5 ms·

When a country accomplishes something really great, it’s not because they are small and the US is big. It’s because they are smart and we are dumb. We hear thi

When a country accomplishes something really great, it’s not because they are small and the US is big. It’s because they are smart and we are dumb. We hear this all the time. Portugal legalized drugs and it worked, but they’re small. Iceland forged their own path after the banking collapse, but they’re small. The Nordic countries have great education systems that cost less, but they’re small. Always a great excuse when you really don’t want to learn from others.

NittLion78 12y ago
Maybe we're dumb because we're big. More people = more odds of an ignoramus group having critical mass.
- pc2g4d 12y ago
  More people = greater diversity of opinions and interest groups, thus greater difficulty achieving consensus (or even majority).
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    If that were true China would be the most diverse nation on the planet, and the hardest to manage. The problem in the US is the opposite - national policy is almost exclusively influenced by interest groups with very limited intellectual and cultural diversity. There could easily have been a crash space-race type of program of renewables development at any time from the mid-70s onwards. If that had happened, it's likely there would have been astounding developments in collection efficiency and energy storage. But the Jurassic energy cos were never going the loss of face, I mean loss of profits, that would have led to. So - here we are now.
    - lkbm 12y ago
      You start out implying that China _isn't_ diverse, an dthen seem to argue that the US's problem is that we're more diverse. But you got it right the first time: China, especially in terms of leadership, doesn't listen to a bunch of diverse groups. They centrally control it without much concern for the whining of the luggage industry, or the furniture industry, or the cotton farmers. In the US, we listen to special interests because 1. we listen to those who talk and 2. special interests are very interested in a small thing that the general public doesn't care about. A very small luggage industry can demand absurd luggage protectionism because people in that industry care a lot, and people outside of it are barely even aware that it's a thing. I won't change my vote based on whether you put massive tariffs on foreign-made suitcases, but people whose jobs depend on it will. China avoids this by not caring about what people say.
- bilbo0s 12y ago
  More people ALSO means more odds of a genius group having critical mass. Just saying it works both ways.
oh_sigh 12y ago
Actually, if USAians used as many watts per person as Costa Rica(8x fewer - 1683 wpp vs 207 wpp[1]), our renewable infrastructure would be able to support us entirely(currently 13% of total generation)[2], and infact we would have power to spare. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricit... [2] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
- plumeria 12y ago
  Yes, but here in Costa Rica we do not need to spend energy warming our buildings in winter. Many businesses use air conditioner in the warmer zones, though. For example, in Guanacaste and Puntarenas.
findjashua 12y ago
And healthcare
trynumber9 12y ago
> The Nordic countries have great education systems that cost less, but they’re small. While there may be much to learn from Nordic schools, they do have the advantages (in education) of a smaller scale. Studies show that larger school sizes are less effective[0][1]. [0]: (PDF) http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158 http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158 [1]: (PDF) http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite-Kisida-13_Impact-of-School-Size-on-Student-Achievement_wp.pdf http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite...
- ptaipale 12y ago
  In Nordics, the authorities attempt to create larger schools because they think they are more effective. (I'm suspicious, though, and your references are interesting). I think that the reason for better results in Nordic schools is that they have not as many students who are unable to understand teaching language. The population is ethnically rather uniform and there is relatively strong social cohesion.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Sweden has taken in a lot of immigrants. 15.9% of the population are immigrants, compared to 14.3% in the US. Most of these immigrants don't know Swedish. http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf has commentary on school sizes in Denmark. They are much smaller than in the US and UK. It describes some of the reasons that people think larger schools are better: > Policymakers often appear to prefer large schools due to scale economies associated with administrative costs. In addition large schools are generally able to offer a broader curriculum and better career prospects for teachers. This may attract more experienced and more qualified teachers. The students (and teachers) in larger schools typically come from larger geographical areas and may have a more diverse social background. To the extent that diversity and being exposed to students and teachers with different social and demographic background is a positive production factor in the human capital production function, this may be an argument for large schools. Further, in large schools it may be easier for students and teachers to change classrooms or peer groups if, for example, a match between a teacher and the students in a given class is not optimal.
- 12y ago
mikeash 12y ago
This always drives me nuts. It shows up often in all sorts of arguments. Socialized health care is a prominent one. Yeah, the US may have ten times the population, but we also have ten times the resources to put into it. There certainly exist problems that don't scale, but there are very few problems that can scale to, say, 30 million people but not 300 million people. I wouldn't even phrase it as smart versus dumb. They accomplished it because they wanted to, and we don't because we don't. Maybe we don't want to because we're dumb, but I think it's good to frame it as "We could if we wanted to. Do we want to? Maybe we should want to."
- ebiester 12y ago
  The problem is less population and more population density. It would be a small problem to provide socialized health care in Boston or San Francisco relative to West Virginia, for example. It would be a bigger problem to provide equivalent care. It is a bigger problem still to handle the bureaucracy to provide optimal care based on the problems each see. I want socialized health care, but I don't pretend it is merely an issue of will.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    There are places with low population density and socialized health care. Like large parts of Canada, for example. You can always find something that's different, of course. Scale shouldn't matter, but the US is less densely populated than all those European countries. Canada doesn't count because 90% of the population is crammed against the southern border. In one respect, these are very difficult problems, so you're right that it's not just an issue of will. In another respect, they have been solved, so we know it can be done. In that sense, is it not just an issue of will? If you decide to do it, and you put sufficient resources behind it, you know it can be done. If you're not doing it, it's because you ultimately don't want to.
    - msandford 12y ago
      > Scale shouldn't matter And yet it does. Try administering all the various socialized healthcare systems in Europe strictly from Brussels. Get back to me when the whole thing has become a shambles. > If you decide to do it, and you put sufficient resources behind it, you know it can be done. The point isn't "can it be done" but rather "can it be done efficiently" because right now the spending in the US is only about 2x as bad as anywhere else. Shameful and embarrassing for sure! But the problem is largely one of economics, not will. Maybe we socialized and costs go down 50%, or maybe they only go down 20%, or maybe they go up 30%. There's no way to know until we try it. As far as I can tell there's been no country thus far that's done socialized healthcare with the kind of genetic diversity that the US has. The US has sizable populations of people from all over the earth, so we have the "good fortune" to have to specialize in basically every genetic condition, predisposition, etc. That absolutely does increase costs. I'm not saying that the healthcare model that the US has is optimal, or even good. But to suggest that it can't get any worse is to show a prodigious lack of imagination.
plumeria 12y ago
For such big countries, a divide-and-conquer approach to argument would place responsibility at the state level rather than at the country level (i.e. think globally, act locally kind-of-argument).
shas3 12y ago
Well, there are pockets of America that are as good as all the examples that you state. There are states and school districts that perform as well or better than Nordic states (e.g. Massachusetts). There are states and cities that have recovered better than Iceland after economic collapses (e.g. Pittsburgh). A few things: 1. With size comes disparity and diversity. Iceland, Portugal, Nordic countries are definitely ideals to work towards. But failure to reach the ideals as a monolithic country doesn't mean things are bad. 2. Federal policies are much harder to change because it is like steering a ship that is also not a rigid body! Size plays a role here because it brings with it diversity. In smaller countries, you do not have equivalents for under-performing components of the whole, such as Mississippi, tea party, and inner-city neighborhoods, that are often out of reach of federal policies / majority opinions.
stealthlogic 12y ago
Couldn't agree more. I look forward to a day when the US Government can pull their heads out of their asses and actually agree that renewable energy is a GOOD thing and stop fighting it.

