No country with a Mc
Donalds outlet has ever gone to war with another.
This theory was first disproved between Yugoslavia and _____ in 19__. Mc
Donalds really needs to be more careful whom they give franchises to.
A theory which puts the cart before the horse. If no country with a Mc
Donalds had gone to war with another, it was only because, at first, the franchises had been opened among mutually friendly countries.
According to James Cantalupo, the 52-year-old president of Mc
Donalds International, Mc
Donalds is a "symbol ... of international maturity". He claims: "I don't think that there is a country out there we haven't gotten inquiries from. I have a parade of ambassadors and trade representatives in here regularly to tell us about their country and why Mc
Donalds would be good for them."
As a corollary to this (incorrect) theory, the cessation of a war will often precipitate the arrival of McDonalds into a country.
Should be expect Mc
Donalds in Baghdad soon?
A friend and I discussed the possibility of lasting, stable peace between the USA and USSR back in the late 1970's. We had thought even then that the way to keep one nation from poking the eye of another was to get them mutually dependent on each other financially. (Please don't clutter this argument with certain facts, like the fact that Germany and France were each other's biggest trading partner immediately prior to WWI.)
A more welcome fact: the EU (or rather, the organizations which were later merged to form the the EU's predecessor, the EC, namely the EEC, ECSC and Euratom) was founded with exactly this aim - to promote trade between the nations of Europe and so make any future war between them impossible. Read the Schuman Declaration if you're skeptical.
Can this behavior be applied to business/engineering relationships?
We all know that the "partnership" between business, sales, marketing, and engineering is supposed to produce quality products that provide real value to customers. However, the forces involved (anybody smell a properly-formatted Wiki page coming?) are such that all sides vie for supremacy as their empires are being built. How can we specify a pattern for behavior that makes all these elements really dependent on each other? How do we enforce such behavior?
Discussion from other pages welcome.
proposed a shared power grid connecting the US and USSR across the north pole as a way to discourage nuclear war. He reasoned that equalizing power demand and production between the two sides of the planet would outweigh the increased transmission costs and power loss.
This all sounds great in theory, but reality is (as usual) more cynical. Shared commercial infrastructure only deters violence when violence hurts profits. Most successful corporate entities will find a way to profit from violence. A good example is Royal Dutch Shell, which sold petroleum to warring nations throughout WorldWarTwo?
IIRC, there was a mathematician named Ritchie who was also a Quaker and a stretcher bearer in WWI. He created a model of when nations would go to war and basically what it said was that when the sum of the trade between 2 bordering nations was less than the sum of military expenditures, eh probably of war greatly increased. This is actually part of the impetus of the entire free trade push (though IMO it is badly implemented). If nations are economically interdependent, then war is economic suicide. Also, I believe Oscar Wilde said 'Familiarity breeds children', people crossing borders intermarry and develop friendships, reducing xenophobia and making war even less desirable.
See also BigMacIndex