9 ms·

This reminds me of the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention[0]: "No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell's, will ever fight

by Yhippa 4y ago

This reminds me of the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention[0]: "No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell's, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain. I think this has largely proven true, and as certain supply chains look to onshore, this can have geopolitical implications. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat#Dell_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat#Dell_Theory_...

drowsspa 4y ago
Is this the new "no countries with McDonald's go to war"?
- Yhippa 4y ago
  It is! I went down the rabbit hole on this one. It was a follow up to Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches" theory which you just described.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  It's the new "The Great Illusion", this idea has been repeatedly recycled and debunked for more than a century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    The thing is, The Great Illusion isn't wrong. Economic interdependency is a deterrent to war. It's just that its not a very good one, because the capitalism singularity is not powerful enough to overthrow the nationalism singularity[0]. Cultural ties can provide another deterrent: for example, you wouldn't imagine, say, New York and New Jersey going to war[1]. But even then, Russia and Ukraine were rather close and still are despite the former trying to genocide the latter. The most effective deterrent to war is to put the fear of death in the people who decide whether or not to start wars. MAD theory, while technically wrong, was a good enough story that it averted several catastrophic nuclear attacks. If only because the people with their fingers on the buttons second-guessed themselves long enough for reports to come in that it was actually just the light reflecting off the ocean and not an incoming American ICBM. [0] Yes, I mean this in the same context that one might refer to a technological singularity. Social existence today is a nested hierarchy of supra-individual social structures, of which superhuman AGI will merely be one of its subagents. [1] Though they did come close in the 1800s over Staten Island. They call it the Empire State for a reason.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > The Great Illusion isn't wrong. Economic interdependency is a deterrent to war. It's just that its not a very good one, The premise of The Great Illusion is that international trade is a very good deterrent to war. The book doesn't argue that it's an 'okay-ish' deterrent to war, it claimed that WW1 was extremely unlikely to occur and that if it did, it would be over quickly. Not only did WW1 happen, so did WW2 a few years later. Neither war was short, and even more and bloodier wars after WW2 would have been a damn good bet if not for the invention of nuclear bombs.
alexpotato 4y ago
Counter-example (quoted from one of the Tom Clancy novels): "Who was Germany's biggest trading partner prior to the outbreak of World War 2? France"
- kjkjadksj 4y ago
  Thats a little different because Germany intended to take over France and incorporate it into its economy, which it did for a few years at least.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    It was the same thing with WW1. WW2 wasn't some sort of special case or aberration.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Plus France, and to a lesser extent other countries, inflicted extremely punitive economic costs on Germany following WW1 that were arguably designed to reduce Germany to client/vassal status. Whereas the victors of WW1 had a wholly legitimate argument for the abolition of the German monarchy, elimination of the German general staff and so on, the German public suffered disproportionately to their degree of political agency. When I was younger I considered economic sanctions a far preferable alternative to the brutality of kinetic warfare, in line with the prevailing view of western statecraft. Over time I've come to think it's significantly worse, little more than a form of state terrorism in which populations are politely murdered. While the architects of such policies talk about accountability, containment, etc in reference to unfriendly leaders they'd like to displace, starving children and blaming it on someone else is fundamentally genocidal and in my view constitutes a grave moral crime. I was disgusted by the eulogies heaped upon the late Madeline Albright, because when I think of her I can only remember her assertion that the deaths of 1/2 a million Iraqi children in the 1990s was 'worth it.'
- shadowgovt 4y ago
orange_joe 4y ago
Variants of this are always stated, and always made false in relatively short order. Many claimed Europe was too interdependent for continental warfare, then WWI happened. No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded. Prior to WWII, France was Germany’s largest trading partner. It is wishful thinking to assume that money or financial systems will keep peace — in part because there is massive incentive to invade other countries as means of theft.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Would you agree that interdependency, cooperation, etc. materially reduces the chances of such conflicts?
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Seems plausible yet there are many counterexamples. How would you demonstrate such a hypothesis was true?
  - Analemma_ 4y ago
    Not really. I don't see much of a correlation between trade linkage and conflict or lack thereof. The only thing that seems to prevent conflict is a hegemon, or an 800-pound gorilla keeping the peace.
  - orange_joe 4y ago
    I don’t think I would. The defining conflict of the latter 20th century was the Cold War, a war in which one side (the USSR) was essentially dependent on American food exports. Moreover, the USSR’s economy was totally integrated between each of the SSRs, yet its shattering led to the vast number of late 20th century, early 21st century conflicts within the European world. So too was Yugoslavia’s economy. When it fell apart, it led to a series of bloody conflicts and genocides. The former USSR states and the former Yugoslavian states were more interdependent than any transnational organization, yet their post collapse conflicts define the existence of entire regions.
    - 4y ago
kjkjadksj 4y ago
Even if the business might be onshored, your investors are still global.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Isn't this just the 'democracies don't fight wars' conjecture of International Relations extended to corporate entities? It seems like a hubristic assertion of business over demographic interests that will look increasingly quaint in the future, much like the power fantasies about the East India Company do now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by Yhippa 4y ago

drowsspa 4y ago

Is this the new "no countries with McDonald's go to war"?