NittLion78 12y ago

Maybe we're dumb because we're big. More people = more odds of an ignoramus group having critical mass.

pc2g4d 12y ago
More people = greater diversity of opinions and interest groups, thus greater difficulty achieving consensus (or even majority).
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  If that were true China would be the most diverse nation on the planet, and the hardest to manage. The problem in the US is the opposite - national policy is almost exclusively influenced by interest groups with very limited intellectual and cultural diversity. There could easily have been a crash space-race type of program of renewables development at any time from the mid-70s onwards. If that had happened, it's likely there would have been astounding developments in collection efficiency and energy storage. But the Jurassic energy cos were never going the loss of face, I mean loss of profits, that would have led to. So - here we are now.
  - lkbm 12y ago
    You start out implying that China _isn't_ diverse, an dthen seem to argue that the US's problem is that we're more diverse. But you got it right the first time: China, especially in terms of leadership, doesn't listen to a bunch of diverse groups. They centrally control it without much concern for the whining of the luggage industry, or the furniture industry, or the cotton farmers. In the US, we listen to special interests because 1. we listen to those who talk and 2. special interests are very interested in a small thing that the general public doesn't care about. A very small luggage industry can demand absurd luggage protectionism because people in that industry care a lot, and people outside of it are barely even aware that it's a thing. I won't change my vote based on whether you put massive tariffs on foreign-made suitcases, but people whose jobs depend on it will. China avoids this by not caring about what people say.
bilbo0s 12y ago
More people ALSO means more odds of a genius group having critical mass. Just saying it works both ways.

oh_sigh 12y ago

Actually, if USAians used as many watts per person as Costa Rica(8x fewer - 1683 wpp vs 207 wpp[1]), our renewable infrastructure would be able to support us entirely(currently 13% of total generation)[2], and infact we would have power to spare. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricit... [2] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

plumeria 12y ago
Yes, but here in Costa Rica we do not need to spend energy warming our buildings in winter. Many businesses use air conditioner in the warmer zones, though. For example, in Guanacaste and Puntarenas.

