War! What is it good for?

[davywavy]

Well, ridding Europe and Asia of gencoidal midgets c1939-45 was a pretty good start.

Further to my post on nuclear weapons a week or so ago, I've been thinking more about ways to stop people going to war and killing each other.
It's widely accepted that the prevelance of nuclear weapon ownership amongst major military powers has severely curtailed the incidence of the traditional stand-up-and-fight army vs. army nation state wars of the past, which can only be said to be a good thing. However, nuclear weapon ownership, even on both sides of a conflict, does not serve as an absolute guarantor of peace: witness India and Pakistan who still occasionally trade shots and rattle sabres over Kashmir. With this in mind I got me to wondering if there was any factor which absolutely prevented nations going to war with one another - and I found it. The United Nations? Not a chance. That impressively corrupt body has the odd succss on it's hands, but it seems that tends to be more by luck than judgement. The true means of spreading peace is an economic one and it's called the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict prevention.

What this theory states is simple: no two nations with McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war on each other*. Of course, this is due to wider economic factors and trade which would make it profoundly uneconomic to kick off on trading partners, but McDonalds (and more recently the Dell theory of Conflict Prevention, which states that no two nations which are a part of a global supply-chain network have ever gone to war on each other) seems to be the predicating factor.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the anti-globalisation protestors who spend their afternoons cheerfully lobbing bricks through the windows of McDonalds franchises rather than getting a job and earning an honest living are not only self-deluding, but they are in fact self-deluding warmongers. Rather than helping the poor innocent natives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso preserve their native way of life in the face of homogenising culture by attempting to slow or even reverse the spread of globalisation, they are in fact increasing the probability of those self-same natives dying in one of the internice brushfire conflicts to which those unlucky nations without branches of McDonalds and Dell outlets are so prone.
These anti-globalisation sorts should be rounded up and shot. It's the only language these people understand. And it's for the good of world peace, too, so everyone is a winner.

I look forward to the day when, rather then the UN showing up in trouble spots worldwide to sit and twiddle their thumbs whilst labouring under Byzantine rules of engagement and failing to save lives, peacekeeping forces show up in APCs gaudily painted red and gold with troops all dressed as Ronald McDonald. As the lessons of recent history show us, it's the most effective way of bringing peace to war zones that we have.

^{*Revised after the war in Yugoslavia}

Comments

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Damn those Slavs for breaking the might Pax McDonalds.

McDonalds, Mickey Mouse and Superman are powerful forces for global peace. None for the same reasons.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

McDonalds was founded in 1934, since which time only one war has been fought between nations with franchises. The UN was founded in 1945, and how many wears between UN members have been fought since?
As a force for global peace, my money is with the Golden Arches.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's going to be Chinese McDonald's.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I know, it's beautiful. Though McDonalds would be seen more as a side effect of the fact that a fairly large middle class is required before a McDonalds is established, so rather than importing the global Arches we should be creating situations worldwide where franchises naturally arise. One day I'd like to visit McDonalds Baghdad.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You what?

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

No one fights in countries with McDonalds because the fat content of the food renders everyone obese and unable to fight.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced by needing a large middle class - Panama, Guatemala and Nicaragua were all amongst the first international McDonalds Franchisees and they aren't famous for being rich and crammed with the Middle Class.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

The McDonalds business model requires certain demographics to move into countries... and its those demographics which also happen to dampen down warlike tendencies. At least that's my understanding. A growing and affluent middle class is one of these indicators.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

"Friedman's theory stipulates that when a country reaches the level of economic development where it has a middle class big enough to support a McDonald's network, it becomes a "McDonald's country". And people living in "McDonald's countries" do not like to fight expensive and tiresome foreign wars any more, they prefer to queue up for burgers and fries."

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So basically, wealth creation (i.e global capitalism) is the best way of ensuring world peace? Gee whillikers, I'd never have thought of that! :)
Looks like all my lefty chums are going to have to redically re-think their stances on globalisation or risk being exposed as hypocrites!

Dell + China + McDonald's = World Peace

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's a combination of the McDonald's and Dell theory of conflict resolution. Dell will absolutely not sell their products to Syria (for example) and other countries with 'issues.' That means that Damascus will still have the living bejesus bombed out of it as frequently as possible because it and their enemies will remain untouched by the soothing hand of Dell.

The Chinese, however, have no such qualms about dealing with a bunch of tanned bastards out to rustle a few feathers. And they're currently friendly with just about everyone (except the Japanese, who think they talk funny.) The implied consumer power of over 1 billion people tends to throw most companies and countries into a giddy daze that turns their pupils into dollar signs.

