4 ms·

1. There are numerous cyclical factors that affect the productivity of a population. Growth in the US post-WWII was strong enough to offset taxation. Additional

1. There are numerous cyclical factors that affect the productivity of a population. Growth in the US post-WWII was strong enough to offset taxation. Additionally, the US has enjoyed a status of economic core which has helped to prop up the tax regime. However, it is plain to see that has been crumbling since the early 2000s. 2. Name some countries - are they growing more than 10%? 3. Increasing taxation is how the strangulation of a population works, so in that sense you are correct. The state always fails. If it didn't, and taxation "worked", we would be living in a utopia. 4. Weak States that cannot enforce taxation are the ones where the population has freedom to grow without onerous tax burdens and corporate protectionism. A static view of the world assumes taxation is necessary. A nonlinear view recognizes the destruction it causes.

oblio 8y ago
1. Ok. 2. Sustained growth at more than 10% is not realistic, especially for developed countries. I'm from a developing country and turning dirt farmers to office workers consistently will grow your economy by 10%. At some point you're going to run out of dirt farmers. This point is moot. Regarding high, realistic growth (2-3%) for developed countries: Singapore, Sweden. 3. States tend to fail far more often due to external factors. In the modern era that's becoming rarer and rarer as the cost of destabilizing a foreign state generally outweighs the benefits. 4. I'd be very happy if you could show me some examples. Which "weak states" are developed states? I wouldn't call any state in a developed country a "weak state".
- miscreanity 8y ago
  2. Sustained growth at that rate is unrealistic. Going from dirt farmers to office workers is the kind of shift we're looking at over the next decade, but with a shift from office/service to creative work. Machinery displaced farming and automation/robotics is starting to push office labor off in a different direction. I would argue that developed nations are less prepared for that as their economies and retirement structures are ill-suited to that paradigm. Established systems also tend to fight to to bitter end by increasing taxation to make up for lost revenue. 3. Yes, most states are not part of the core; peripheral nations fail long before the foundation does. Thankfully the cost of such failure has become much less likely to result in loss of life. 4. Not weak states that are developed states - ones that are considered developing, yet experience growth largely due to lack of excessive taxation and regulation thanks to weak government. They are thus progressing toward becoming developed. Two examples are Georgia and Puerto Rico - the amount of growth and development in those locations are proportionally far greater than other nations in similar locations and situations. This is directly affected by investment capital, much of which has left high-tax jurisdictions. Which country are you from?
  - oblio 8y ago
    2. The economic limit to growth for developed countries is that you can't just force ideas out of people's heads. Automation/robotics improve things, but the productivity difference when averaged over a whole country is still not 10% per year, between developed countries. Keep in mind a growth rate of 7% means a doubling of an economy every 10 years. It's not reasonable to expect a doubling of economies every 10 years for developed countries, history has shown this repeatedly. 3. I'm an optimist, I don't see any signs of the foundation falling. The counterargument is that the fall is rarely seen ahead of time. Still, I think we can just file this as a difference in perspective and call it a day :) 4. Georgia, the state, I assume? Assuming it's the state, ok. But how come the vast majority of high-flyers still don't move to these states? How come those "oppressive" taxation regimes keep producing heavy hitters? Same thing is happening in Europe. Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, etc. have high productivity and high taxation. You'd expect everything to leak over to the low taxation countries. Yet these countries to lose a percentage of the high productivity members but come up with new ones. There must be something at work here (such as high taxation, coupled with half-decent administration, creating a good overall environment for productivity). Romania. Not sure it's relevant :)
    - miscreanity 8y ago
      2. Agreed. Out of curiosity, would you consider it sensible to directly tax the production of a robot? 3. The larger the trend, the easier to forecast. Historically, empires fail slowly and then enter a rapid final decline. Martin Armstrong may be of interest, as he has built an extensive database and system that has analyzed the set. 4. Georgia the country, although the US state is one that is doing better than others[1] in the nation. Residence is sticky since it's expensive to relocate, so the incentive to move must be particularly high. There are certainly perceptions that persist with a lag since a practical perspective depends heavily upon direct experience, e.g. NYC is not the same place depicted in movies from the 1980s. The magnitude of resources available to be redistributed within a highly dynamic system can be significant. It is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact breaking point but the trend can be much more easily observed. Turkey is an interesting place - domestic production includes almost everything except higher technology, yet the economy is precarious due capital fearing the government. Romania is on my travel list :) [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-bay-area-residents-moving-away-increase-u-haul-rental-prices-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-bay-area-resid...

