2 ms·

Who do you think runs all those well-functioning institutions you expect to take up the slack? People who are literate and clued in to the prevailing culture.

Who do you think runs all those well-functioning institutions you expect to take up the slack? People who are literate and clued in to the prevailing culture. You need only to know that "adding more programmers to a project makes it later" to understand that adding more people to the USA is not going to magically make things better for everyone.

grandalf 16y ago
I don't think your analogy holds... nor do I think of the institutions as being "run" by anyone. They are emergent properties of the overall system... including resources, etc. For example, in a geopolitical view, the US is stable b/c it has lots of ocean shipping ports and good north/south waterways, plus abundant natural resources. Not because everyone happens to speak the same language -- though such easy transit encourages people to want to learn a common language. So since we have lots of institutions that are functioning well and durable, they provide incentives to newcomers to interact with them in mutually beneficial ways. Contrast this with mexico which has been destabilized by US drug policy which enriches the criminal gangs who produce drugs and profit from high black market prices. In that setting, the main "institutions" are criminal gangs and corrupt cops. There's not much incentive to undertake legal agriculture, so few try. There is not much incentive to build structures that would be toppled by the gangs and corruption. So without getting too long winded, I'm arguing that institutions are an emergent property of geopolitical factors, and that the US has many strong institutions that would benefit from improved economies of scale if more people participated.... even if those people started out at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  I can only ask you to keep an eye on this subject in the future and see if your hypothesis (hypotheses?) hold up to empirical review.

grandalf 16y ago

I don't think your analogy holds... nor do I think of the institutions as being "run" by anyone. They are emergent properties of the overall system... including resources, etc. For example, in a geopolitical view, the US is stable b/c it has lots of ocean shipping ports and good north/south waterways, plus abundant natural resources. Not because everyone happens to speak the same language -- though such easy transit encourages people to want to learn a common language. So since we have lots of institutions that are functioning well and durable, they provide incentives to newcomers to interact with them in mutually beneficial ways. Contrast this with mexico which has been destabilized by US drug policy which enriches the criminal gangs who produce drugs and profit from high black market prices. In that setting, the main "institutions" are criminal gangs and corrupt cops. There's not much incentive to undertake legal agriculture, so few try. There is not much incentive to build structures that would be toppled by the gangs and corruption. So without getting too long winded, I'm arguing that institutions are an emergent property of geopolitical factors, and that the US has many strong institutions that would benefit from improved economies of scale if more people participated.... even if those people started out at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

patrickgzill 16y ago
I can only ask you to keep an eye on this subject in the future and see if your hypothesis (hypotheses?) hold up to empirical review.