The State of America

[Bob's World]

Another factor is the relative growth of the illicit economy as a % of the total economy. Not only does this reduce the tax base of the licit economy and reduce the ability of government to govern; it also empowers those illicit actors (such as drug cartels in Mexico) to compete and put tremendous pressure on governments.

Each dollar shifted is not an even shift either, as those illicit actors have much smaller fixed costs than governments and legitimate businesses and they also pay no taxes. So a much larger percentage of that money is available to employ however they so desire.

This is hard to measure, but it is real and growing.

It changes the old arguments about things like national sales taxes that hit the illicit actors as well as the rest of us vs. income taxes that put the entire burden on honest actors.

Another concept I am playing with is that the "cost of control" is increasing as information technology continues to empower actors outside the state to act in very state-like ways. At the same time the "cost of influence" is decreasing. So those who engage in control-based approaches (state governments) are finding their cost of doing business shooting through the roof (ex: the US efforts to regain "control" over the middle east over the past 10 years); while it is becoming increasingly easy and cheap to conduct influence operations globally. This may explain the urge of government to expand and expand as they seek to regain control over things that are in many cases forever outside their grip. Better to relax and realize somethings can simply not be controlled and rather should be influenced as best one can instead.

These are dynamic times. Clinging to the tactics of the past, be it in combat or governance or economics, is not likely to be the path to success. The fundamentals are stable, it is how they must be approached that needs a major updating.

Just some things I am thinking about...

[Ken White]

This is hard to measure, but it is real and growing.
...
These are dynamic times. Clinging to the tactics of the past, be it in combat or governance or economics, is not likely to be the path to success. The fundamentals are stable, it is how they must be approached that needs a major updating.

Just some things I am thinking about...

Apparently no on bothered to do that post 1965 and we can see where that got us.

The Wall went down in 89, took us (most of the World) 20 years to realize the world had changed (even though the signs were all there 20 years before...). I believe it'll take another 20 to get a moderately good sort on where to go -- and then 20 more to get all the Elephants turned in the generally right direction(s). In the interim, some Elephants may go rogue, others will certainly urinate all over everything in their vicinity -- or worse -- and some will try to mate at inopportune times. There will be, as always, Mice scurrying about creating pandemonium (and not really much else)...

Should be fun.

Those of us who relish change are looking forward to it and the opportunities that will be presented. Others are less happy. Unfortunately for both categories of persons and those in between, governments hew to neither view and, generally, will ask "What do we do now?" as they play Switch...