The PIIGS still fly

[GRG55]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

I don't believe they are objecting to the US. It's not a protest against the anthem or flag. It's a free protest aimed at raising awareness of being treated differently but probably a misguided attempt.

It doesn't matter what they are objecting to. And my observation is completely unrelated to whether the grievance is legitimate or not. That also does not matter.

The effect is yet another in a long series of small steps to erode the value and influence of one of the remaining representations, symbols and shared public rituals of a nation.

Nobody need be forced to stand during the anthem, or the raising of the flag (here the President is wrong imo). It only has value if people do it voluntarily. Out of respect for what those symbols represent.

So what happens if some other constituency with some other valid grievance decides they too should collectively do the same thing - perhaps within the audience instead of as players on the field - to draw attention to their equally legitimate cause at a public gathering? And then another constituency? And another? There's no shortage of those to draw from these days.

With the flourishing of tribalism worldwide perhaps we are entering a time where we may be questioning the very purpose or necessity of a nation, any nation.

My own nation, Canada, is an interesting and heretofore relatively successful experiment in how to organize and govern a diverse society that lives together in comparative harmony. So far. And Quebec notwithstanding. But if one was to ask what is it that defines us as Canadians the answers, if any are forthcoming, lean heavily towards the facile ("We are not Americans!"...when in point of fact we actually are) and the irrelevant (our national health care program...difficult for me to imagine a social policy program being the primary glue that binds us together). Canada seems an increasingly fragile construct.

Interesting times indeed.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

It doesn't matter what they are objecting to. And my observation is completely unrelated to whether the grievance is legitimate or not. That also does not matter.

The effect is yet another in a long series of small steps to erode the value and influence of one of the remaining representations, symbols and shared public rituals of a nation.

Nobody need be forced to stand during the anthem, or the raising of the flag (here the President is wrong imo). It only has value if people do it voluntarily. Out of respect for what those symbols represent.

So what happens if some other constituency with some other valid grievance decides they too should collectively do the same thing - perhaps within the audience instead of as players on the field - to draw attention to their equally legitimate cause at a public gathering? And then another constituency? And another? There's no shortage of those to draw from these days.

With the flourishing of tribalism worldwide perhaps we are entering a time where we may be questioning the very purpose or necessity of a nation, any nation.

My own nation, Canada, is an interesting and heretofore relatively successful experiment in how to organize and govern a diverse society that lives together in comparative harmony. So far. And Quebec notwithstanding. But if one was to ask what is it that defines us as Canadians the answers, if any are forthcoming, lean heavily towards the facile ("We are not Americans!"...when in point of fact we actually are) and the irrelevant (our national health care program...difficult for me to imagine a social policy program being the primary glue that binds us together). Canada seems an increasingly fragile construct.

Interesting times indeed.

It seems to me that the concept of 'we' becomes increasingly irrelevant as tribalism increases.

Perhaps 'we' are not questioning the very purpose or necessity of any nation.

But I think maybe there is an elite who are. Or at least they are questioning the purpose of democratic institutions.

Look at Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel's own words. He does not believe that freedom and democracy are compatible in any sense. Or look at the billionaire king of VC, Tom Perkins, and listen to what he says. All of the wealth and all of the leisure he has access to, and his best idea to change the world is to take the vote away from half of the people in democratic republics and install an iron oligarchy.

And these are the guys who won. I mean, "the system" has not worked better or harder to give untold, wanton, sinful piles of decadent riches to almost any other human being in the history of man than it has these two. Croesus himself would gaze upon their yachts and weep. But they're still miserable and they still want more...so badly that they want to break the system that gave it all to them in the first place.

I don't know, man. Even Reagan filled busloads full of bankers in handcuffs after the Savings and Loan Scandals of the 80s.

Something fundamentally changed in the 90s that got real poisonous in the 00s. Financial elites became 'above the law.' Billionaires became above the law. I mean, we didn't even have any billionaires until the 80s, so I guess it was a new thing anyways.


But stories like the affluenza kid, Ethan Couch? Blatantly corrupt court cases like Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. FEC? ******* Robert Durst on HBO's The Jinx literally getting away with multiple murders because he's an NYC real estate heir? Bin Laden taking a billion of his family's money just to do 9/11 and set up Al Qaeda? Alice Walton dropping out of school, killing people while drunk driving, then still drunk driving, still getting arrested, and still keeping her license?

HSBC laundering drug cartel and terrorist money with no criminal persecutions? Countrywide, Goldman, Bear-Stearns and Lehman going down the way they did in the financial crisis with not a single person being found criminally liable for all those liar loans and illegal 'robo-signatures' and mortgage fraud? The Panama Papers? How many companies' CEOs and boards outsource despite killing the town they were born in or squirrels money away in Ireland or some Caribbean tax shelter rather than be upstanding citizens that care about their neighbors and customers and workers that got them there? Meanwhile Clinton and Obama are raking in a half-million per half-hour giving speeches on Wall Street. Trump is letting his daughter act like the Princess Regent along with her hubby in the most blatant nepotism of our time...

Makes you long for a guy like Jimmy Carter, who is still out there in his 90s nailing 2x4s together for low-income folks.


...I suppose I'm just saying, something about justice and equality in the developed world is qualitatively different now than it was when I was a kid.


The justice system has always been skewed. Wealthy people could always hire better lawyers. But there was always some sort of semblance of equality under the law. You couldn't literally get away with murder just because you were rich. Now, I think you can.


In no small way, you can tell the history of the 2000s and 2010s simply in terms of a string of billionaires acting badly, corrupting the republic, and being above the law. Soros, Koch, the side they're on is irrelevant. Either way, they think they're going to move to an offshore platform or Mars or at the very least Singapore or Monaco or Dubai when the shit really hits the fan.

Our leaders have no allegiance any more. The entirety of pro sports leagues went and fought in WWII. JFK fought, despite being a little rich Harvard boy, and somewhat sickly. Even Elvis signed up for a tour of duty.

Can you imagine the players of the NFL enlisting to fight a war today? How about Jared Kushner? Can you see him suiting up and dropping into a forward position in Afghanistan? Can you picture Kanye doing push-ups in the mud at Ft. Hood?

Our leaders feel like they no longer owe us anything. Like the rest of us are a burden. An albatross around their necks. "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." That's where we're at. They don't want us. They certainly don't want us to have power. They don't want to share a dime with us. They don't want one single solitary dollar trickling down. And they damn well are not going to submit to our laws or go to jail for their crimes.

Never mind fight for us! As if! Could you imagine Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton taking orders from some former waitress come drill sergeant from Sheboygan? The whole concept is beyond their comprehension. All they could think is that they could buy and sell her family if they wanted. They'd never be able to play the role with a straight face.

Something changed. And even if people don't/can't/won't put it together like I do, they know it. They know their Uncle did a couple years in the pokey for doing what Lindsay Lohan gets community service for. They pick up on the distain and hatred our leaders have for the rest of us, even if it's only through watching Rich Kids of Instagram on Channel 4.

And even if they don't watch that, regular people get it.

They tell us we need to be tough on crime. We need broken-windows policing. We need stop-and-frisk.

But high above the streets of New York, bigger crimes are happening in offices, and they're completely immune from and above the law. No strict investigation or enforcement for them. People realize that Obama let them get away with murder on both sides of the isle.


But outside of that, people realize the little things about what's taxed around them. I'm talking about the pigouvian taxes. The taxes used to change behavior. They use them as sticks against most of us, but only carrots for our leaders.

Think about all the little taxes they use for behavior change on working class and middle class people.

They tax the hell out of cigarettes, but exempt cigars. They tax the hell out of soda or limit its size, but not lattes or oversized blueberry pomegranate margaritas. They tax your gasoline and make you buy newer expensive emissions systems for your cheap car, but not for private jets or yachts. They tax beer and whiskey harder than wine. In many states you have to pay a yearly excise tax on any car, no matter how old and beat up, but you pay no taxes on boats or planes.


All of the 'sin' taxes proposed by politicians left, right, and center have this cognitive dissonance built into them. The version of the product rich people like is exempt from the tax (Cigars, Wine, Yachts, Lattes), where the version of the product poor people like is hit hard with the tax (Cigarettes, Beer, Cars, Soda).

They don't even pretend to try to treat us equally. It's almost like they believe we're the equivalent of children and they are the equivalent of parents that know better. And that parochial attitude is fundamentally rude and antidemocratic. But I think that may be the point, and I may see eye to eye with guys like Tom Perkins and Peter Thiel more than I realize. At least we all agree on what they're doing. It's the rest of them that lie about it who are maybe more dangerous.

And when our leaders, our most lucky, our most wealthy, our most powerful...when those people let it be known with their actions, even if not always with their words, that they no longer care about the rest of us, or our country...that they don't like us and have no allegiance to us or the nation that made them. Then why should anybody else? If our nation's most fortunate don't give a shit about our country or the people in it, why wouldn't the rest of the hoi polloi emulate that behavior?

And I'm afraid that this is a case where the American predicament is not unique. The whole of the developed world is along for this ride. It's why you see the same politics happening at roughly the same time from Berlin to London, from Paris to Madrid, from Washington to Ottowa. It doesn't matter. It's all the same symptoms of the same disease.

[wayiwalk]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

I don't always agree with you dcarrigg, but when I agree with you, like now, I really agree with you.

I would add to this, it is like a plague flooding the nation, corrupting anything and anyone who thinks they can push the envelope of fair and legal to tip things waaayyyyyyy in their favor, and too bad for the other side, whatever or whoever is on that side.

I agree those at the top can be fairly characterized as you characterized them here; I fear their are too many folks who aspire to be like them.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

I fear their are too many folks who aspire to be like them.

I fear you're 100% correct, and that's the most dangerous part of all. If there's going to be any way out of the tribalism and the polarization and the hatred and the sectionalism and the economic malaise...if the republic is ever to become more again than a rubber stamp for the guys who cut the checks to the politicians...we're going to have to kill that aspiration. We're going to have to make it so shameful and disgusting that no reasonable, right-minded person would ever admit in public that they want to become such a vile creature. We're going to have to make being a greed monster with no allegiance shameful and disgraceful and a source of public ridicule. When people can stand proudly with the little they have and say to their neighbors, "We may not have much, but at least we're in this together. At least we're not like those soul-less, rudderless, mercenary monsters," then maybe we have a chance.

But I fear the headwinds are strong against us. I mean, just listen to what passes for pop music:

That's a world away from this:

[llanlad2]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

It doesn't matter what they are objecting to. And my observation is completely unrelated to whether the grievance is legitimate or not. That also does not matter.

The effect is yet another in a long series of small steps to erode the value and influence of one of the remaining representations, symbols and shared public rituals of a nation.

Nobody need be forced to stand during the anthem, or the raising of the flag (here the President is wrong imo). It only has value if people do it voluntarily. Out of respect for what those symbols represent.

So what happens if some other constituency with some other valid grievance decides they too should collectively do the same thing - perhaps within the audience instead of as players on the field - to draw attention to their equally legitimate cause at a public gathering? And then another constituency? And another? There's no shortage of those to draw from these days.

With the flourishing of tribalism worldwide perhaps we are entering a time where we may be questioning the very purpose or necessity of a nation, any nation.

My own nation, Canada, is an interesting and heretofore relatively successful experiment in how to organize and govern a diverse society that lives together in comparative harmony. So far. And Quebec notwithstanding. But if one was to ask what is it that defines us as Canadians the answers, if any are forthcoming, lean heavily towards the facile ("We are not Americans!"...when in point of fact we actually are) and the irrelevant (our national health care program...difficult for me to imagine a social policy program being the primary glue that binds us together). Canada seems an increasingly fragile construct.

Interesting times indeed.

