6 ms·

There's a scifi book series where a stable government is maintained by exclusive monopolies that the other provenience are dependent upon. Any provenience tryin

There's a scifi book series where a stable government is maintained by exclusive monopolies that the other provenience are dependent upon. Any provenience trying to break away will quickly find they are in an economic collapse because they can't supply themselves. Fascinating idea, until the monopolies break everything. I'll see if I can't find it. It's The Interdependency Series by John Scalzi: https://www.goodreads.com/series/202297-the-interdependency https://www.goodreads.com/series/202297-the-interdependency

Kye 4y ago
This is essentially the US. For all the talk of secession from different factions depending on political winds, not much would really change aside from everything being a little more difficult. All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit.
- caeril 4y ago
  The coastal US needs flyover country to survive. Flyover country likes the things that ports/harbors, hollywood, silicon valley, and banks provide. These two are not the same.
  - malfist 4y ago
    Do they? California produces half of the produce in the entire US.
    - caeril 4y ago
      Review some electoral maps. The OP was referring to secessionary scenarios, in which case most of Inland California, including the San Joaquin Valley, belongs to Team Red. Even so, produce does not comprise a material percentage of the US caloric intake. Grains, tubers, grain oils, and meat definitely do. Beyond food, there's mining and energy. Without the coasts, The US would be significantly inconvenienced. Without flyover country, the US would be dead.
      - Kye 4y ago
        Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes or realize ideological moderation is the only way to run a sustainable government. You can't run a government if it's all "death to red! never mind all the minorities there who've been suppressed" or "death to blue! my kids will hate me and leave at the first opportunity, but I won't care until it's too late." This is why I said all the current informal federal-based stuff would come back through treaty. I think most people on both "sides" are reasonable, so the split would never actually happen. And if it did, people would quickly miss all the stuff from the other side of it. It's on a level with considering what happens if the sun disappears. It can't happen without something freakish happening, and none of us really knows how it would go.
        caeril 4y ago
        > Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes One side would devolve into an unlivable hellscape. The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so, without access to modern imported goods. Nobody would "win". It's obviously a horrible scenario. But one side would definitely lose. > It can't happen without something freakish happening Nations collapse from political schism all the time. We just have short memories.
        Kye 4y ago
        Modern farming is completely dependent on those ports you so eagerly gave away. How many millions of people would die of starvation and from the inevitable resource wars while the few people who know how to farm the old-fashioned way figured out how to make it work on land that's been made dependent on abundant imported fertilizer and pesticides? I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
        caeril 4y ago
        Modern farming is indeed dependent on imports. But modern-"ish" farming, with tractors, combines, and some degree of mechanization can still be done and maintained without microprocessors, sensors, and precision pumps and machine tools. And if your supply requirements decrease by 150MM people, that makes the job substantially easier to manage. > I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world. Ah, but they think they are. Which is really the only thing that matters, since beyond a certain point, it's too late.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      that's by dollar value not calories. california produces a lot of fancy water-intensive stuff. flyover country produces mass nutrition.
      - Der_Einzige 4y ago
        Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California and the PNW are extremely fertile. They don't need flyover country.
        rayiner 4y ago
        California couldn’t exist without massive army crops of engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
        Der_Einzige 4y ago
        bart_spoon 4y ago
        They also are in a drought are they not? Virtually the entirety of the country west of Missouri is. And that’s only going to get worse and worse. They may still have enough for their needs, but it’s unlikely they have enough for California’s needs, especially for its agriculture.
        rayiner 4y ago
        You’re very mistaken about what kind of hippies PNW folks are if you think they’ll happily give their water to Californians. They’re hippies, but surly ones with guns who don’t look kindly on capitalists who adopt liberalism as an affect. My wife, whose family were among the first settlers in Oregon, gets mad seeing Tillamook cheese in stores here in Maryland. (“That’s our cheese. Fuck you.”)
        lukas099 4y ago
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    That's a seriously flawed evaluation.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      is it? most of the agriculturally and industrially productive land is out in flyover country. and depending on who you ask areas that are mostly agriculture qualify as "flyover" even if they're e.g. east oregon/cali/washington. new england is probably the one exception but it's small in terms of area and ag output.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      This is a seriously unsupported assertion.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit That’s an argument in favor of secession! They could still trade, but wouldn’t be forced into a single polity making decisions on domestic issues like education, healthcare, abortion, immigration, etc.
mikestew 4y ago
That sounds a lot like the EU v1.0: "Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past." https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
jjk166 4y ago
This was how Stalin structured the Soviet economy during his industrialization push. It was one of the major reasons the collapse of the soviet union was so economically disastrous for the newly independent states.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Great example of a planned economy working as designed.
  - kaushikc 4y ago
    Every large corporation is technically a form of central planning.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      A kid spending her pocket money at the candy shop is a form of central planning. Neither are central planning as the term is used when talking about economic systems though. The objection to communism isn't that people plan things. It's that the planners face no competition and the results of their plans are inescapable.
      - actually_a_dog 4y ago
        Well, guess what happened when Sears implemented an internal free market system: > Major innovation needs collaboration, not competition. For innovation, internal markets have the same problem as hierarchical bureaucracies. Managers vote their resources for innovations that bolster their current fiefdoms and careers. The safest strategy is to stick to the status quo. Ms. Kimes’ article gives multiple examples where competing managers at Sears looked after their own units at the expense of the interests of the firm as a whole. (Emphasis added.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-internal-markets-nourish-innovation-the-case-of-sears/?sh=34d5c36c5b62 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-inte... Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?

