Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday May 14 2014, @04:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the House-of-Cards dept.

A mathematical model that looked at the sudden collapse of empires or states was created, with an intent to look at why social disorder can appear from an apparently stable state (an example cited is the Arab Spring in 2011). Factions within a state make choices described by game-theory about whether to accept the political status quo, or to attempt to better their circumstances through costly rebellion.

We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality. Contrary to intuition, a state is predicted to be least stable when its leadership is at the height of its political power and thus most able to exert its influence through external warfare, lavish expense or autocratic decree.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:05PM

    by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:05PM (#43386)

    Eisenhower wasn't a great general, though he was a decent organizer of other generals.

    That is what a good military leader does, particularly at Eisenhower's level. It's called the chain of command - you do not micromanage the people below you unless you're an NCO. You give them objectives, give them the personnel and materiel to do their job, and keep everyone working in unison.

    The general who wins the war isn't the one who commands the troops into battle. The general who wins the war is the one who makes sure his soldiers have more food, fuel and firepower than their opponents. Eisenhower understood that.

    The military bureaucracy is infamously horrible, but as far as actual management techniques, most corporate managers could learn something from the great generals. Give your people what they need, give them an objective, keep them informed and protected, then stay out of their way while they do their job.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:42PM

    by HiThere (866) on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:42PM (#43864) Journal

    Paton and McArthur were reasonably great generals. Eisenhower was a good coordinator. Not the same, though I agree that coordination is an important part of a general's toolkit.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.