It is the behaviour of the self-serving plutocrats that is causing the erosion of the values those symbols once represented. Dcarrigs post exemplifies that perfectly. If the symbol has been co-opted and corrupted it makes no sense to respect it except as a ritual.
It also makes perfect sense to not want to be part of it. If the nation is only serving a tiny fraction why the hell wouldn't I want out especially if I can't vote them out? You can call it tribalism or whatever you want. To my mind it's just a logical response.Ultimately the national interest must mean in the interest of the many in each region. Once it doesn't then splintering is a likely outcome.

[GRG55]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

It is the behaviour of the self-serving plutocrats that is causing the erosion of the values those symbols once represented. Dcarrigs post exemplifies that perfectly. If the symbol has been co-opted and corrupted it makes no sense to respect it except as a ritual.
It also makes perfect sense to not want to be part of it. If the nation is only serving a tiny fraction why the hell wouldn't I want out especially if I can't vote them out? You can call it tribalism or whatever you want. To my mind it's just a logical response.Ultimately the national interest must mean in the interest of the many in each region. Once it doesn't then splintering is a likely outcome.

Yes, this is a very contemporary way to behave. I know more people than I care to admit who have taken the exact same attitude and approach with their first, and sometimes even second marriages. With similar results.

What happens when there is nothing much left to separate from?

Do a majority of Catalans, as merely one of many current apparently aggrieved examples, feel their regional government is representing "the interest of the many" in that region? What happens if Catalonia is successful, by a slim majority, in its efforts to partition Spain. Should those that did not wish this outcome have the right to vote for the further partitioning of a newly independent Catalonia? Where exactly does this end? City-states? Village warlords? Don't we have ample numbers of sufficiently similar examples of these elsewhere, in less successfully governed parts of the world to understand the abyss we in Europe and North America are in danger of driving ourselves into?

I am uniformly sceptical of my acquaintances explanations of how "liberating", "positive" and "life-changing" their divorces are. Well, maybe I agree with the life-changing part.

I am equally sceptical of the supposed benefits of successive national subdivisions, like some matryoshka doll, of what have heretofore been some of the most successful examples of collective governance in the entire recorded history of mankind on this earth.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

What happens if Catalonia is successful, by a slim majority, in its efforts to partition Spain. Should those that did not wish this outcome have the right to vote for the further partitioning of a newly independent Catalonia? Where exactly does this end? City-states? Village warlords?

There are large parts of Catalonia (like Valle de Aran and others) who have officially said that, in case Catalonia is successful in becoming independent, they will hold their own referenda to unite with Spain.

I don't want to start a political argument, since the people who might be reading this forum have (IMO) zero influence on any outcome and it would be pointless, but what I am telling you is a fact. There are large parts of Catalonia very pro-Spain and they threaten with seceding from Catalonia.

[GRG55]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

There are large parts of Catalonia (like Valle de Aran and others) who have officially said that, in case Catalonia is successful in becoming independent, they will hold their own referenda to unite with Spain.

I don't want to start a political argument, since the people who might be reading this forum have (IMO) zero influence on any outcome and it would be pointless, but what I am telling you is a fact. There are large parts of Catalonia very pro-Spain and they threaten with seceding from Catalonia.

This is similar to what happened during the last Quebec separatist referendum in Canada. The First Nation Cree in northern Quebec announced it would not agree to abide by a French Quebecois separatist vote if it were successful, and would instead initiate a partition of Quebec so its lands would remain in Canada.

The referendum was unsuccessful by a slim margin of less than 1% (49.42% to separate, 50.58% to remain), so it never came down to this.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

In case somebody is interested, this article in The Washington Post is NOT bullshit, for once.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3af1eb705452

I wouldn't say that it contains all the truth, but at least it points in the right direction. As you can see there, ten years ago only 15% of catalan people supported independence. What has happened since then? It is complex to say, but the article points to some truths.

[DSpencer]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

I fear you're 100% correct, and that's the most dangerous part of all. If there's going to be any way out of the tribalism and the polarization and the hatred and the sectionalism and the economic malaise...if the republic is ever to become more again than a rubber stamp for the guys who cut the checks to the politicians...we're going to have to kill that aspiration. We're going to have to make it so shameful and disgusting that no reasonable, right-minded person would ever admit in public that they want to become such a vile creature. We're going to have to make being a greed monster with no allegiance shameful and disgraceful and a source of public ridicule. When people can stand proudly with the little they have and say to their neighbors, "We may not have much, but at least we're in this together. At least we're not like those soul-less, rudderless, mercenary monsters," then maybe we have a chance.