findjashua 12y ago

And healthcare

trynumber9 12y ago

> The Nordic countries have great education systems that cost less, but they’re small. While there may be much to learn from Nordic schools, they do have the advantages (in education) of a smaller scale. Studies show that larger school sizes are less effective[0][1]. [0]: (PDF) http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158 http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158 [1]: (PDF) http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite-Kisida-13_Impact-of-School-Size-on-Student-Achievement_wp.pdf http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite...

ptaipale 12y ago
In Nordics, the authorities attempt to create larger schools because they think they are more effective. (I'm suspicious, though, and your references are interesting). I think that the reason for better results in Nordic schools is that they have not as many students who are unable to understand teaching language. The population is ethnically rather uniform and there is relatively strong social cohesion.
- dalke 12y ago
  Sweden has taken in a lot of immigrants. 15.9% of the population are immigrants, compared to 14.3% in the US. Most of these immigrants don't know Swedish. http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf has commentary on school sizes in Denmark. They are much smaller than in the US and UK. It describes some of the reasons that people think larger schools are better: > Policymakers often appear to prefer large schools due to scale economies associated with administrative costs. In addition large schools are generally able to offer a broader curriculum and better career prospects for teachers. This may attract more experienced and more qualified teachers. The students (and teachers) in larger schools typically come from larger geographical areas and may have a more diverse social background. To the extent that diversity and being exposed to students and teachers with different social and demographic background is a positive production factor in the human capital production function, this may be an argument for large schools. Further, in large schools it may be easier for students and teachers to change classrooms or peer groups if, for example, a match between a teacher and the students in a given class is not optimal.
12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

This always drives me nuts. It shows up often in all sorts of arguments. Socialized health care is a prominent one. Yeah, the US may have ten times the population, but we also have ten times the resources to put into it. There certainly exist problems that don't scale, but there are very few problems that can scale to, say, 30 million people but not 300 million people. I wouldn't even phrase it as smart versus dumb. They accomplished it because they wanted to, and we don't because we don't. Maybe we don't want to because we're dumb, but I think it's good to frame it as "We could if we wanted to. Do we want to? Maybe we should want to."

ebiester 12y ago
The problem is less population and more population density. It would be a small problem to provide socialized health care in Boston or San Francisco relative to West Virginia, for example. It would be a bigger problem to provide equivalent care. It is a bigger problem still to handle the bureaucracy to provide optimal care based on the problems each see. I want socialized health care, but I don't pretend it is merely an issue of will.
- mikeash 12y ago
  There are places with low population density and socialized health care. Like large parts of Canada, for example. You can always find something that's different, of course. Scale shouldn't matter, but the US is less densely populated than all those European countries. Canada doesn't count because 90% of the population is crammed against the southern border. In one respect, these are very difficult problems, so you're right that it's not just an issue of will. In another respect, they have been solved, so we know it can be done. In that sense, is it not just an issue of will? If you decide to do it, and you put sufficient resources behind it, you know it can be done. If you're not doing it, it's because you ultimately don't want to.
  - msandford 12y ago
    > Scale shouldn't matter And yet it does. Try administering all the various socialized healthcare systems in Europe strictly from Brussels. Get back to me when the whole thing has become a shambles. > If you decide to do it, and you put sufficient resources behind it, you know it can be done. The point isn't "can it be done" but rather "can it be done efficiently" because right now the spending in the US is only about 2x as bad as anywhere else. Shameful and embarrassing for sure! But the problem is largely one of economics, not will. Maybe we socialized and costs go down 50%, or maybe they only go down 20%, or maybe they go up 30%. There's no way to know until we try it. As far as I can tell there's been no country thus far that's done socialized healthcare with the kind of genetic diversity that the US has. The US has sizable populations of people from all over the earth, so we have the "good fortune" to have to specialize in basically every genetic condition, predisposition, etc. That absolutely does increase costs. I'm not saying that the healthcare model that the US has is optimal, or even good. But to suggest that it can't get any worse is to show a prodigious lack of imagination.

plumeria 12y ago

For such big countries, a divide-and-conquer approach to argument would place responsibility at the state level rather than at the country level (i.e. think globally, act locally kind-of-argument).

shas3 12y ago

Well, there are pockets of America that are as good as all the examples that you state. There are states and school districts that perform as well or better than Nordic states (e.g. Massachusetts). There are states and cities that have recovered better than Iceland after economic collapses (e.g. Pittsburgh). A few things: 1. With size comes disparity and diversity. Iceland, Portugal, Nordic countries are definitely ideals to work towards. But failure to reach the ideals as a monolithic country doesn't mean things are bad. 2. Federal policies are much harder to change because it is like steering a ship that is also not a rigid body! Size plays a role here because it brings with it diversity. In smaller countries, you do not have equivalents for under-performing components of the whole, such as Mississippi, tea party, and inner-city neighborhoods, that are often out of reach of federal policies / majority opinions.

stealthlogic 12y ago

Couldn't agree more. I look forward to a day when the US Government can pull their heads out of their asses and actually agree that renewable energy is a GOOD thing and stop fighting it.