We are talking about good old supply chains again. And what better example than Dell? (well, besides Wal-Mart which we have already used enough…oh wait, they joint-ventured with Wal-Mart, can’t get away from them I guess.) A good amount of my friends have a Dell, so they must have done a good job marketing in the past. However, now I’ve seen more of a variety of computers that people are having, even in class. I have a Compaq. It is not terrible but it has given me some problems and half the time it doesn’t turn on, so that is why I never take it to class. And when it is acting up I have to hit I to turn on. I don’t want to take it in because it is too expensive.
Friedman is right on the dot, in my opinion, that countries that are in major global supply chains together would have a decreased probability to engage in war against each other. If his theory is correct, then that is very good news for our world, when it is a time of terrorism. He points out that more of the Asian countries have much to lose in a war against each other so they would most likely not risk it and would want to put any of their differences aside. However, the Middle Eastern countries are not involved in any major supply chain. It makes me wonder why. I think they should get involved with us and other countries so we can be more at peace about wars. However, then I am second guessing myself because he also points out that supply chains are not always good news. He refers to terrorist groups and Osama bin Laden in that if they have a hold on supply chain technology they may be more prone to use it to our disadvantage by attacking us. So now I am not sure of what side of the fence I am sitting on with his theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment