5 ms·

It barely has a million people. You have to compare it with other countries of similar size and population. Comparing it to Spain, Germany, US, UAE, Sri Lanka i

by hos234 7y ago

It barely has a million people. You have to compare it with other countries of similar size and population. Comparing it to Spain, Germany, US, UAE, Sri Lanka is like comparing mice to dogs, cows, elephants and blue whales. That said, ofcourse there are things that can be learnt and applied to similar sized towns, cities, states etc that want these features.

growlist 7y ago
Perhaps the lesson is that decentralisation leads to better outcomes?
Scoundreller 7y ago
> You have to compare it with other countries of similar size and population. Countries aren't their own silo anymore. A small country that's in Eurozone, EU and NATO has a lot of "big country" benefits than a small country not in those groups.
- gumby 7y ago
  That's what they are tryig to arbitrage (and why not?): big country benefits with small country benefits. This is what Delaware managed to do successfully in the US.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    As for NATO, it’s better for the big countries if they can hold Russia back in the Baltics and let them be the collateral damage. Sounds win-win to me. And they get access to lots of cheaper labour directly (migration) and indirectly (outsourcing to people that will still buy your stuff). As I’ve posted, the big banks in the Baltics are primarily not Baltic. That access has its benefits, but also its price. I guess I’m a believer that free trade works out well, well enough to create a system to support those left behind. Often the latter is left out however.
    - gumby 7y ago
      > As for NATO, it’s better for the big countries if they can hold Russia back in the Baltics and let them be the collateral damage. Sounds win-win to me. Indeed. Before the eastern expansion I had noticed years ago how portions of Niedersachsen bordering East Germany had been designed as a huge tank trap (dams could be blown up to flood the plains), and the bridges and some other civilian infrastructure was dual use as well (e.g. signed/scaled for tank passage). Likewise I discovered in late 1989 that a lot of the non-local roads between villages in the DDR weren't really passable by passenger cars but would still have bridges able to support heavy armour. It seemed like a deliberate policy of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact that if there was to be yet another large war in Europe it should start in Germany for a change.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        I can't say I was thinking into it as deeply as that :)

by hos234 7y ago

growlist 7y ago

Perhaps the lesson is that decentralisation leads to better outcomes?

Scoundreller 7y ago

> You have to compare it with other countries of similar size and population. Countries aren't their own silo anymore. A small country that's in Eurozone, EU and NATO has a lot of "big country" benefits than a small country not in those groups.

gumby 7y ago
That's what they are tryig to arbitrage (and why not?): big country benefits with small country benefits. This is what Delaware managed to do successfully in the US.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  As for NATO, it’s better for the big countries if they can hold Russia back in the Baltics and let them be the collateral damage. Sounds win-win to me. And they get access to lots of cheaper labour directly (migration) and indirectly (outsourcing to people that will still buy your stuff). As I’ve posted, the big banks in the Baltics are primarily not Baltic. That access has its benefits, but also its price. I guess I’m a believer that free trade works out well, well enough to create a system to support those left behind. Often the latter is left out however.
  - gumby 7y ago
    > As for NATO, it’s better for the big countries if they can hold Russia back in the Baltics and let them be the collateral damage. Sounds win-win to me. Indeed. Before the eastern expansion I had noticed years ago how portions of Niedersachsen bordering East Germany had been designed as a huge tank trap (dams could be blown up to flood the plains), and the bridges and some other civilian infrastructure was dual use as well (e.g. signed/scaled for tank passage). Likewise I discovered in late 1989 that a lot of the non-local roads between villages in the DDR weren't really passable by passenger cars but would still have bridges able to support heavy armour. It seemed like a deliberate policy of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact that if there was to be yet another large war in Europe it should start in Germany for a change.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      I can't say I was thinking into it as deeply as that :)