Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (61858)	1/30/2013 11:45:33 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

Yes, making changes in countries which are already working more or less would probably not be democratically popular. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a mantra heard everywhere, which of course is why it's the innovative new companies which don't lock themselves into an atavistic past which succeed and the old successes die off. It seems to be the same for countries. Some country finds a formula for success and has a good innings, maybe for hundreds of years. But none have survived for the long term. So yes, the USA and its empire will likely simply go down the gurgler, with umpty $trillions in debt and over-inflated expectations, like Great Britain went downhill starting 100 years ago with World War I which was a horrific catastrophe, followed by the Great Depression and then World War II, with The British Disease enervating the economy. To persuade people that it's in their best interests to form a sovereign society where they personally own the public assets would be difficult nearly everywhere given the cultural baggage. Most people find even owning shares in companies a philosophical divide too wide. Not having money makes it easy for them to look askance at capitalism - they seem to prefer serfitude to the state. That probably stems from the millions of years of tribal pecking order, sense of belonging, and Stockholm Syndrome to which they are trained from birth. But Hong Kong, appears to have that capitalist mindset of economic freedom, with the ability to buy in according to their state-capitalist rules. They use housing as the token of citizenship - [not that I have studied immigration rules in Hong Kong]. Places like Greece seem the best bet - not much to lose and everything to gain. They even lay claim to being the first democracy so maybe they can lead again. The main issue is likely the old one of self-dealing zero-sum game thinking, so rather than do it right, people will look on it not as mutuality and co-beneficial identity formation, but a means to get money away from other people and basically rob them. That seems to be how most people think, though psychological studies do show mutuality as being intrinsic to both humans and chimps [they'll help each other, sometimes without apparent reward]. Modern countries do have considerable community mindedness though mostly with a Big Brother state kleptocracy mentality holding sway. <As citizens grew in number the resources to purchase territories would be available. It is always easier to manage growth than contraction. This is true in business, and would appear to be true in managing a nation.> I don't buy that idea. As companies lose their innovation, suffer market failure and fade to old age, of course they go into unmanageable decline. But simple contraction seems easy enough. Japan is contracting in population and for 20 years has been in a sort of decline. Though that decline seems to be more like my personal one. I have eased off a lot having achieved sufficient economic success, with the family grown and old age approaching over the horizon. Japan's average age has increased so I guess on a macro scale, they are doing much the same, enjoying half a century of success after a long effort. As with Japan, my lifetime of investment seems to be doing well so even while "declining" I do just fine. The dam, canal and roads I built as a young man are still doing a good job [though now crowded with immigrants who did not pay me anything for their acquisition of those assets]. Similarly, the assets my taxes paid for are doing a good job, but are diluted by free-loading immigrants and locals. Tradable Citizenship is probably only manageable in stable populations because if people could simply get more money by having more children to get free citizenships worth big heaps, they would likely do so. That might even be a solution to the worries about declining populations - a built in baby bonus would be available. In growing population the new babies would be diluting the ownership of existing citizenships, causing hyperinflation, just like printing money dilutes previous issues. Mqurice