With the election of Donald Trump as our 47th President and promising to downsize our federal government, I thought it appropriate to re-introduce the principles of Locally Grown Government, as outlined in my book “Locally Grown: The Art of Sustainable Government
You raise some good points about limiting centralization. And it is important to realize what is a national asset versus a local asset. I think bison, grizzlies and wolves are national assets and cannot be controlled by a local government that is subject to pressure from self-interested agendas. There are many other examples.....the key is to decide what can be controlled locally. I never go in a WallMart because I use Amazon and I certainly would not buy something from an ineffecient local hardware store that is not part of a national chain. Have you ever looked at which states get the most in terms of government grants, tax breaks, welfare payments etc? The top 9 are red states! I might be wrong about this because my data source is biased.
I agree with you about environmental protection and that is certainly a valid power of a federal government, though there has to be a balance with local interests. I am reminded that it was a GOP President Teddy Roosevelt who first established our national parks. I use Amazon too, though I try to buy local whenever I can. Centralized supply chains certainly have advantages but they can also become a single point of failure. This summer we saw how all the airlines that had standardized on the Microsoft platform, were shut down due to a software glitch. I got caught hit by that but found a flight with a non-Microsoft airline. Therein lies the principle that too much centralization causes a system to become fragile. I want things that are anti-fragile.
Just remember that big usually beats small, in most sports and in business. I have been involved with extracting concessions from city and state governments. Was harder and more expensive to beat the Feds. I think most corporate execs would agree……. For example: if it were up to Wyoming we would delist the grizzly and kill the wolves and mine coal without restrictions. All bad moves for the world and the country, but appealing to the ranchers, elk hunters and property owners.
While I agree that big usually beats small, it’s because the evolution of our federal government has enabled it. It’s much easier to lobby the feds that has concentrated power than to lobby many different statehouses and town halls. That fact doesn’t necessarily make things better for the average Joe. Wouldn’t it be better to have the butcher the baker the candlestick maker that create great middle class jobs in a community, than one Walmart.?
We certainly need economies of scale in important places like our military but the unsustainable federal deficit and the toxic political divisions in this country expose the limits of centralized power. Not to mention that our brilliant founders devised a republic that intentionally limits to much centralization.
BTW, did you notice I named one of the AI avatars after you Mr. Bailey ?😎
You raise some good points about limiting centralization. And it is important to realize what is a national asset versus a local asset. I think bison, grizzlies and wolves are national assets and cannot be controlled by a local government that is subject to pressure from self-interested agendas. There are many other examples.....the key is to decide what can be controlled locally. I never go in a WallMart because I use Amazon and I certainly would not buy something from an ineffecient local hardware store that is not part of a national chain. Have you ever looked at which states get the most in terms of government grants, tax breaks, welfare payments etc? The top 9 are red states! I might be wrong about this because my data source is biased.
I agree with you about environmental protection and that is certainly a valid power of a federal government, though there has to be a balance with local interests. I am reminded that it was a GOP President Teddy Roosevelt who first established our national parks. I use Amazon too, though I try to buy local whenever I can. Centralized supply chains certainly have advantages but they can also become a single point of failure. This summer we saw how all the airlines that had standardized on the Microsoft platform, were shut down due to a software glitch. I got caught hit by that but found a flight with a non-Microsoft airline. Therein lies the principle that too much centralization causes a system to become fragile. I want things that are anti-fragile.
Just remember that big usually beats small, in most sports and in business. I have been involved with extracting concessions from city and state governments. Was harder and more expensive to beat the Feds. I think most corporate execs would agree……. For example: if it were up to Wyoming we would delist the grizzly and kill the wolves and mine coal without restrictions. All bad moves for the world and the country, but appealing to the ranchers, elk hunters and property owners.
While I agree that big usually beats small, it’s because the evolution of our federal government has enabled it. It’s much easier to lobby the feds that has concentrated power than to lobby many different statehouses and town halls. That fact doesn’t necessarily make things better for the average Joe. Wouldn’t it be better to have the butcher the baker the candlestick maker that create great middle class jobs in a community, than one Walmart.?
We certainly need economies of scale in important places like our military but the unsustainable federal deficit and the toxic political divisions in this country expose the limits of centralized power. Not to mention that our brilliant founders devised a republic that intentionally limits to much centralization.