3 ms·

> most critical components of the US don't require large populations centers Yes, but large cities still produce the most value if we're talking in economic te

> most critical components of the US don't require large populations centers Yes, but large cities still produce the most value if we're talking in economic terms. For food production especially. Most logistical operation also operates in large cities. >You absolutely have to offer some level of appeasement that outsizes their population representation to the people who support everyone else. Well, yes. That was the big comprmise made by the constitution to begin with. They needed something like a Senate to get smaller states to sign on.

hattmall 1y ago
But we aren't talking in economic terms. We are talking in political terms. The economy is an offshoot of the functioning political system. Contextually they are different things although logically intertwined, but resources and their management / allocation is what gives rise to the idea of governance and that governance implements the economic system etc. Without the resources there isn't really anything to govern. The infrastructure and logistics in a city are generally geared toward supporting that city, not the rural areas. And I mean, obviously the current situation is not this way because we have a very functioning system, most rural people don't even use the food and resources that are extracted around them anyway as we import and move things around at an unprecedented scale. But we are talking about what is important to a functioning large scale country and economy at the basic level. You literally can not support the cities without the rural output, even if the larger value, monetarily, is created in the urban area.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  I use economics because I don't know how to politically measure "success". As it is now, what a politician wants is clearly divorced from what their constituents want. >The infrastructure and logistics in a city are generally geared toward supporting that city, not the rural areas. But thse large states also help fund small states. Which small states are considered "donor states". > But we are talking about what is important to a functioning large scale country and economy at the basic level. California is the 4th largest world economy. It can certainly break off and operate fine by itself if things got truly dire. The main thing missing is a standing army and nukes. The latter of which is probably the main bargaining chip of the smaller states at this point. I think you underestimate how efficient the larger states can be. And overestimate the economic value of the smaller ones under the stereotype that "they produce the most food". They produce a lot, but not the most.

hattmall 1y ago

But we aren't talking in economic terms. We are talking in political terms. The economy is an offshoot of the functioning political system. Contextually they are different things although logically intertwined, but resources and their management / allocation is what gives rise to the idea of governance and that governance implements the economic system etc. Without the resources there isn't really anything to govern. The infrastructure and logistics in a city are generally geared toward supporting that city, not the rural areas. And I mean, obviously the current situation is not this way because we have a very functioning system, most rural people don't even use the food and resources that are extracted around them anyway as we import and move things around at an unprecedented scale. But we are talking about what is important to a functioning large scale country and economy at the basic level. You literally can not support the cities without the rural output, even if the larger value, monetarily, is created in the urban area.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
I use economics because I don't know how to politically measure "success". As it is now, what a politician wants is clearly divorced from what their constituents want. >The infrastructure and logistics in a city are generally geared toward supporting that city, not the rural areas. But thse large states also help fund small states. Which small states are considered "donor states". > But we are talking about what is important to a functioning large scale country and economy at the basic level. California is the 4th largest world economy. It can certainly break off and operate fine by itself if things got truly dire. The main thing missing is a standing army and nukes. The latter of which is probably the main bargaining chip of the smaller states at this point. I think you underestimate how efficient the larger states can be. And overestimate the economic value of the smaller ones under the stereotype that "they produce the most food". They produce a lot, but not the most.