5 ms·

That's kind of the point of democratic institutions, though: centralizing a lot of these directive powers leads to explosive efficiencies at the cost of liberty

That's kind of the point of democratic institutions, though: centralizing a lot of these directive powers leads to explosive efficiencies at the cost of liberty to, for example, surface objections as you illustrate. Or, more dramatically, throwing people who object into dark cells. That's how autocratic regimes can take on megaprojects without a lot of the red tape that leads to, for example, a paralytically slow rollout of Seattle light rail. You choose your poison.

einpoklum 2y ago
Wouldn't you say the US is somewhat of an outlier w.r.t. government ability to undertake significant infrastructural projects?
- emptysongglass 2y ago
  As someone who has lived pretty firmly in both parts of the West: no, not really. Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects, all while putting a pittance of its share to its military. Denmark is also much, much, smaller than the US so the red tape that would be apparent at the size of the US is less apparent at the size of 6 million people. We also overspend on grotesque, predatory contracting firms, just as the US does, to finance our public projects.
  - einpoklum 2y ago
    > Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects, Well, so does the US - which is also able to do defict-spending much more easily due to the USD's role as a global reserve currency. But as you've pointed out, a huge part of it feeds the military-industrial complex - and that's a part (but not nearly the most important part) of how it struggles to expend on public infrastructure. Also, red tape is mostly not a per-capita thing; that kind of red tape is mostly in distributed execution rather than decision-making, legislation and such. But point taken regarding Danish overspending on predatory contractors.
ainiriand 2y ago
You cannot choose much poison either in one side.
oivey 2y ago
This isn’t the traditional thought process on this topic. Traditionally, it was thought that the ills of resource allocation under democracy were far outweighed by the automatic optimization of the free market. The Soviets did a lot to suggest that the free market was actually better than central planning. China is showing that with 21st century needs, technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case.
- emptysongglass 2y ago
  Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I was referring to current.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. They still get some optimization and some otherwise-impossible-projects. I'd say the jury is still out on this strategy.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. A caveat I'd add is that the Chinese government is subjective to the party. China's accomplishments are significant but they tend to be secondary to the political wellbeing of the CCP. That wellbeing is secured though the harsh and thorough quashing of dissent. I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      > I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US. And so does Russia, which is another effective repressive dictatorship. From my perspective, they're just exceptionally adapt at pushing their propaganda abroad. Historically, the USA was the only one doing that, but it's no longer the only player. (To be clear, I meant spreading propaganda abroad. The USA is at least currently not a repressive dictatorship. And I doubt it will become so before I die.)
okasaki 2y ago
China isn't autocratic. That's just cope.
abeppu 2y ago
> That's kind of the point of democratic institutions I think the problem is that American "democracy" is frequently undemocratic. If a clear majority of voters support a project or policy, it may still be blocked through various political/legal/regulatory means.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > If a clear majority of voters support a project or policy thing is, projects run into reality. if a majority voted to build the starship enterprise today would it make sense to do it just because a majority wanted it
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Healthcare access isn't sci-fi
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      yes and believe it or not healthcare runs into real constraints and concerns about equity, etc. suppose a rare disease is only well researched in a few white families. lets say, the mennonites. curing the disease is possible, but expensive. should everyone else be forced to subsidize it? what if the markers are known and parents choose to have kids anyways even though they have the markers. does the situation change if its sickle cell anemia?
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        This is a good point. If you imagine that by healthcare people mean an imaginary expensive Mennonite disease instead of the ability to see a doctor and receive treatment for common diseases and injuries it becomes very murky indeed.
        6510 2y ago
        Combining the two seems a design flaw. The one requires research, experience, training, labs, clinical trials etc etc. The other little more than a database.
mistermann 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...
akhosravian 2y ago
Funny you mention Seattle’s light rail. The first part of New York’s subway system was built in 4 years and had more stops than Seattle’s light rail does after 15 years. We (Americans) absolutely built big public projects in reasonable timeframes a century ago, and we don’t now. Attributing it to the form of government seems to miss the mark.

einpoklum 2y ago

Wouldn't you say the US is somewhat of an outlier w.r.t. government ability to undertake significant infrastructural projects?

emptysongglass 2y ago
As someone who has lived pretty firmly in both parts of the West: no, not really. Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects, all while putting a pittance of its share to its military. Denmark is also much, much, smaller than the US so the red tape that would be apparent at the size of the US is less apparent at the size of 6 million people. We also overspend on grotesque, predatory contracting firms, just as the US does, to finance our public projects.
- einpoklum 2y ago
  > Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects, Well, so does the US - which is also able to do defict-spending much more easily due to the USD's role as a global reserve currency. But as you've pointed out, a huge part of it feeds the military-industrial complex - and that's a part (but not nearly the most important part) of how it struggles to expend on public infrastructure. Also, red tape is mostly not a per-capita thing; that kind of red tape is mostly in distributed execution rather than decision-making, legislation and such. But point taken regarding Danish overspending on predatory contractors.

ainiriand 2y ago

You cannot choose much poison either in one side.

oivey 2y ago

This isn’t the traditional thought process on this topic. Traditionally, it was thought that the ills of resource allocation under democracy were far outweighed by the automatic optimization of the free market. The Soviets did a lot to suggest that the free market was actually better than central planning. China is showing that with 21st century needs, technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case.

emptysongglass 2y ago
Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I was referring to current.
lucianbr 2y ago
Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. They still get some optimization and some otherwise-impossible-projects. I'd say the jury is still out on this strategy.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free market with the government intervening whenever and wherever it feels like. A caveat I'd add is that the Chinese government is subjective to the party. China's accomplishments are significant but they tend to be secondary to the political wellbeing of the CCP. That wellbeing is secured though the harsh and thorough quashing of dissent. I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    > I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US. And so does Russia, which is another effective repressive dictatorship. From my perspective, they're just exceptionally adapt at pushing their propaganda abroad. Historically, the USA was the only one doing that, but it's no longer the only player. (To be clear, I meant spreading propaganda abroad. The USA is at least currently not a repressive dictatorship. And I doubt it will become so before I die.)

okasaki 2y ago

China isn't autocratic. That's just cope.

abeppu 2y ago

> That's kind of the point of democratic institutions I think the problem is that American "democracy" is frequently undemocratic. If a clear majority of voters support a project or policy, it may still be blocked through various political/legal/regulatory means.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
> If a clear majority of voters support a project or policy thing is, projects run into reality. if a majority voted to build the starship enterprise today would it make sense to do it just because a majority wanted it
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Healthcare access isn't sci-fi
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    yes and believe it or not healthcare runs into real constraints and concerns about equity, etc. suppose a rare disease is only well researched in a few white families. lets say, the mennonites. curing the disease is possible, but expensive. should everyone else be forced to subsidize it? what if the markers are known and parents choose to have kids anyways even though they have the markers. does the situation change if its sickle cell anemia?
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      This is a good point. If you imagine that by healthcare people mean an imaginary expensive Mennonite disease instead of the ability to see a doctor and receive treatment for common diseases and injuries it becomes very murky indeed.
      - 6510 2y ago
        Combining the two seems a design flaw. The one requires research, experience, training, labs, clinical trials etc etc. The other little more than a database.

mistermann 2y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...

akhosravian 2y ago

Funny you mention Seattle’s light rail. The first part of New York’s subway system was built in 4 years and had more stops than Seattle’s light rail does after 15 years. We (Americans) absolutely built big public projects in reasonable timeframes a century ago, and we don’t now. Attributing it to the form of government seems to miss the mark.