You can't found Lubeck without Henry the Lion clearing away the raiders. The solution has to be at least partially military, and that raises a big problem with legitimacy. States are seen as the only legitimate owners of armies, and then only inasmuch as they don't attack each other unprovoked. I like the idea of a sponsor state--that's a good compromise on the legitimacy front. But the reaction he got in Madagascar underscores that it might not be good enough.
The problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing. You don't need anyone else's territory, you can just make something new and experimental. People naturally vote with their feet, and the result is pretty good.
In the real world, that's much harder to do. You cannot simply draft a constitution, enlist a private army and police force, break ground, and invite the world. The ground is already claimed. Nobody likes private armies.
That's too bad. As the article notes, reform and revolution are a lot harder than simply building something new. If nations could simply experiment the way web sites do, if people could easily vote with their feet, we might have gotten government better figured out by now.
I suspect that the advent of nanotechnology is going to cause civilisation upheaval the likes of which we haven't seen since the industrial revolution, if ever. All this shit will happen, and much, much more.
Hell, why limit ourselves to the surface of the sea? The materials nanotech promises to deliver will make it possible to live far above or below sea level with equal ease. Sky-steading, anyone?
and don't forget what modifying the human genome will do. It could give us the means to winnow out the very imperfection that has enabled us to survive. I refer to the inherent variability that creates so many different personalities and immunities that we've been able to survive in spite of everything else that has evolved on the planet.
We must take care not to lose this quality. The minute we do, we become as vulnerable as the plants and animals we raise, most of which would quickly fail in the wild.
With somewhat freer immigration rules, it'd be easier for people to vote with their feet. As far as land goes, for example, the U.S. has a ton of space--- it's not like we're China-style densely populated and totally out of room for people to come and set up new towns, if they wanted to and we were willing to let them.
In a way, the US already has this. Immigration is totally free between states, and people do immigrate to where they like the laws. The only problem is that the federal government is uniform--anything it does, the states can't decide to experiment with. Hence, I am in favor of moving as much responsibility as possible out of the federal government toward the states.
But wouldn't it be cool if there were some broader international treaty among nations? Say, a group that agreed to totally free immigration and trade?
Could well be true, but it's not due to the free trade and immigration policies we're discussing here. The bureaucracy can mainly be traced back to the political institutions of the EU.
people are concerned with there being too many people. but it is cities, where there are the most people per square inch, that are often the most creative.
Very small countries, like Singapore and Switzerland are often the most competitive. And countries with few natural resources, like Japan, can dominate.
I think what all this shows is that the greatest natural resources are people. This resource needs to be free to function at its peak.
And the freer the country, the easier it is to absorb and utilize this resource. Which is why we should really have no problem saying "give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". They are nothing to be afraid of.
where people have been able to vote with their feet, they do flock to places with great rules. I think Hong Kong under the British proved that. I think millions left mainland China to live there.
But I guess its all foreign armies and navies that people don't like, not just private ones.
Maybe the answer is to offer a massive cash incentive and hold a competition between poor countries as to who will receive this opportunity first. Countries compete to get the Olympics and that often leaves them with significant debt.
The problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing.
I think there may be potential in the Sahara and in deserts in the Middle East. They would be like Las Vegas cropping up in the desert, but based on solar thermal power. Oil companies already get fiefdoms in the desert from desert nations. This would be just one step further.
I've read essays about Paul Romer's views before. Of course regions are poor for reasons. Poverty is the outcome of the prevailing conditions, and changing those conditions is the obvious recipe for changing the result.
But the people who are ruling the poor nations have a vested interest in the status quo, which is why the region is poor, and those organizations that pour "aid" resources in without changing the cause of the poverty also have a vested interest in not solving the problems.
Unless this changes, theorizing about changes is fruitless. Until Paul Romer or someone else has the wherewithal to MAKE changes, it's all air.
> But the people who are ruling the poor nations have a vested interest in the status quo, which is why the region is poor,
Not everywhere, and not in a perfectly unified way, which is why Romer got genuine interest in Madagascar and apparently has a couple of other possibilities on line. It only takes one place to get started.
Note that the article closes by talking about how Romer's bigger problem is finding rich countries willing to be sponsors of the charter cities. If what Romer wants is a new Hong Kong or Singapore, this does seem like a problem, at least if he's looking for sponsors among Western democracies.