But I fear the headwinds are strong against us. I mean, just listen to what passes for pop music:

Isn't that just playing into their hand? You say they don't want a dollar trickling down to you, so you celebrate having little? If the world is rigged for the rich, can you blame people for wanting to join them? What other choice do they having...voting?

The libertarian response to the selective taxation is that the government shouldn't be empowered in the first place to play mommy or daddy by taxing people's soda. But if I have to pay for other people's healthcare, then suddenly it is my business whether they want to smoke a pack a day and drink a case of beer.

Is it ironic that John Fogerty's sons can't sing his lyrics as they are in fact a millionaire's sons?

[llanlad2]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

Yes, this is a very contemporary way to behave. I know more people than I care to admit who have taken the exact same attitude and approach with their first, and sometimes even second marriages. With similar results.

What happens when there is nothing much left to separate from?

Do a majority of Catalans, as merely one of many current apparently aggrieved examples, feel their regional government is representing "the interest of the many" in that region? What happens if Catalonia is successful, by a slim majority, in its efforts to partition Spain. Should those that did not wish this outcome have the right to vote for the further partitioning of a newly independent Catalonia? Where exactly does this end? City-states? Village warlords? Don't we have ample numbers of sufficiently similar examples of these elsewhere, in less successfully governed parts of the world to understand the abyss we in Europe and North America are in danger of driving ourselves into?

I am uniformly sceptical of my acquaintances explanations of how "liberating", "positive" and "life-changing" their divorces are. Well, maybe I agree with the life-changing part.

I am equally sceptical of the supposed benefits of successive national subdivisions, like some matryoshka doll, of what have heretofore been some of the most successful examples of collective governance in the entire recorded history of mankind on this earth.

And also the most despotic and horrendous. Communist China, , Communist Russia and Tsarist Russia before it to name the most obvious. We could also add in the Saudis for good measure as a recent example. Nations are desirable for fighting wars I'll grant you that. There ain't nothing like a collection of people bound together in the "interest of the nation" if you want a good tear up.There was no Germany or Italy until the end of the 19th Century. But tens of millions would soon be churned up in two great wars fighting for nations that hadn't existed less than 50 years previously.

As for city states, well remember Europe's wealth was founded on those city states. On the thriving competition and trade of Antwerp,Venice, Amsterdam and city states of renaissance Italy. Do you think the Dutch regret their separation from Spain in the 17th century leading to Amsterdam being the wealthiest city in the world? Itulip wouldn't have existed!!!! I'm sure many thought the abyss was fast approaching then as well.

The great nations of China, Japan and India waned whilst Europe waxed because of the wealth and creativity emanating out the tiny pockets of Europe. As for the richest countries in Europe now....

Andorra
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Vatican City
Norway
Denmark
San Marino
Switzerland

All Small.All rich. As for the question of where does it all end? Well Switzerland is a great example of how democracy can work for all. It is small to begin with and has very autonomous regions. If people are ruled well they won't desire independence. If rulers are more accountable at a local level and live amongst their constituents then surprise surprise they rule better.

The cantons have a permanent constitutional status and, in comparison with the situation in other countries, a high degree of independence. Under the Federal Constitution, all 26 cantons are equal in status. Each canton has its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts.^[58] However, there are considerable differences between the individual cantons, most particularly in terms of population and geographical area. Their populations vary between 15,000 (Appenzell Innerrhoden) and 1,253,500 (Zürich), and their area between 37 km² (14 sq mi) (Basel-Stadt) and 7,105 km² (2,743 sq mi) (Graubünden). The cantons comprise a total of 2,485 municipalities. Within Switzerland there are two enclaves: Büsingen belongs to Germany, Campione d'Italia belongs to Italy.^[59

Or how about Singapore as a city state-3rd highest GDP per capita. As far as I can see city states and smaller countries are doing pretty well.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

You say they don't want a dollar trickling down to you, so you celebrate having little?