Kye 4y ago

This is essentially the US. For all the talk of secession from different factions depending on political winds, not much would really change aside from everything being a little more difficult. All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit.

caeril 4y ago
The coastal US needs flyover country to survive. Flyover country likes the things that ports/harbors, hollywood, silicon valley, and banks provide. These two are not the same.
- malfist 4y ago
  Do they? California produces half of the produce in the entire US.
  - caeril 4y ago
    Review some electoral maps. The OP was referring to secessionary scenarios, in which case most of Inland California, including the San Joaquin Valley, belongs to Team Red. Even so, produce does not comprise a material percentage of the US caloric intake. Grains, tubers, grain oils, and meat definitely do. Beyond food, there's mining and energy. Without the coasts, The US would be significantly inconvenienced. Without flyover country, the US would be dead.
    - Kye 4y ago
      Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes or realize ideological moderation is the only way to run a sustainable government. You can't run a government if it's all "death to red! never mind all the minorities there who've been suppressed" or "death to blue! my kids will hate me and leave at the first opportunity, but I won't care until it's too late." This is why I said all the current informal federal-based stuff would come back through treaty. I think most people on both "sides" are reasonable, so the split would never actually happen. And if it did, people would quickly miss all the stuff from the other side of it. It's on a level with considering what happens if the sun disappears. It can't happen without something freakish happening, and none of us really knows how it would go.
      - caeril 4y ago
        > Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes One side would devolve into an unlivable hellscape. The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so, without access to modern imported goods. Nobody would "win". It's obviously a horrible scenario. But one side would definitely lose. > It can't happen without something freakish happening Nations collapse from political schism all the time. We just have short memories.
        Kye 4y ago
        Modern farming is completely dependent on those ports you so eagerly gave away. How many millions of people would die of starvation and from the inevitable resource wars while the few people who know how to farm the old-fashioned way figured out how to make it work on land that's been made dependent on abundant imported fertilizer and pesticides? I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
        caeril 4y ago
        Modern farming is indeed dependent on imports. But modern-"ish" farming, with tractors, combines, and some degree of mechanization can still be done and maintained without microprocessors, sensors, and precision pumps and machine tools. And if your supply requirements decrease by 150MM people, that makes the job substantially easier to manage. > I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world. Ah, but they think they are. Which is really the only thing that matters, since beyond a certain point, it's too late.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    that's by dollar value not calories. california produces a lot of fancy water-intensive stuff. flyover country produces mass nutrition.
    - Der_Einzige 4y ago
      Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California and the PNW are extremely fertile. They don't need flyover country.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        California couldn’t exist without massive army crops of engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
        Der_Einzige 4y ago
        bart_spoon 4y ago
        They also are in a drought are they not? Virtually the entirety of the country west of Missouri is. And that’s only going to get worse and worse. They may still have enough for their needs, but it’s unlikely they have enough for California’s needs, especially for its agriculture.
        rayiner 4y ago
        You’re very mistaken about what kind of hippies PNW folks are if you think they’ll happily give their water to Californians. They’re hippies, but surly ones with guns who don’t look kindly on capitalists who adopt liberalism as an affect. My wife, whose family were among the first settlers in Oregon, gets mad seeing Tillamook cheese in stores here in Maryland. (“That’s our cheese. Fuck you.”)
        lukas099 4y ago
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  That's a seriously flawed evaluation.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    is it? most of the agriculturally and industrially productive land is out in flyover country. and depending on who you ask areas that are mostly agriculture qualify as "flyover" even if they're e.g. east oregon/cali/washington. new england is probably the one exception but it's small in terms of area and ag output.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    This is a seriously unsupported assertion.
rayiner 4y ago
> All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit That’s an argument in favor of secession! They could still trade, but wouldn’t be forced into a single polity making decisions on domestic issues like education, healthcare, abortion, immigration, etc.

mikestew 4y ago

That sounds a lot like the EU v1.0: "Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past." https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...

jjk166 4y ago

This was how Stalin structured the Soviet economy during his industrialization push. It was one of the major reasons the collapse of the soviet union was so economically disastrous for the newly independent states.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Great example of a planned economy working as designed.
- kaushikc 4y ago
  Every large corporation is technically a form of central planning.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    A kid spending her pocket money at the candy shop is a form of central planning. Neither are central planning as the term is used when talking about economic systems though. The objection to communism isn't that people plan things. It's that the planners face no competition and the results of their plans are inescapable.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      Well, guess what happened when Sears implemented an internal free market system: > Major innovation needs collaboration, not competition. For innovation, internal markets have the same problem as hierarchical bureaucracies. Managers vote their resources for innovations that bolster their current fiefdoms and careers. The safest strategy is to stick to the status quo. Ms. Kimes’ article gives multiple examples where competing managers at Sears looked after their own units at the expense of the interests of the firm as a whole. (Emphasis added.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-internal-markets-nourish-innovation-the-case-of-sears/?sh=34d5c36c5b62 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-inte... Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?