I think it would be hilarious--and not entirely implausible--if nominally communist China ended up sponsoring Romer's first free-market-enterprise-zone charter city.
> Unless this changes, theorizing about changes is fruitless. Until Paul Romer or someone else has the wherewithal to MAKE changes, it's all air.
Persuasion, argument, and communicating a vision are ways to make changes, and they sometimes work.
I think it would be hilarious--and not entirely implausible--if nominally communist China ended up sponsoring Romer's first free-market-enterprise-zone charter city.
India and Brazil are also good candidates. They could try out such an experiment in their own borders.
True, and I hope they do. City states are my best hope for the future (politically). They've worked before, and I think conditions might be right for them to start working again.
My intuition is that it might be more politically possible for (say) India and Brazil to outmaneuver interest groups if they work outside the native country, even if they have otherwise reasonable locations inside their borders.
But the people who are ruling the poor nations have a vested interest in the status quo, which is why the region is poor, and those organizations that pour "aid" resources in without changing the cause of the poverty also have a vested interest in not solving the problems.
Likewise, wealthy nations also have vested interests in certain poor nations staying that way, since that arrangement yields very cheap labor, coltan, electronics recycling, diamonds, etc. Globalization has seen to it that poverty often doesn't exist in a vacuum any more.
Indeed, since the article already drops the term 'neo-colonial,' I don't see how the economic approach described should be considered anything but that. At least, it's a bit disingenuous to label this approach 'revolutionary.'
"Likewise, wealthy nations also have vested interests in certain poor nations staying that way."
No, they don't. Heard of China? Growth in China? That shit makes capitalists giddy. And when the guys at Goldman Sachs are happy, your political elite smiles too. Would they like 800 million africans to become another china? Yes, they would. Industrialization of a nation does not make it's raw materials more expensive. Africa's cheap labour is of little use to the west (or china) (extraction of raw materials is not labour intensive, africas commercial agriculture is underdeveloped). Growth in africa would not hurt the evil imperialists.
Considering the catastrophe* de-colonization in africa has been the smugness of those who dismiss all ideas carrying the faintest whiff of colonialism is nauseating.
*Africa is the only continent on earth were falling levels of gdp per capita has been the norm in several countries. THis picture becomes bleaker if you consider the fact that the increase in gdp per capita is from resource extraction that brings little benefits to the people. De-colonization was a disaster on the scale of maos great leap forward.
I will admit my inability to carry through with such a debate on an informed basis. This is my last response on this thread.
There are clearly contrasting points of view about the benefits colonization of Africa. Those POVs which I've found insightful, as opposed to dogmatic or culturally biased, point out the assumption that modernization should be desirable to lesser developed nations is only an assumption, and not always one shared mutually.
I agree that China "makes capitalists giddy", even though it developed with intense government planning. The Communist Party controls the unions, which the Washington Post said that Wal-Mart loves, in contrast to its hatred of more democratic US unions. (I'm sure that more corporations than just Wal-Mart are so giddy.) Workers capture very little of the GDP, compared to China's wealthy elite, and have lost much of their social support. And GDP is itself an ideological measure for many reasons; for example, it doesn't track systematic costs (so people getting cancer from pollution raises GDP).
The US has been proven time and time again to only want countries to grow on the US' terms (China is the example of a country that was too big to control or stop).
You can look at Cambodia and Vietnam prior to the Vietnam war, and you can analyze the history of Central America to discover why all these places are basically third world still when they have had thriving economies at one time or another. The problem was they weren't thriving on the ideals of Capitalism, rather some of them adopted a socialist workers structure.
The issue is the structure of success and how it feeds into the powerful states and their corporations and not success itself. Success that is not wrapped by Capitalist values is very dangerous to the US, EU.
The reason everyone turned on Hugo Chavez after being a man named in Time's influential people list is that his socialist policies (especially the distribution of oil wealth away from large corporations) started being successful and other Southern American states were taking notice (combined with trade deals with China). Of course, since then he has been shown to be misguided in a number of things so I fear even mentioning him.
If china was to big to stop, so was surely the soviet union. The soviet union had independence from the US, political elites in control who wanted to succeed and the opportunity to try out several "versions" of socialism. If socialism works, why did it not work for them? Where they too stupid or unorganized to copy the successful vietnamese or latin americans? I think not. (A general rule of politics and history: If the germans can't pull off a system of goverment/production, it can't be done.) Chavez is on an oil driven spending spree, it won't end well[1].
