pro-capitalism

adnans

no two countries with McDonalds fast food restaurants have fought against each other in war. discuss.

adnans

WhiteWashMan

i think greece and turkey have been at a state of war and have sunk a few of each others ships. and ive been to mcdonalds in both.

bonkey

I assume you mean "...since McDonalds entered the country"

India and Pakistan both have McDonalds, but hopefully are not about to disprove the theory.

The quote originates from some work of Thomas Friedman. Its underlying concept is that McDonalds only choose to go into countries which have an underlying stable political and sufficiently dvanced economic climate, and that such nations are so economically intertwined with each other that war is simply not an attractive option.

Of course, looking at Argentina, we could argue that :

a) Had McDonalds entered 4 years earlier, the Falklands would not have happened.
b) McDonalds will now pull out of Argentina, as its political and economic climates are too unstable to remain a "safe bet".

Similar logic, apparently, was used early in the 20th century to explain why a world war could never happen.

Oh - and the Big Mac Peace Theory was technically disproven on March 24, 1999 when NATO nations bombed Yugoslavia. McDonalds shut their doors in Yugoslavia 2 days later.

So - is the reverse not more probable :

McDonalds does not enter countries likely to go to war with each other. It will withdraw from countries when this first statement is threatened.

It is telling that McDonalds waited until the NATO attacks before shutting down in Yugoslavia. Before that, there was plenty of problems, but seeing as it was all internal, the Golden Arches were quite happy to keep taking people's money. Once a foreign nation entered the fray, McD decided it was time to leave.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i think greece and turkey have been at a state of war and have sunk a few of each others ships.

They are not formally at war.

jc

SheroN

It depends whether you ask the people of cyprus or not

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by bonkey


They are not formally at war.

jc

not now, but i think a state of war existed for a few days or weeks at some stage within the last decade.

DadaKopf

Bonkey, surely you give this whole McDonald's thing a little too much creedence over what's being said. It's hardly any kind of a law, just a useful sign that points towards other dynamics going on in the world. McDonald's has been used as a colourful example of a state's level of economic development and standard of living purely based on the price of a Big Mac. Once again, it's a sign pointing to an underlying dynamic.

Similar logic, apparently, was used early in the 20th century to explain why a world war could never happen

It's my impression that the McDonald's thing relates to David Mitrany's formulation of Interdependence Theory. The simple idea behind it being that if countries' resources and economies are organised interdependently, no country would be able to go to war with the other. Each country would simply not be able to support themselves due to the criss-crossed array of resources and economic interlinkages. However, this really has only been put into any successful practise in the EU. The driving force behind the Coal and Steel Pact etc. was to prevent Europe from going to war with each other again - the notion was to make it impossible through economic interdependence.

All these new, up and coming writers are informalising political writing by making everything trendy - it's good in that it uses vivid examples everyone can relate to but it also obfuscates the real theory. I presume McDonald's is just used as a trendy way of encapsulating interdpendence theory. Of course, it's limited in its scope but, yes, EU member states haven't gone to war with each other since WWII. Everyone can immediately understand what's going on - close economic relationships create commerce which, under an effective state architecture, creates security. But only mutually; in, for example a simple two state interrelationship, neither country can afford to go to war with each other because in war time, neither country would prosper. But maybe the industrial-military complex operates on a removed level.

Well, that's the idea. It all sounds pretty good but things aren't that rosy.

mike65

I vaguely remember something about Britian and Portugal not have gone to war since the early 17th century as the two struck a trade deal and so decided it made little sence to improvrish
each other in a stupid war over a bit of land.

That sentiment holds but only so far, in the wars of the future natural resorces will be the prize so trade or no trade if water or precious metal is a stake there'll be conflict.

As for McDonalds, I think everyone should declare war on the US for inventing and exporting it. Fish and chips rule!

Mike.

Sand

War has always been about natural resources tbh. And free trade will in the future hopefully discourage war at the very least- if you can trade peaceably for a resource why go to war for it (which tends to be a lot more exspensive than simple trade- I remeber having a similar discussion with Bonkey)?

Also technology has always tended to advance in ways that are not obvious to us - 50 years ago coal was very important to the economy- now less and less so.

DadaKopf

In the 19th century, America's only foreign policy was trade. Their only navy was a merchant navy. Any country that attacked any of America's merchant fleet was considered an act of war but America had no navy or army to wage war anyway.

During this time, when America was building its erratic and shakey economy (and exploiting black slaves and Chinese workers), some fat cats realised international trade was to be a stablising factor for their domectic economy and social stability.

America focused on trade, free trade, as the key to its power. However, America ceased to be a republic which rejected colonialism, imprerialism and monarchism - it built up a huge navy in the 1890s and declared its desires to expand north, south and west. Earlier, they had forcefully taken the lands from Minnesota to Seattle but America wanted the south too - they wanted the Panama canal. More than that, they wanted key coaling stations so they forcefully took Samoa and Hawaii. America was on the road to becoming an imperialist power.

The thing to keep in mind is that America, once the frontier was no longer 'uninhabited' (by white men), it transferred this expansionist mentality to the entire world. Driven by the captains of industry and the firm belief that the market was the cure to all social ills, it embarked on a policy of blood and irone which, has continued today. The war and the market go hand in hand.

My point is: free trade cannot discourage war. It creates it. Mike65 made a great point: things are hunky dory now, but what about when resources become more scarce? Even functionalists like David Mitrany was too optimistic about how much economic interdependence can prevent international war. He applies a scientific theory to something that involves human actions - they are often illogical and throughly unscientific.

I think if anyone looks at any paper any day of the week, they notice that there's no way free trade discourages or prevents war. It may contribute to its deferment but it's only one element in a highly complex web of factors.

C B

Originally posted by DadaKopf
McDonald's has been used as a colourful example of a state's level of economic development and standard of living purely based on the price of a Big Mac. Once again, it's a sign pointing to an underlying dynamic.

I can only presume that you are refering to The Economist's
Big Mac Index and if so you have yet again revealed your complete failure to grasp even the most basic economic principles.

The Big Mac Index was devised to calculate (in a rough manner) the inaccuracies of foreign exchange markets. The theory of Purchasing Power parity states that all tradeable good and services should cost the same anywhere in the world. Therefore the dollar price of the Big Mac (one of the worlds simpiliest and most homogenous goods) should be the same in all countries. this theory will never hold fully as non-traded goods and services such as rent and public liability insurance will vary. However the results should give some indication of the under/over valuation of national currencies.

The Big Mac Index was the one of the only indicators to predict that the Euro was overvalued against the dollar at the time of it's initial release.

Furthermore following the Big Mac index over the last 10-15 years or so would have resulted in higher foreign exchange gains than the recommendations of almost all merchant banks - maybe somebody should have told AIB about it!

DadaKopf

Oh I must bow to your superior brain. Maybe you're some economics nerd but I'm coming from a political point of view so I contend that my assertion is still correct.

Presumably I've been wrong about economic issues before. Perhaps you could provide me with a few examples of where I specifically went wrong in other threads.