Some quick points, as I read through the Foundations
1. They do not start with an idea of where we want to go. UK has increased population size from 47 to 67 after ww2. Is this supposed to continue forever at this rate? Or are we looking for a transition to a stationary state perhaps? The implications are obvious for demographic composition
2. In the comparison with France, for example in the number of houses, the fact that France is 2.3 the size of the UK is never mentioned. Is this fact irrelevant?
3. The new industrial policy takes the government as a benevolent planner. This is an error
4. The Foundations essay seems written under the assumption that the aggregation effect (that is supposed to be the strength of a city) works like it used to fifty years ago, relying on face to face contact. The city where I live (3.5 millions) is contracting as people are going to live and work outside of the city. The possibility of remote contact seems to change everything.
You have piqued my interest to read the original essay. I think the preference for the “small is beautiful” approach and anti-growth on the left—at least in the US—is partially a fear of nuclear energy and big oil. Also, there was the hope that solar and wind could take over for oil. I think the stance on nuclear must be reevaluated based on recent developments in nuclear technology. Nuclear reactors can actually inhabit some of the infrastructure that we already have in the US. Of course, climate change is a part of any discussion now. Parts of the US may already be under the kosh to the extent that development patterns must change in the near term. It may time for some risky big projects, but the Devil is in the details.
Some quick points, as I read through the Foundations
1. They do not start with an idea of where we want to go. UK has increased population size from 47 to 67 after ww2. Is this supposed to continue forever at this rate? Or are we looking for a transition to a stationary state perhaps? The implications are obvious for demographic composition
2. In the comparison with France, for example in the number of houses, the fact that France is 2.3 the size of the UK is never mentioned. Is this fact irrelevant?
3. The new industrial policy takes the government as a benevolent planner. This is an error
4. The Foundations essay seems written under the assumption that the aggregation effect (that is supposed to be the strength of a city) works like it used to fifty years ago, relying on face to face contact. The city where I live (3.5 millions) is contracting as people are going to live and work outside of the city. The possibility of remote contact seems to change everything.
think one of their points is that if you want to pay for the NHS without increased migration, you had better have a high-growth economy.
Goldman seems to think the case for remote work is not proven….
You have piqued my interest to read the original essay. I think the preference for the “small is beautiful” approach and anti-growth on the left—at least in the US—is partially a fear of nuclear energy and big oil. Also, there was the hope that solar and wind could take over for oil. I think the stance on nuclear must be reevaluated based on recent developments in nuclear technology. Nuclear reactors can actually inhabit some of the infrastructure that we already have in the US. Of course, climate change is a part of any discussion now. Parts of the US may already be under the kosh to the extent that development patterns must change in the near term. It may time for some risky big projects, but the Devil is in the details.