Yhippa 4y ago
It is! I went down the rabbit hole on this one. It was a follow up to Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches" theory which you just described.
LarryMullins 4y ago
It's the new "The Great Illusion", this idea has been repeatedly recycled and debunked for more than a century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  The thing is, The Great Illusion isn't wrong. Economic interdependency is a deterrent to war. It's just that its not a very good one, because the capitalism singularity is not powerful enough to overthrow the nationalism singularity[0]. Cultural ties can provide another deterrent: for example, you wouldn't imagine, say, New York and New Jersey going to war[1]. But even then, Russia and Ukraine were rather close and still are despite the former trying to genocide the latter. The most effective deterrent to war is to put the fear of death in the people who decide whether or not to start wars. MAD theory, while technically wrong, was a good enough story that it averted several catastrophic nuclear attacks. If only because the people with their fingers on the buttons second-guessed themselves long enough for reports to come in that it was actually just the light reflecting off the ocean and not an incoming American ICBM. [0] Yes, I mean this in the same context that one might refer to a technological singularity. Social existence today is a nested hierarchy of supra-individual social structures, of which superhuman AGI will merely be one of its subagents. [1] Though they did come close in the 1800s over Staten Island. They call it the Empire State for a reason.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > The Great Illusion isn't wrong. Economic interdependency is a deterrent to war. It's just that its not a very good one, The premise of The Great Illusion is that international trade is a very good deterrent to war. The book doesn't argue that it's an 'okay-ish' deterrent to war, it claimed that WW1 was extremely unlikely to occur and that if it did, it would be over quickly. Not only did WW1 happen, so did WW2 a few years later. Neither war was short, and even more and bloodier wars after WW2 would have been a damn good bet if not for the invention of nuclear bombs.

alexpotato 4y ago

Counter-example (quoted from one of the Tom Clancy novels): "Who was Germany's biggest trading partner prior to the outbreak of World War 2? France"

kjkjadksj 4y ago
Thats a little different because Germany intended to take over France and incorporate it into its economy, which it did for a few years at least.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  It was the same thing with WW1. WW2 wasn't some sort of special case or aberration.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Plus France, and to a lesser extent other countries, inflicted extremely punitive economic costs on Germany following WW1 that were arguably designed to reduce Germany to client/vassal status. Whereas the victors of WW1 had a wholly legitimate argument for the abolition of the German monarchy, elimination of the German general staff and so on, the German public suffered disproportionately to their degree of political agency. When I was younger I considered economic sanctions a far preferable alternative to the brutality of kinetic warfare, in line with the prevailing view of western statecraft. Over time I've come to think it's significantly worse, little more than a form of state terrorism in which populations are politely murdered. While the architects of such policies talk about accountability, containment, etc in reference to unfriendly leaders they'd like to displace, starving children and blaming it on someone else is fundamentally genocidal and in my view constitutes a grave moral crime. I was disgusted by the eulogies heaped upon the late Madeline Albright, because when I think of her I can only remember her assertion that the deaths of 1/2 a million Iraqi children in the 1990s was 'worth it.'
shadowgovt 4y ago

orange_joe 4y ago

Variants of this are always stated, and always made false in relatively short order. Many claimed Europe was too interdependent for continental warfare, then WWI happened. No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded. Prior to WWII, France was Germany’s largest trading partner. It is wishful thinking to assume that money or financial systems will keep peace — in part because there is massive incentive to invade other countries as means of theft.

andsoitis 4y ago
Would you agree that interdependency, cooperation, etc. materially reduces the chances of such conflicts?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Seems plausible yet there are many counterexamples. How would you demonstrate such a hypothesis was true?
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  Not really. I don't see much of a correlation between trade linkage and conflict or lack thereof. The only thing that seems to prevent conflict is a hegemon, or an 800-pound gorilla keeping the peace.
- orange_joe 4y ago
  I don’t think I would. The defining conflict of the latter 20th century was the Cold War, a war in which one side (the USSR) was essentially dependent on American food exports. Moreover, the USSR’s economy was totally integrated between each of the SSRs, yet its shattering led to the vast number of late 20th century, early 21st century conflicts within the European world. So too was Yugoslavia’s economy. When it fell apart, it led to a series of bloody conflicts and genocides. The former USSR states and the former Yugoslavian states were more interdependent than any transnational organization, yet their post collapse conflicts define the existence of entire regions.
  - 4y ago

kjkjadksj 4y ago

Even if the business might be onshored, your investors are still global.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Isn't this just the 'democracies don't fight wars' conjecture of International Relations extended to corporate entities? It seems like a hubristic assertion of business over demographic interests that will look increasingly quaint in the future, much like the power fantasies about the East India Company do now.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]