[metaphorm]

> I would say we have a demonstrated ability of seeing the big picture, and a pretty good track record of making it work.

alternative explanation, given for the sake of argument:

we have a terrible ability to see the big picture, but have come up with some ingenious constructions where the small picture of each component in the system is correctly calibrated so the big picture outcome is successful. as you yourself pointed out, the supply chains are so complex that nobody involved understands all of it.

now, how would we go about distinguishing between which of these possible interpretations is correct?

thought experiment goes like this: suppose the big picture requires that some actors in the system do not receive satisfactory treatment in their local context, and that the only benefits those actors receive will be indirect, as benefits accrued to other actors in the system, but not to adjacent actors. will those actors still agree to participate or not?