In “Anarchy is what states make of it” Alexander Wendt describes two opposing state systems: competitive and cooperative. In competition, “states identify negatively with each other's security, so that the ego's gain is seen as the alter's loss.” In cooperation, “the security of each [State] is perceived as everyone's responsibility.” Currently, there are problems such as the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, poverty in developing countries, international financial instability and climate change that confront the entire global community. Ideally, states could cooperate to resolve all these dilemmas over the next twenty years. Realistically, they will only solve problems with specific, easily stated solutions. Cooperation tends to overcome every possible obstacle and simple solutions are needed to clearly define a problem, evaluate costs and benefits and allow states to reach consensus. Simplicity may require fewer actors; some problems would be better solved within a state or bilaterally. The two areas that I believe best demonstrate the need to keep it simple are terrorism and global financial stability. Terrorism would end if governments could infiltrate and dismantle terrorist networks and if a nation's defense was impervious. While it may be impossible to ensure complete safety, states understand what needs to be done to try. No one has yet found an acceptable method to keep the markets afloat. Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman could both win the Nobel Prize in economics by giving the opposite answer on protectionism. When Mexico followed the advice of the International Monetary Fund and “drastically reduced its budget deficits, privatized state firms… mid-paper… could perform better one-on-one. The most successful developing countries, such as Singapore and Taiwan, have not used the international community in any way other than as trading partners and have benefited from government reforms. Openness to trade and shaping government are both choices a country makes within itself. Complexity is anathema to international cooperation. Since there is no control mechanism that allows states to get along, coalitions fall apart at every crossroads. Strong groups need simple tasks and common motivation. Providing security from terrorists and nuclear weapons seems to have much more appeal than sacrificing industry for the environment, or its benefits for economic success. This is not to say that nothing will be done to address all major global issues. When trying to save the world, though, it might be best to keep countries out of it.