[WS:] I think this oversimplifies things. It is not that economics does not play a huge role in politics, but there is a lot in politics that cannot be reduced to economics. A lot of it high brow pissing contests, showing the other guy that ours is bigger or preventing him from getting something that he may want. The US policy toward Japan before WW2 may be an example of it - blocking Japan's access to oil was pretty tangential to the US economic interests, but it certainly kept Japan in its subordinate place.
More generally, I find "economism" less and less attractive. It all started with reading Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." I knew it was bullshit but for a while I could not pinpoint exactly why. I knew it was economic determinism, but then what is wrong with economic determinism?
Then I read Ryszard Kapuscinski's 'The Emperor" in particular "A man does not seize an ax in defense of his wallet, but in defense of his dignity." It occurred to me that economic determinism is wrong not because it reduces human behavior to a few simplistic economic factors, but because it obscures more about this behavior than it can possibly explain. What matters to people is their dignity, social social status, position, respect desirability, sex appeal and the like. Efficient bean counting is not on that list. If people engage in it, they typically do so to achieve things that really matter to them, such as dignity, status, etc.
So the reason why Friedman was dead wrong with his argument is that capitalism will not necessarily bring freedom because of the factors that sociopaths like Friedman has never dreamed about - that people use their economic position, low or high, to buy things that matter to them. Some people use the fruits of their economic efficiency to buy new homes, cars, or may be to free themselves from the everyday drudgery and travel to exotic countries. But other may use these fruits to free themselves that they find morally offensive, such as equal rights for women or minorities. In the pursuit of things that matter, people are prepare to pay the premium - be it in the form of a surcharge to the selling price, or in the form of drags on the economic performance of their business (which Friedman wanted us to believe.)
The same can be extend to foreign relations. Wasting billions on supporting lost causes such as the Mujahadeen was the price to pay for denying the "damn Ruskies" a free pass to Afghanistan - a country of little economic significance to US national interests. I think that macho pissing contests between big ego stuffed shirt politicians and "leaders" can explain as much if not more in foreign relations as economic interests.
Wojtek