In the hierarchical center model, the balance between economies and diseconomies of agglomeration lead to a pattern where smaller centers linked to the big center emerge; then these centers become large in their own right and growth goes on recursively. This is usually more clearly seen in cities (look up on Google Maps with the satellite photo layer: Berlin, London, Tokyo, Sao Paulo....) but some nations like Germany will apear to have this pattern too.

In the other model spatial growth is constrained on the one side by a coast or something like that, and has a vast, gradually developing frontier on the other hand. Brazil has one coast only and is like this. Rio de Janeiro is a major city next to a coast and is like this, Sao Paulo is the singular major city further inland and is the opposite of this (a cobweb).

The US has two coasts. And for reasons, the west coast started developing on its own, not as a tributary to the east coast. Flyover country could have grown in the cobweb hierarchical centers fashion, but what's the undeniable capital of the Midwest? Not to mention farm belts etc. and an agrarian economy propped up by subsidies, etc.

Civilization has typically been tied to the water. We have a Chicago-New Orleans-St. Louis triangle. My guess would be that the interstate highway system and container shipping have severely diminished its importance.

I am not even talking banking sector here. Just in general.

We have the coastal areas of high education, high income, and high costs that mostly end in a wash if you exclude the prestige of it all. Prices so high that people who do ordinary jobs can't even afford the place.

We also have an incredible number of rural areas mired in meth and joblessness. The elites say "Invest more in education!" Where's the money when the tax base is jobless? Where are the students when the scholars packed their bags for greener pastures long ago? Where are the jobs when it only takes a few smart people to automate something for the entire world? I've been to factories where they only need two to satisfy the entirety of world demand, and there are only a handful of people there, and the second factory is just for redundancy...

This is what "growth and innovation" have given us. Two unattractive monocultures.

I like western europe better. To each his own.

edit: If I were more awake, this probably could have been condensed into: Why speed up entropy?

No, the actual dominant elites don't; as they are behind the “starve the beast” movement that seeks to dismantle public services including education.

> Where's the money when the tax base is jobless?

The people actually saying “invest more in education” tend also to support greater federal funding of that function, especially for economically disadvantaged areas, and also to support shifting the federal tax burden more toward capital holders and/or profitable corporations, rather than the working class, so joblessness in the local economy of certain regions for which increased educational investment is sought isn't really a barrier to their preferred policy.

Of course, they also tend to support other targeted shorter-payoff-window programs to support local economic development as well, also with out-of-region funding.

Left wing ones lament that we haven't spent more on education. Right wing ones lament that people aren't taking advantage of the opportunities that have already been afforded.

From my own perspective (automation, and this could be my thought-bubble?), we have a situation where we need fewer and fewer people to do most of the important things. Due to that leverage, these positions are relatively few, and demand a very high level of knowledge, intelligence, and responsibility. If the world only needs a full-time staff of 30 to do X, training 30,000 to do it is just wasted time and effort.

The buzz currently seems to be around UBI to address this. Maybe the right way, maybe not. I have no crystal ball on that one.

So many people pin their hopes on "growth", but is that what we really need? We are already devouring the earth just to keep people busy cranking out and devouring BS. Watch the cartoons with your kids one day. Behold all of the neon goo and plastic junk being pushed on them. Then watch FOX with the parents. Advertised medicines to fix health problems they earned at the advertised restaurants and leisure activities. Advertised financial products and scams to maintain enough revenue to afford the rest of it.

So, as a prescription for making better-rounded individuals, education is fantastic. As a prescription for fixing "flyover country", I don't buy it.

-Quality of life for employees - there are plenty of economically stable regions across the midwest where you can get a 4 bedroom house in a great neighborhood for $200,000.

-Political stability for the investor class. The tech industry effectively has 6 votes in the Senate right now, and they've realized what a vulnerability that is.

http://000fff.org/why-is-europe-failing-to-create-more-unico...

edit: Just read it. Always refreshing to talk to someone who doesn't have all of the answers!

Only thing I would add is to look at the glass as half-full. Western Europe's political systems seem to be in better shape than our own, their safety nets more generous, their public debt generally lower, and their inclination to start wars greatly reduced. If we have to sacrifice a few unicorns for that, seems like a fair trade to me.

I grew up in Denmark and is used to the Scandinavian way of thinking all I am saying is that it has it's own issues and one of them is growth despite a few places.

Very few european companies become global players which you have to to survive. You have no choice.

A) current technology has drastically reduced the headcount required to get the important things done

B) we papering over that with make-work. defense is mostly make-work for engineers/managers/clerks/tradesmen. farming is propped up with direct and indirect subsidies. US healthcare and higher ed are packed to the gills with admin staff. cranking out more professionals is just going to put more stress on the make-work systems.

C) Fueling growth to bridge the gap between supply and demand is an ecological time-bomb.

2. Is it capitalism that leads to centralization, or the lack of it? I suppose it's how you define the term -- is it a passive accumulation of capital (like money that just sits in a bank), or is it the active use of money to attempt innovation and generate more wealth?

In the latter case, I'd hope to imagine a cycle of continuous disruption and redistribution of capital that prevents centralization.

3. Are monopolies inherently bad? Or is it simply the lack of interoperability (i.e. lack of choices / cost of switching is too high for a consumer)?

4. Reverse the trend. What do you suggest then -- a break-up of tech monopolies? Or maybe forget all about the coasts, and try to emulate the German economy in the Midwest?

#3) Unregulated monopolies, certainly bad, not as much from a consumer perspective as from one of raw power. I don't really care if I don't have the latest shiniest gadget for the best price. I do care that Bill Gates probably has more say on how my kids are educated than I do.

Regulated monopolies are another story. Like the power company, they're subject to far more rules and due process than the tech giants. Google can shut down a paying customer with impunity. Power company has to honor a process even for customers that are late on their bill. I like that aspect, but then there's the regulatory capture, so... Even under Obama, who is supposed to be the "liberal" guy, we had the "Holder Doctrine" of let's not enforce the law too hard if it costs US megacorps any money. This will probably have to get worse before it gets better.

#4) I have no silver bullets. I was just disappointed that the top comment dismissed an entire region as a victim of its own foolishness, making little mention of all the other externalities, of which there are many.

Thanks for hearing me out. Do you have any silver bullets?