4 ms·

I whole-heartedly support this suggestion. Devolution of economic and political authority has been a model for success throughout history. Central planning, not

I whole-heartedly support this suggestion. Devolution of economic and political authority has been a model for success throughout history. Central planning, not so much. Not that it can't be, but we are replete with examples of it failing disastrously. However, the author of the article does get at a very interesting and relevant point, which is that the political system in the U.S., at both the state and federal level, is now badly out of date and does not reflect the contemporary realities of where the population centers are and how their economies work. It does seem like our country would greatly benefit from a broad reorganization of political-economy amongst the states and at the federal level as well.

stcredzero 11y ago
Central planning, not so much. Not that it can't be, but we are replete with examples of it failing disastrously. Wasn't the Interstate Highway system a boon to the US economy? Wouldn't infrastrucure projects between the meta-urban regions fall into much the same pattern?
- Spivak 11y ago
  I don't think anyone is saying that the Federal government is without purpose. Interstate highways are exactly the type of project the Federal government should be taking on. That's not the type of central planning described in the article, this is the Federal government correcting a legitimate failing of a confederation. What was in the best interest of each state was opposed to the interests of the country as a whole. It's exactly analogous the position of a classical economist, except the states are the individual actors. Yes, markets sometimes fail, and it ought to be the duty of a central government to correct those failures when they happen but economic intervention should be rare and only when absolutely necessary.
- metaphorm 11y ago
  fair point. I'll clarify my meaning a bit. central planning has a role to play. for certain types of projects it is appropriate and sometimes even necessary. however, the idea that central planning should be the starting point for economic development is wrong-headed in my opinion. it should be considered the exception, used when needed and not otherwise, not the rule. additionally, I challenge the notion that interstate infrastructure projects are actually examples of central planning. they are more like examples of networks of mutual development and collaboration between diverse partners. adoption of shared technical standards, agreement on shared funding models, and legal compacts to ensure shared responsibility for maintenance and upkeep are what drives projects like the interstate highway system.
- randyrand 11y ago
  Wow. The federal government was able to connect some dots. I'm super impressed. What a great example of the power of centralized planning.
hackuser 11y ago
> Devolution of economic and political authority has been a model for success throughout history I disagree. As examples, the U.S. didn't get going until the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the strong central government of the Constitution. Devolution of political power is what led to the Civil War, segregation, and now attempts to legally discriminate against gay citizens and deny votes to many more. Devolution is generally advocated by people who don't like being democratically outvoted in the current arrangement.
- metaphorm 11y ago
  there is a considerable difference between devolution (the _return_ of authority from a central position to the states) and a weak and insufficiently binding treaty such as the articles of confederation. for devolution to occur there must have first been a strong central authority to devolve those powers in the first place. the lack of a strong central authority can be problematic, as the situation with the articles of confederation demonstrates. that is not the situation I'm discussing though. the example of the institution of slavery and the noxious "states rights" argument made by southern slavers at the time is a historical outlier. its such an exceptional (and not in a good way) that I really hesitate to hold it up as typical of any situation at all. its very sui generis. the current situation where southern states (the same ones that used to be slave states, it seems), are trying to pass laws to institutionalize anti-gay bigotry is an interesting discussion that I'm willing to have on this issue. you make a good point. there are definitely people in those states who are putting forward a pro-devolution argument in favor of their stance. as a counterpoint though, I would say that the movement for gay marriage itself began using exactly the same strategy. gay marriage advocates (and I was one in New York) lobbied their state governments to pass laws that supported their position. they were willing to do this without the support of the federal government and in fact for many years the gay marriage movement was deeply hesitant to elevate the issue to the federal level for fear that a federal circuit court, or congress itself, would shut them down. it was only once critical mass of cultural change had occurred that the gay marriage movement was willing and able to successfully make their case at the federal level and win the supreme court decision. my point is that devolution is just a methodology for governance. it is neutral with respect to policy. which policy the people want is determined by their culture. devolution of authority allows cultural movements to work with relatively less impediment from distant central authorities that might want to shut them down. we should still participate actively in our local cultures though, in order to transform society into what we want it to be. less bigotry. more love. those are my goals for cultural transformation.

stcredzero 11y ago

Central planning, not so much. Not that it can't be, but we are replete with examples of it failing disastrously. Wasn't the Interstate Highway system a boon to the US economy? Wouldn't infrastrucure projects between the meta-urban regions fall into much the same pattern?

Spivak 11y ago
I don't think anyone is saying that the Federal government is without purpose. Interstate highways are exactly the type of project the Federal government should be taking on. That's not the type of central planning described in the article, this is the Federal government correcting a legitimate failing of a confederation. What was in the best interest of each state was opposed to the interests of the country as a whole. It's exactly analogous the position of a classical economist, except the states are the individual actors. Yes, markets sometimes fail, and it ought to be the duty of a central government to correct those failures when they happen but economic intervention should be rare and only when absolutely necessary.
metaphorm 11y ago
fair point. I'll clarify my meaning a bit. central planning has a role to play. for certain types of projects it is appropriate and sometimes even necessary. however, the idea that central planning should be the starting point for economic development is wrong-headed in my opinion. it should be considered the exception, used when needed and not otherwise, not the rule. additionally, I challenge the notion that interstate infrastructure projects are actually examples of central planning. they are more like examples of networks of mutual development and collaboration between diverse partners. adoption of shared technical standards, agreement on shared funding models, and legal compacts to ensure shared responsibility for maintenance and upkeep are what drives projects like the interstate highway system.
randyrand 11y ago
Wow. The federal government was able to connect some dots. I'm super impressed. What a great example of the power of centralized planning.

hackuser 11y ago

> Devolution of economic and political authority has been a model for success throughout history I disagree. As examples, the U.S. didn't get going until the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the strong central government of the Constitution. Devolution of political power is what led to the Civil War, segregation, and now attempts to legally discriminate against gay citizens and deny votes to many more. Devolution is generally advocated by people who don't like being democratically outvoted in the current arrangement.

metaphorm 11y ago
there is a considerable difference between devolution (the _return_ of authority from a central position to the states) and a weak and insufficiently binding treaty such as the articles of confederation. for devolution to occur there must have first been a strong central authority to devolve those powers in the first place. the lack of a strong central authority can be problematic, as the situation with the articles of confederation demonstrates. that is not the situation I'm discussing though. the example of the institution of slavery and the noxious "states rights" argument made by southern slavers at the time is a historical outlier. its such an exceptional (and not in a good way) that I really hesitate to hold it up as typical of any situation at all. its very sui generis. the current situation where southern states (the same ones that used to be slave states, it seems), are trying to pass laws to institutionalize anti-gay bigotry is an interesting discussion that I'm willing to have on this issue. you make a good point. there are definitely people in those states who are putting forward a pro-devolution argument in favor of their stance. as a counterpoint though, I would say that the movement for gay marriage itself began using exactly the same strategy. gay marriage advocates (and I was one in New York) lobbied their state governments to pass laws that supported their position. they were willing to do this without the support of the federal government and in fact for many years the gay marriage movement was deeply hesitant to elevate the issue to the federal level for fear that a federal circuit court, or congress itself, would shut them down. it was only once critical mass of cultural change had occurred that the gay marriage movement was willing and able to successfully make their case at the federal level and win the supreme court decision. my point is that devolution is just a methodology for governance. it is neutral with respect to policy. which policy the people want is determined by their culture. devolution of authority allows cultural movements to work with relatively less impediment from distant central authorities that might want to shut them down. we should still participate actively in our local cultures though, in order to transform society into what we want it to be. less bigotry. more love. those are my goals for cultural transformation.