6 ms·

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

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
    2. I don't know. What I'd personally favor is super high income tax brackets for the very rich (income > $1 billion puts you in a 95% tax bracket for everything above 1 billion) and the state getting a percentage of a corporation automatically after it goes above a certain scale (say 5% at 1 billion, 20% at 20 billion), with the restriction on the state's share usage. This should take care indirectly of the "robot production", via the owners. Once you'd do this universal basic income would be interesting. This should only be implemented if there's some sort of global tax agreement, otherwise the state that does this will have its tax revenue slither away to other countries. But this needs an attitude of "fixing the state", not "starving the beast". Treat the state as an unavoidable single point of failure and harden it. Checks and balances, more transparency, more direct democracy, etc. 3 & 4. This is already getting super philosophical. I need to follow this phenomenon more, can't really say anything super relevant. Intuitively I'm not sure I agree. > Romania is on my travel list :) Go to Bucharest for the night life (preferably with a somewhat reliable local guide). Go to Brașov, Sighișoara, Sibiu for the medieval monuments and buildings. Go to Bucovina for the great landscapes and the beautiful monasteries. Go to Maramureș for the same reasons, but with a different twist. Go to the Apuseni for the rural life, unchanged since centuries. Avoid the Black Sea (Constanța, Mamaia), except for the Danube Delta, which is a nature reserve.

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
  2. I don't know. What I'd personally favor is super high income tax brackets for the very rich (income > $1 billion puts you in a 95% tax bracket for everything above 1 billion) and the state getting a percentage of a corporation automatically after it goes above a certain scale (say 5% at 1 billion, 20% at 20 billion), with the restriction on the state's share usage. This should take care indirectly of the "robot production", via the owners. Once you'd do this universal basic income would be interesting. This should only be implemented if there's some sort of global tax agreement, otherwise the state that does this will have its tax revenue slither away to other countries. But this needs an attitude of "fixing the state", not "starving the beast". Treat the state as an unavoidable single point of failure and harden it. Checks and balances, more transparency, more direct democracy, etc. 3 & 4. This is already getting super philosophical. I need to follow this phenomenon more, can't really say anything super relevant. Intuitively I'm not sure I agree. > Romania is on my travel list :) Go to Bucharest for the night life (preferably with a somewhat reliable local guide). Go to Brașov, Sighișoara, Sibiu for the medieval monuments and buildings. Go to Bucovina for the great landscapes and the beautiful monasteries. Go to Maramureș for the same reasons, but with a different twist. Go to the Apuseni for the rural life, unchanged since centuries. Avoid the Black Sea (Constanța, Mamaia), except for the Danube Delta, which is a nature reserve.