You don't celebrate having little. You celebrate being ethically, morally, civically, and spiritually superior. You acknowledge you have little materially, but you celebrate your non-material strengths. You refuse to sell out at any price. Do not do business on their terms. No market worship. No wealth worship. No mammon worship. You draw lines in the sand. You put honor before wealth. We can decide that some things are not for sale, at any price.

Instead you look to morally superior role models. Form strong relationships and civic societies and enterprises without them. If you can live a superior life, a more moral life, a more fulfilling life, then it will take little to see how rotten and corrupt the wealthy and powerful really are. I mean, it's getting plainer every day, in case you haven't noticed.

I listed enough murderous billionaires before. But remember billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's private jet, "The Lolita Express," that took his rich and powerful friends to diddle children on a 72 acre private Caribbean Island? How about billionaire Curt Johnson who raped his 12 year old step-daughter and got out of it for time served? Billionaire Silvio Berlusconi raping underage Moroccan girls? What about Du Pont billionaire Robert Richards raping his 3 year old daughter, getting found guilty, then getting his 8 year sentence suspended to just probation and now is accused of raping his toddler son? Nobody does time.

Take this Weinstein thing for example. Could a working class serial rapist have done the same thing? Of course not. You need to be a multi-millionaire to pay off dozens of six-figure settlements to women you sexually abuse over 4 decades without going to jail. Again, it's a subset of a larger problem--the wealthy are above the law in this country.

Then there's Robert Allen Stanford and Bernie Madoff with multi-billion dollar ponzis. How much you want to make a bet Robert Mercer's Medallion Fund, rather than truly delivering an average 70% return over two decades through the dot com burst, 9/11, Katrina, and the housing bubble without having a single negative quarter is just simply another fraud?

I mean, there are only something like 540 billionaires in the US and 1,200 in the world, and I can name about 2 or 3 dozen rapists or murderers among them off the top of my head, and another 2 or 3 dozen financial swindlers and white collar criminals to match. It's ridiculous. If those numbers hit the general population, society would collapse. They're at least an order of magnitude more likely to be felons. And that's not counting all the ones who did shit that got paid off and never made it to court!

The rest of us have to be better than them, or the human race stands no chance.

No republic can stand long when any elite stands above the law, be it plutocrats, the military, noble families, or any other group. It's a fundamental bedrock principle of republican life that the law reigns supreme, not man.

Until we demand our republics bring the wicked to justice once again, our leaders will continue to be absolutely corrupted by their absolute wealth and power. Disgusting people. Rapists. Murders. Billionaires. It's all the same thing. Life is cheap when you're a billionaire, relative to your fortune. So they use people like any other commodity. Because they can.

You cannot fight back against that by joining them and their corruption or wishing to become a corrupt, disgusting, amoral, and sinful monster in exchange for material pleasures.

You can only win by having an absolute moral certitude that you live by a superior code to them. Only then can you begin to bring the murders and the rapists and the swindlers to heel.

[GRG55]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

And also the most despotic and horrendous. Communist China, , Communist Russia and Tsarist Russia before it to name the most obvious. We could also add in the Saudis for good measure as a recent example. Nations are desirable for fighting wars I'll grant you that. There ain't nothing like a collection of people bound together in the "interest of the nation" if you want a good tear up.There was no Germany or Italy until the end of the 19th Century. But tens of millions would soon be churned up in two great wars fighting for nations that hadn't existed less than 50 years previously.

As for city states, well remember Europe's wealth was founded on those city states. On the thriving competition and trade of Antwerp,Venice, Amsterdam and city states of renaissance Italy. Do you think the Dutch regret their separation from Spain in the 17th century leading to Amsterdam being the wealthiest city in the world? Itulip wouldn't have existed!!!! I'm sure many thought the abyss was fast approaching then as well.

