Talk:Thomas Friedman

	This Political pundits related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Topic

He didn't even get CAFTA right. It's Central American Free Trade Agreement, not Caribbean. So, fractal wrongness.^{— Unsigned, by: 66.213.85.10 / talk / contribs}

@66.213.85.10 Try not to remove templates like {{person}} when you say something; you could (theoretically) get in some serious trouble. In fact, I'd suggest making a habit of using the "Add topic" button whenever pertinent. ~ ♥ 17:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Golden arch theory

From his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. Here's a paraphrase from another wiki:

“”The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention was proposed by economist Thomas Friedman as a way of explaining how globalization affects foreign policy and conflict. Essentially, the Theory points out that no two countries that both have McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war.

—[1]

And it was proven wrong in 2006 and then again in 2008.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 19:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Reason for blanking of content?

@GeeJayK ??? Carthage (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you read the summary? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I did? You removed the NY Press thing too, even though that has nothing to do with the "uncharitable take on Friedman's position on China". I found Friedman's original column, and from what I've read, it sure does seem like Friedman is calling the one-party dictatorship of China better than the American duopoly: [2] Carthage (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The uncharitable take is saying that he didn't read the agreement (btw, the link claiming that he didn't read it is also dead). Regarding the column, it was a stupid one, there is no doubt about it, but what he said (and he's not alone on that) is that autocracies have some advantages on the decision-making process than democracies and that the GOP was preventing Obama from passing laws. I'm pretty sure every political scientist agrees with him on this one. Again, it was a terrible column and an appalling choice of words, but his conclusions are correct to some extent, and they are the reasons why most countries dissolve their parliments in wars. Regarding the NY Press passage, it's just a opinion of a literal nobody, without any examples, and had nothing to do with globalization. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried searching the Wayback Machine? His conclusions may be correct that autocracies have better decision-making processes, but the argument this makes autocracy better than democracy is garbage. Those decisions may be awful ones, and there's no real way to hold an autocrat to account without engaging in subversion. We should still cover that segment, even if a few points hit a stopped clock routine. I'll get back to you on that NY Press passage, but dismissing it as an "opinion of a literal nobody" reeks of the genetic fallacy. Carthage (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, he doesn't think that autocracies better than democracies (you can read any of his columns and you'll see what he thinks of autocracies), what he said is that a disfunctional democracy will lag behind an autocracy in many aspects, such as the velocity that decisions are made, after all, in a representative democracy you'll have to convince many people, while in an authoritatian regime, a group of people or a dictator can make the decisions. This is one of the many reasons why modern representantive democracies don't look like the Greek polis anymore. His column was idiotic, but it's not saying what the text suggested. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"He said Americans need to "keep rootin' for Putin."[14]" Isn't this lacking context. The article reference was dated 2001. At that time many saw Putin as being pro west.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)