(06-02-2010, 07:31 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Temporarily, yes, a large productive economy can sustain a small drain to a tiny part.Why not permanently? That's certainly the situation, well, everywhere. There are no major countries without their more and less productive regions, and they all practise some form of regional transfer of wealth. The US has been doing it for its entire existence, which is about as permanent as politics gets. The big cities have always funded the rural areas. The rich states like New York, California, Texas have always funded the poor and remote states, like Mississippi, Kansas, and Alaska. Cut off that money, and regional inequality will spike - maybe that's not an issue for you, but it certainly would be quite the shock.
Quote:The net effect is still negative, even though the tiny part might thrive (or be relieved) for awhile. Ultimately, sustained handouts create an ever growing dependency.Why does it have to be growing? Other than the need for this to somehow lead to the doom of civilization, in order to fit the narrative? Can't it just be an essentially constant-rate transfer of wealth from one place to another?
Quote:It might have been kinder to dedicate the money to provide free college or vocational education for the destitute lumberjacks(jills) and their children, and watch them move out of the area to places where their productivity will contribute elsewhere to a growing economy. Or, perhaps, if they choose to stay, some or them will use their training to start new ventures, and regrow the local economy.This reminds me of a suggestion a certain prof at the LSE made, that the north of the UK should pretty much be abandoned, and its people retrained and given incentive to move to the south, where they'd be more productive, and we could all stop wasting tax money* trying to encourage development up there. The economic logic was good, but it certainly didn't do his reputation in the north much good.
-Jester
*originally wrote "tax dollars", but, naturally, the UK has no tax dollars. =)