to avoid war or other large-scale armed conflicts (which could impose substantial economic losses). Second, trade and commercial bargaining are more cost-effective than war as a means of resolving disputes with, or obtaining resources from, another country. Third, trade increases material prosperity (e.g., goods, services, investment, ideas) and promotes mutual tolerance and understanding. And fourth, free trade can limit the political power of domestic constituencies that may benefit from increased conflict.

Recent studies reinforce these conclusions. One finds a strong causal “peace dividend” from trade generally, i.e., that a doubling of bilateral trade reduces the probability of militarized conflict by roughly 30 percent. Elsewhere, a recent survey of almost 2,000 Japanese firms finds they routinely pushed for diplomatic solutions to supply-chain disruptions involving allies and adversaries alike—new support for the concept of “commercial peace,” i.e., that global businesses have powerful incentives to oppose wars that might harm their facilities (or, you know, kill their customers).

Regardless of the driver, however, the outcome is clear: While global economic integration can’t eliminate armed conflicts, policies that liberalize trade can make peace among nations more likely—especially when compared to the isolationist, antagonistic alternative the U.S. government is pursuing today.

In their modest but viral way, the million-plus foreigners now cheering in American bars are making a similar point.

A version of this article was published at The Dispatch on 6/25/2026.

“The European Council on Monday gave the green light for the European Union to sign ​two deals governing trade, security and cooperation between ‌the European Union and Mexico…

The Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) would remove ​tariffs on goods such as EU agri-food exports and boost raw materials ‌cooperation ⁠while the Political, Economic and Cooperation Strategic Partnership Agreement (MGA) comes into effect.”

From Reuters.

Summary: Trade does more than increase economic prosperity—it also fosters peace. By strengthening economic interdependence and aligning material incentives, trade reduces the likelihood of both interstate and civil conflict. A growing body of empirical research shows that open markets and cross-border exchange act as powerful constraints on violence, complementing or even surpassing the effects of democratic institutions.

---

In earlier essays, I argued that trade makes us richer, more trusting, more honest, more fair, and more tolerant. In this final essay, I will show that trade also promotes peace and mitigates the outbreak of war. Distrust, corruption, unfairness, and intolerance can often erupt into violence. By undermining these less-than-desirable attitudes and behaviors, trade can help reduce violence as well. But it may be even more straightforward than that: it’s simply not a good idea to maim or kill your customers or suppliers. War is bad for business. When you rely on others to buy your product or supply your needs, rocking the relational boat seems suboptimal. As economist Christopher Blattman wrote in his book Why We Fight,

Interdependence doesn’t eliminate the risk of war. There could still be a commitment problem, uncertainty, or unchecked leaders that push our two groups to fight. But because of entwined material interests, these forces must now overcome even more powerful incentives for compromise than usual. The gravitational pull of peace has grown stronger.

In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Harvard’s psychology professor Steven Pinker documented the worldwide decline in violence throughout history. One major contender for the driver of this more peaceful trend is known among international relations scholars as the democratic peace theory. As explained by Pinker, “Democratic government is designed to resolve conflicts among citizens by consensual rule of law, and so democracies should externalize this ethic in dealing with other states.” Trust in the procedures of democracy consequently builds trust between democratic governments. “Finally,” Pinker notes, “since democratic leaders are accountable to their people, they should be less likely to initiate stupid wars that enhance their glory at the expense of their citizenries’ blood and treasure.”

While the liberal peace theory remains influential, a growing wave of empirical research over the last three decades suggests that markets may play a bigger role than the ballot box. This shift in consensus toward what’s known as the capitalist peace theory posits that trade openness and economic interdependence are among the primary forces that mitigate war. Of course, scholars continue to debate over how much trade and economic freedom contribute to peace. But liberal peace theorists now include economic interdependence as an essential element within the broader liberal peace project. Economic interdependence is “part of the glue that cements the ‘liberal peace’ together.” As trade has grown worldwide, so has peace (see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Growth in Global Trade

Figure 2. The Rate of Wars Worldwide

French economist Frédéric Bastiat wrote that trade barriers “create isolation, isolation gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion.” And an abundance—and I do mean abundance—of empirical studies have shown Bastiat to be correct: trade indeed reduces interstate military conflict (see Figure 3). Other studies further solidify the adversarial relationship between trade and international violence: while trade reduces conflict, international conflict in turn reduces trade. One pair of scholars put it succinctly: “The positive relationship between economic interdependence and peaceful relationships is so well established that research now focuses on the conditions that cause variations.”