oblio 8y ago

1. Ok. 2. Sustained growth at more than 10% is not realistic, especially for developed countries. I'm from a developing country and turning dirt farmers to office workers consistently will grow your economy by 10%. At some point you're going to run out of dirt farmers. This point is moot. Regarding high, realistic growth (2-3%) for developed countries: Singapore, Sweden. 3. States tend to fail far more often due to external factors. In the modern era that's becoming rarer and rarer as the cost of destabilizing a foreign state generally outweighs the benefits. 4. I'd be very happy if you could show me some examples. Which "weak states" are developed states? I wouldn't call any state in a developed country a "weak state".

miscreanity 8y ago
2. Sustained growth at that rate is unrealistic. Going from dirt farmers to office workers is the kind of shift we're looking at over the next decade, but with a shift from office/service to creative work. Machinery displaced farming and automation/robotics is starting to push office labor off in a different direction. I would argue that developed nations are less prepared for that as their economies and retirement structures are ill-suited to that paradigm. Established systems also tend to fight to to bitter end by increasing taxation to make up for lost revenue. 3. Yes, most states are not part of the core; peripheral nations fail long before the foundation does. Thankfully the cost of such failure has become much less likely to result in loss of life. 4. Not weak states that are developed states - ones that are considered developing, yet experience growth largely due to lack of excessive taxation and regulation thanks to weak government. They are thus progressing toward becoming developed. Two examples are Georgia and Puerto Rico - the amount of growth and development in those locations are proportionally far greater than other nations in similar locations and situations. This is directly affected by investment capital, much of which has left high-tax jurisdictions. Which country are you from?
- oblio 8y ago
  2. The economic limit to growth for developed countries is that you can't just force ideas out of people's heads. Automation/robotics improve things, but the productivity difference when averaged over a whole country is still not 10% per year, between developed countries. Keep in mind a growth rate of 7% means a doubling of an economy every 10 years. It's not reasonable to expect a doubling of economies every 10 years for developed countries, history has shown this repeatedly. 3. I'm an optimist, I don't see any signs of the foundation falling. The counterargument is that the fall is rarely seen ahead of time. Still, I think we can just file this as a difference in perspective and call it a day :) 4. Georgia, the state, I assume? Assuming it's the state, ok. But how come the vast majority of high-flyers still don't move to these states? How come those "oppressive" taxation regimes keep producing heavy hitters? Same thing is happening in Europe. Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, etc. have high productivity and high taxation. You'd expect everything to leak over to the low taxation countries. Yet these countries to lose a percentage of the high productivity members but come up with new ones. There must be something at work here (such as high taxation, coupled with half-decent administration, creating a good overall environment for productivity). Romania. Not sure it's relevant :)
  - miscreanity 8y ago
    2. Agreed. Out of curiosity, would you consider it sensible to directly tax the production of a robot? 3. The larger the trend, the easier to forecast. Historically, empires fail slowly and then enter a rapid final decline. Martin Armstrong may be of interest, as he has built an extensive database and system that has analyzed the set. 4. Georgia the country, although the US state is one that is doing better than others[1] in the nation. Residence is sticky since it's expensive to relocate, so the incentive to move must be particularly high. There are certainly perceptions that persist with a lag since a practical perspective depends heavily upon direct experience, e.g. NYC is not the same place depicted in movies from the 1980s. The magnitude of resources available to be redistributed within a highly dynamic system can be significant. It is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact breaking point but the trend can be much more easily observed. Turkey is an interesting place - domestic production includes almost everything except higher technology, yet the economy is precarious due capital fearing the government. Romania is on my travel list :) [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-bay-area-residents-moving-away-increase-u-haul-rental-prices-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-bay-area-resid...