20 ms·

The key is to have a country 2x the size of Massachusetts (one of the smallest states in the US) — Denmark is the 133rd largest country. Using a country of your

The key is to have a country 2x the size of Massachusetts (one of the smallest states in the US) — Denmark is the 133rd largest country. Using a country of your size with a population only 2/3rds NYC to argue for global planned economies is incredibly disingenuous. A more apt comparison would be China or the former USSR.

redacted 12y ago
Disregarding the EU is also disingenuous. Rather than consider the USA as a single monolith and comparing to a single European nation like Denmark, compare to the equivalent monolith (the EU has 46% of the area, 158% of the population, and 103% GDP of the USA). Most EU countries have heavy central planning for all the things _delirium mentioned, probably all EU countries if you use the USA as a baseline.
- icebraining 12y ago
  And the EU doesn't generate massive waste? Denmark is not exactly the average, it's exceptional even in the EU.
- spullara 12y ago
  Right, the EU is more applicable if you compare each country to a US state. US States typically do have central planning, like doling out these water rights.
_delirium 12y ago
Yes, I think generally medium-sized countries make more sense than giant ones, for many reasons. Though even the U.S. can do central planning when it wants to—the interstate highway system is an example. As for China, we'll see. It's a huge country that I think would be chaotic under just about any system, but their current vaguely mercantalist, sort-of centrally planned quasi-capitalism is doing reasonably well, producing strong economic growth— with its attendant social problems. Would a fully market-oriented economy without the strong role of the state work better? I don't honestly know. I don't know how you'd even go about testing that kind of counterfactual.
- spullara 12y ago
  Even the interstate highway system in the US was implemented by the state governments who collaborated with each others' planning committees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

redacted 12y ago

Disregarding the EU is also disingenuous. Rather than consider the USA as a single monolith and comparing to a single European nation like Denmark, compare to the equivalent monolith (the EU has 46% of the area, 158% of the population, and 103% GDP of the USA). Most EU countries have heavy central planning for all the things _delirium mentioned, probably all EU countries if you use the USA as a baseline.

icebraining 12y ago
And the EU doesn't generate massive waste? Denmark is not exactly the average, it's exceptional even in the EU.
spullara 12y ago
Right, the EU is more applicable if you compare each country to a US state. US States typically do have central planning, like doling out these water rights.

_delirium 12y ago

Yes, I think generally medium-sized countries make more sense than giant ones, for many reasons. Though even the U.S. can do central planning when it wants to—the interstate highway system is an example. As for China, we'll see. It's a huge country that I think would be chaotic under just about any system, but their current vaguely mercantalist, sort-of centrally planned quasi-capitalism is doing reasonably well, producing strong economic growth— with its attendant social problems. Would a fully market-oriented economy without the strong role of the state work better? I don't honestly know. I don't know how you'd even go about testing that kind of counterfactual.

spullara 12y ago
Even the interstate highway system in the US was implemented by the state governments who collaborated with each others' planning committees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System