The great nations of China, Japan and India waned whilst Europe waxed because of the wealth and creativity emanating out the tiny pockets of Europe. As for the richest countries in Europe now....

Andorra
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Vatican City
Norway
Denmark
San Marino
Switzerland

All Small.All rich. As for the question of where does it all end? Well Switzerland is a great example of how democracy can work for all. It is small to begin with and has very autonomous regions. If people are ruled well they won't desire independence. If rulers are more accountable at a local level and live amongst their constituents then surprise surprise they rule better.



Or how about Singapore as a city state-3rd highest GDP per capita. As far as I can see city states and smaller countries are doing pretty well.

Yes, I am sure Athens and Sparta thought so too. Until they went to war against one another.

Your argument that nations exist to make war and smaller, city-states or statelets do not is specious at best. As is your completely incorrect implication that these small nations are some sort of economic miracle that could stand on their own. These small entities, including Switzerland and Singapore, are absolutely and totally dependent on the larger economies they trade with. Why do you think the Swiss are so desperate to try to avoid a Franc appreciation against the Euro?

You, once again, completely missed understanding what I was trying to tell you in the sentence you highlighted in red. C'est la vie...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

Personally, I see this as a “wisdom of crowds” reaction to excessive centralisation of power, with the associated tollboths/landlords.

The internet’s underlying architecture is supposed to be about decentralisation and distribution of critical nodes for resilience and survivability.

I think it’s a combination of human nature and economies of scale which have led to a mere handful of internet based properties effectively owning everything.

The recent blockchain thread actually kind of ties in with this discussion.

A loss of confidence and/or perceived value in indirect but centralised government & commercial monopolies and a growing desire in the direction of peer to peer direct.

In 1984, Orwell’s 1984 was completely unrealistic as it was technologically impossible to sustain(East Germany and its STASI are the textbook example a mere 5 years later).

But 30+ years of Moore’s Law later:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aE1kA0Jy0Xg

What Orwell didn’t take into account was Metcalfe’s Law.

While centralised networks like Facebook, Google, and Amazon prove Metcalfe’s Law as well as the potential for authoritarian power, the next generation of truly decentralised networks will also prove Metcalfe’s Law.

As time goes by, Metcalfe’s Law catalysed by Moore’s Law becomes not just a weapon for centralised authoritarianism, but a weapon against it.

EJ May very well be right that Bitcoin falls someday. I would tend to agree in that it is just the first successful blockchain experiment.

It will not be the only successful decentralised peer to peer experiment.

There is an interesting analogy that could be made between Brexit, Catalonia, Slovakia, former Yugoslavia, South Sudan, East Timor, Kurdistan, and other rumours/attempts of secession on the one hand and truly decentralised peer to peer internet engagement on the other.

Check out Estonia and its e-residency: https://e-resident.gov.ee/

[jk]

Re: The PIIGS still fly

the city state worked for a while. the nation state worked for a while. the world's political-economic structure changes with the times. we are now struggling to find the proper scale for various activities and responsibilities. in the u.s. we have federal, state, and a variety of local gov'ts each with different tasks, different revenue sources, different governance. is everything divided up properly? off hand, i have trouble immediately seeing how to measure this.

europe is, otoh, agglomerating via the eu and eurozone, with their attendant difficulties, and struggling to devolve into regional, more culturally homogeneous enclaves like catalonia, walloonia, flemish-land, northern italy, basque-erville, and i'm sure we could come up with more. the kurds are struggling to create a true kurdistan. the shia and sunni groups in iraq and syria might be happy with the national boundaries redrawn.

on an even bigger scale we have globalization - increasing economic integration across national boundaries, something happening more intensely and on a bigger scale than any such movements in the past [e.g. late 19th century].

what's needed is something akin to impedance matching, matching scale of political organization to size/scope/appropriate governance of task. the system is evolving.

[btw- i'm not as convinced as you, dcarigg, that medallion fund is a ponzi. first, it is only open to renaissance tech employees - so limits its ability to grow by constantly recruiting new money, and ponzi's only survive via the constant accumulation of new funds. second, what little i know leads me to have great respect for jim simon.]