Figure 3. Trade and the Reduction of Conflict

Of course, these conditions and variations matter. For example, one study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution found that trade overall reduces conflict, but the pacifying effects vary by industry: trade in manufactured goods has a stronger pacifying effect than agricultural trade or trade in raw materials. Thus, trade in some industries yields more peace than others. Also, mere membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the World Trade Organization does not appear to reduce conflict. Countries must actually trade.

Civil war is also less likely to break out where trade is present. A 2012 study controlled for a number of variables, including income per capita, growth rates, total population, ethnic fractionalization, and oil exportation. It found that higher levels of economic globalization—including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, import barriers, tariff rates, and the overall extent of trade—reduce the risk of civil war. A 2016 study demonstrated that secure property rights, high-quality legal institutions, sound money, and free trade lower the probability of civil war. Covering the period between 1970 and 1999, political scientists Katherine Barbieri and Rafael Reuveny found that international trade, foreign direct investment, and foreign portfolio investment reduce the risk of civil war in all states observed.

As is well known, civil wars are more likely to take place between different ethnic groups. In many cases, ethnic groups silo themselves off from one another, escalating distrust and hostility toward out-groups. Trade barriers play a role in this siloing. It turns out that barriers to trade entry can produce what economist Saumitra Jha has labeled as ethnic cronyism: a set of “ethnic trading networks” often “based upon personal and community ties.” Jha’s analysis of South Asian medieval ports demonstrated that trade and low barriers to trade entry made these areas five times less prone to religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims in the period from 1850 to 1950. During the same period, these areas were 25 percentage points less likely to experience any religious rioting. Between 1950 and 1995, these areas were still less than half as likely to experience ethnic rioting.

Violence does not mean traditional interstate or civil wars alone; it often begins with how states treat their citizens. The closing and centralization of the economy is, to borrow from economist Don Lavoie, the militarization of the economy. Militarized central planners tend to wage war on their own citizens. Crucially, trade openness acts as a check on this central power, keeping potentially violent governments at bay.

Barbara Harff, a leading expert in the study of genocide and political mass killings, examined incidences of genocide between 1955 and 1997. One factor that decreases the risk of political mass murder, she found, is economic interdependence. Political scientist Clair Apodaca has also shown trade to be “advantageous to guaranteeing human rights,” with foreign direct investment being “favorable for human rights.” Emilie M. Hafner-Burton of UC San Diego summarized the state of the scholarship well: “One of the key discoveries of the past few decades is that it is possible to promote human rights by encouraging economic openness and growth through trade and investment…Market-oriented economic development…is correlated with better protections for human rights.”

Over two centuries ago, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers (or means) that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace[.]” Others echoed this sentiment. “PEACE,” Montesquieu argued, “is the natural effect of trade.” In Rights of Man, American revolutionary Thomas Paine described commerce as “a pacific system, operating to unite mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other…If commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable of, it would extirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the uncivilized state of governments.”

These philosophers and revolutionaries were correct. In the end, trade steers us away from war and brutality and toward peaceful cooperation. If we care about a future that is richer, freer, and more humane, then keeping markets open and people connected through trade is one of the surest paths to a more peaceful world.

“The Democratic Republic of Congo and the M23 rebel group signed on Saturday a framework agreement for a peace deal aimed at ending fighting in eastern Congo that has killed thousands of people and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year.

The agreement was signed by representatives from both sides at a ceremony in the Qatari capital Doha.

It was the latest of several documents that have been signed in recent months as part of efforts, backed by the United States and Qatar, to end the decades-long conflict in Congo that has often threatened to escalate into a full-blown regional war.

The framework was described by U.S. and Qatari officials as an important step to peace but one of many that lie ahead.”

From Reuters.