Hacker News Reader

Comment by celeritascelery | Hacker News Reader

While there is certainly some truth and wisdom to this view, it also worries me. I see the increasing globalization and interdependence of the modern world as one of the major reasons for the decrease in armed conflicts. You are a lot less likely to attack someone who is a trade partner.

There is a saying that “there has never been an armed conflict between two nations that both had a McDonald’s”. Russia has broken that, but that is case where the exception proves the rule. Russia has been devastated by the repercussions of their choice to invade Ukraine. And Europe is suffering due to the lack of oil and natural gas.

I fear a world where nations are not reliant on each other is going to be less peaceful. That being said, the memo specifically calls out relations with China, which is a country that is dangerous to have too much reliance on, due to also being run by an absolute dictatorship.

View on HN

> I see the increasing globalization and interdependence of the modern world as one of the major reasons for the decrease in armed conflicts.

On the flip side, I also see the reluctance or resistance of individual countries to said globalization and interdependence as one of the major reasons for the increase in armed conflicts affecting those individual countries.

>> There is a saying that "there has never been an armed conflict between two nations that both had a McDonald’s". Russia has broken that, but that is case where the exception proves the rule.

That was from a 1999 book by Thomas Friedman.

"Shortly after the book was published, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. On the first day of the bombing, McDonald's restaurants in Belgrade were demolished by angry protesters and were rebuilt only after the bombing ended. In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace#Golden_arches...

You also have the Russo-Georgian war, Russia's seizure of Crimea, and various other conflicts depending on your definition of war - US invasion of Panama, conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the Kargil War.

In general, if you are relying on something Thomas Friedman said for your argument, you are almost certainly wrong.

Besides preventing conflict, globalization was supposed to increase democracy in the world. Increasing trade relations with China was in part to make them more democratic, as the theory was the more prosperous a nation is, the more democratic they become. I think we got it backwards.

Now we know it doesn’t work, and this historic reason for globalization is moot.

If you ever visited China 20 years ago and now, you may have noticed the change in openness, though.

The first time I went, I was confined to limited areas, and had to be followed by a state appointed guide for my entire trip. I couldn't kiss my girlfriend in the street, it was considered bad behavior.

Now, I can just go alone, and where I please, and demonstrations of affection are not as frown upon. Women also seem have more freedom than before.

China was always a dictatorship, but I would say it looks more free that it used to be, at least from my very limited external point of view.

Now, China is still corrupted, with massive informational control. And it also became terribly polluted, and under systematic automatic surveillance, so I'm not sure it balances out, but it's not like there is an objective scale to those things.

Waning traditional norms happened all cover the world, including in the west. I don’t think globalization was the driver.

I would think that something happening all over the world would hint that globalization may be a factor.

It might be a factor, but it probably has more to do with decades of exporting western values via media, Internet, etc.

I travelled freely in China fourteen years ago. I paid cash everywhere. Nobody had a smartphone. I didn't feel surveilled. From my limited perspective it seems much less free now.

> that is case where the exception proves the rule.

On the contrary, I think this exception disproves the rule.

Yeah, there are some dumb sayings, but I really think that one tops the list.

I've never understood it actually. What does the author mean when using "proves the rule", is it somehow proving it by it being a clear exception with special circumstances (somehow that rarely seems the case) or are they just acknowledging the incorrectness of the rule in a joke-y manner?

> is it somehow proving it by it being a clear exception with special circumstances

Essentially yes. I would wager that if Putin could go back in time, he would not invade Ukraine. The economic consequences have been too severe. It really serves as a warning to other countries.

So Russia is now an exception to the “McDonald’s rule”, but it proves why the rule is generally true.

The original usage would be to describe something like a sign that says "No Parking on Sundays" as being proof that parking is allowed on other days.

Typically when it is used now it means "I'm wrong but I'm still right".

Oh! That actually makes a lot of sense now. Thanks :)

On the other hand it sucks when the only burger you can buy comes from McDonalds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com