So if you combine the Greed Mobility of modern consumerist China with the peacefulness of McDonald's and Dell then you do have the ultimate solution to all the world's problems. It also means you get to burn even more protesters.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I'ma lefty, and globalisation is cool. It just needs to be carefully managed. The powers of capitalism could easily destroy small economies like African nations, we need to open up their markets but be prepared to give them an initial advantage... capitalism only works as a force for global good if everyone can play... so we need to help some people into the game. Currently the playing field is out of balance and we would just sink them further into poverty.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What you're talking about is free trade, which has traditionally been seen as 'right wing' economics. I'm all for it. Free trade, bring the tariffs down, and round up the people who thought of the common agricultural policy and shoot them.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I suspect most of your lefty chums can probably afford Free Trade Coffee.

They're already there.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Not free trade. Fair trade. Free trade still results in the smaller economies getting crushed under the economic juggernauts. You have to give the big economies a handicap until the smaller economies can play with the big boys. Then we let enlightened self interest rule supreme.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Free trade coffee? I ahven't seen that. I've seen "Fair Trade", which is by no means fair and I don't support for two reasons:

(Using coffee as an example)
1) The number of fair trade suppliers is limited, meaning that not all or even a majority are being paid more for their produce. When you ahve 'fair trade' and ordinary coffee producers in a region, the subsidy (eg the extra paid) for their produce means they can economically out-copete their local competitors and drive them out of business. This is contributint he a skewed economy and, oddly, increased poverty.
2) Fair trade coffee tends to cost about £1+ per 100g more than 'ordinary' coffee in the shops; the mug consumer tends to assume this is because the grower is getting £1 more for their produce, but not so. The grower is paid, on average, 2p - yes, tuppence - more per 100g than the non-fair trade growers. The other 98p goes to the brokers and supermarkets margin who reckon that the consumer (i.e. you and more) is dumb enough to cough up extra to help poor folks, and instead contribute to broker profits.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

See below for a short precis of what is wrong with 'fair trade', which would be better known as 'unfair non-trade'.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Most people would be hard pressed to actually want a world full of Fair Trade. All of our stupid little luxury items would suddenly become exponentially more expensive because the workers were making more than 18p a day.

It's a bit like cold fusion. Nice in theory....

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

It's odd. If it's done in Eurupe we call it 'unfair subsidy'. In Africa it's called 'fair trade'. Funny old world, innit?

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Fair Trade rather, sorry.

Fair Trade anything is rarely fair as you say.

What I find most entertaining is the people who purchase Fair Trade coffee are of a certain guilty middle class liberal demographic. They're devout Guardian readers who attained some wealth and now want to spread some 'love' around the world. They're the ones who buy into the advertising campaign and can afford to do so consistently.

There was an article in the Economist about the economics of liberalism a few months ago. It pointed out what you just said and also said that the best way to 'help' these people is rarely by purchasing anything that has a label on it.

All marketing

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's only unfair to subsidize Europeans because their babies aren't nearly as cute as the little African tikes. Put a big eyed Ethiopian on the poster and you could sell crack to Bob Geldoff.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

In europe Cows get paid twice the minimum needed to sustain human life. This is wrong. This is an unfair subsidy.

In Latin America it is cheaper to buy imported US Corn than it is to buy the local stuff. This is because of the US subsidies. And because the US only gave them vital aid if they agreed to open their markets to them.

The current fair trade movement is an awareness raising system only. True Fair Trade on a global scale would be less extreme than the current system. Frankly all it would need are some minimum labour and wage standards, and some limitations on the Northern nations ability to dominate the markets and we'd be away.

Take the tesco model for example. They require that there is no child/slave labour in their factories in the developing world, that a fair wage is paid and that there is freedom of association and the ability to join trade unions etc. They manage this through a series of ethical and technical audits. Yet they still manage to bring dirt cheap products into the UK and make shedloads of money. This is a good thing.

Now, if world trade rules enforced this sort of thing for all companies, and we didn't make use of capitalism to exploit developing nations to our maximum ability, then we could truly have world peace and prosperity.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So you mean - do away with protectionist trade tariffs and subsidies to local producers? That is free trade, and it's what I was talking about above. Do that and you won't need to give subsidies to the third world as they will be able to compete fairly.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

The Fair Trade campaign is an awareness raising campaign. It is not a panacea for the ills of the developing nations. Only the WTO can be the fix that we need.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

They cannot compete fairly and *safely* even with the tariffs gone. You just end up with children in sweat-shops that way, rather than in education that will improve their nation long term. There need to be extra checks and balances put in place to stop unlimited free trade doing as much damage as protectionist policies do.