Have you ever considered the possibility that socialism just doesn't work? That always seems more plausible to me, in an Occam's Razor sort of way, than the conspiracy theory that the US prevents socialist states from succeeding.
There may be some of this. But counterbalancing it is the desire for more consumers. Corporate interests will be more profitable in the long term by securing more customers than by maintaining cheap labor.
Technology will always provide cheaper manufacturing processes, and alternatives to raw material needs. But it doesn't provide for additional people demanding finished goods.
Russia is trying this with Skolkovo [1]. They're even equipping it with an (supposedly, though I wonder where they'll be drawing their manpower from) independent police system to try to isolate it from the institutional corruption that's usually considered the main barrier to foreign investment.
Lübeck was subsidized by the tax money from King Henry's other lands. How else do you support a private mint and an army to protect merchants from pirates and bandits? Is it any wonder why the merchants moved there when they were essentially being offered free money?
Now fast forward to Africa today. The warlords are happy receiving millions in aid and not creating a powerful merchant class that could usurp their position.
Right, which is why he proposes spending money on developing legitimate business in the country directly rather than giving aid to corrupt local officials.
Forget foreign countries and cities : as I've posted in the past, how about experimenting with somewhere like Detroit? No Federal or state taxes, no federal or state rules, no Federal or state help. A mini Hong Kong stuck between USA and Canada. Go there, set up shop, pay whatever taxes the city decides to levy, off you go.
One of the biggest reasons poverty stricken countries stay poverty stricken is because the money is never reinvested. Dubai is a modern example of the Lubeck model. There was great potential to improve the land and a supply of outside cash and free-trade/immigration laws provided everything that was needed.
Lubeck was subsidized by Henry, Dubai was subsidized by foreign oil investors. If we want to help African countries, we shouldn't be sending aid in the form of food but in the form of business.
Find an area where a suitable trade port could be established and where rail can easily be constructed to neighboring regions, add money, free-trade and liberal immigration laws and you'll have a major change in very little time.
"Why do these kids have access to a cutting-edge technology like the cell phone, but not to a 100-year-old technology for generating electric light in the home? The answer, in a word, is rules."
So the reason Albania has no regular electric power, but children have iPhones it's because it hasn't rules. Come on, it's not it has not rules, it's just that the current administration wants more money.
[Edit2: Part of the problem is that in a way we are a charter country.]
We actually have rules, the financial capability, IP laws that conform to WIPO, enforcing agencies, and all you need to "kick ass". Our problem is that by kicking ass as a country (richer overall population), the administration in power cannot make the same money they make today, at least not that easy (I mean very very easy, like we already know what cut they'll require for the next financial aid).
Edit:
"Starting in 2001, he began to channel his energy into a start-up software company that he named Aplia."
Looks like the power of monetization has striked again.
It's pretty disingenuous to say it's that simple. Some poverty-ridden heavily populated areas have been poor since they were lightly populated. It is in the nature of humans to make babies everywhere, rich and poor areas alike. Being snarky doesn't advance anyone's understanding.
"Rich" countries have tiny birth rates compared to others, you can't ignore that fact by saying "people love making babies everywhere" (I live in Peru btw).
A country gets rich before the birth rate falls, so just driving down the birth rate of a poor country doesn't affect the underlying mechanism. You can't just copy the superficial aspects of a successful society and expect the rest to just fall into place, for the same reason that simply holding elections doesn't magically turn a dictatorship into a stable functioning democracy. You have to address the root causes, if they are amenable to analysis.
Money is the greatest contraception. Being middle class typically makes people stress about money, so they worry they can't afford children, but they can freely afford condoms and the pill. The poverty striken can't necessarily afford condoms/pill when they want to have sex.
The middle class is being sexually out performed by the poor and the rich.
Probably just because the politically-correct answer to poverty is "rich people should give their money to poor people, then they won't be poor any more". (This is, coincidentally, the same solution that most seven-year-olds come up with. It doesn't work in practice.)
The problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing. You don't need anyone else's territory, you can just make something new and experimental. People naturally vote with their feet, and the result is pretty good.
In the real world, that's much harder to do. You cannot simply draft a constitution, enlist a private army and police force, break ground, and invite the world. The ground is already claimed. Nobody likes private armies.
That's too bad. As the article notes, reform and revolution are a lot harder than simply building something new. If nations could simply experiment the way web sites do, if people could easily vote with their feet, we might have gotten government better figured out by now.