Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are cities the new countries?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#41

Post by s_kilk »

pjc50 wrote: post #26
arethuza wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the UK already has a pretty "federal" structure - just that the whole thing is dominated, naturally enough by England and London. Any attempt to balance things out would require devolving powers to the English regions, which nobody seems to want.

pretty "federal" structure Absolutely not, the separation of powers is both unclear and inconsistent among the devolved nations. It's also not really constitutionally guaranteed. The devolved assemblies have very limited powers over taxation and welfare spending.

See also the promise of greater powers for Scotland before the 2014 Independance Referendum, a promise which was later reneged on.

Westminster still very much holds the leash, and reserve the right to yank it at their leisure.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#43

Post by mxfh »

m_mueller wrote: post #30
hobs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do we have that any of those things would occur? The pre-modern city states really did not have better accountability or less trade restrictions, as far as I know they were characterized by kings and tariffs, and were at war almost all the time.

I'm not saying it would be a particularly good system to copy, but the old Swiss confederacy is probably the prime example of self governed city states bound only in an alliance, i.e not through a monarchy. What came out of it (after some Republicanism was forcefully infuced by Napoleon) is something most Swiss are very fond of - a federal Republic with a very modest central government and checks and balances on ster…

Effectively Switzerland is pretty much a one-dimensional (only 30 to 70 km in width) multi or triple center city-(cluster) state due to it's economically usable geography wedged in between the Jura and alpine Mountain ranges. This 300 km long plateau only covers about 30% of the Swiss total land area.

Geneva plus Lac Léman region (Lausanne, Montreux) on the one end. Seperated by the "Röstigraben" from the German part of the Swiss Plateau, which itself is culturally divided by the Brünig-Napf-Reuss line[2].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Plateau [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCnig-Napf-Reuss_line [2]

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#45

Post by ajuc »

Jtsummers wrote: post #28
ajuc wrote: post #19

Cities grow by drawing in people from around them. They can exist only thanks to the unproductive rural regions. If we separate cities from their region - it just means the money generated in cities won't be used (among other things) for fixing problems in the countryside. It's just hiding the externalities. Also from history I know of at least 3 unifications of small states and it was beneficial in all cases (at lea…

The article isn't about rural versus urban. But even so, a question: why does the countryside have to be unproductive for people to leave? From what I've seen it's more often that it's productive, but too efficient. The people aren't needed for working the land. Or, fewer people are needed to work larger plots of land.

I meant it's by its nature less productive per square meter than cities.

Modern country could manage with <5% of population working the land, but I don't think we have any countries where 95% live in cities. And I don't think it's obviously good idea to force them to migrate (by putting a border between them and their jobs).

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#46

Post by ogrisel »

Spearchucker wrote: post #40
nkoren wrote: post #27

Yes. Countries were relevant back in the days when territory was the most prized thing and war was the best means of acquiring it. Countries evolved as a means of ensuring territorial integrity, via means both explicit (borders enforced by militaries) and implicit (cultural/linguistic homogeneity, leading to xenophobia and other such barriers). But territories are no longer the most prized thing: economies are. And e…

At some point an administration will need to guarantee supply of sustenance for the people in their city. It makes sense to me for a city to therefore still desire territory it controls, for agriculture.

Cities also consume a lot of energy which primarily produced from oil, coal and nuclear power that is extracted and transformed outside of cities.

Even if a city would only consume wind and solar, it's quite likely that the majority of solar panels and wind turbines would be installed outside of the cities themselves.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#47

Post by ajuc »

toyg wrote: post #36
ajuc wrote: post #19

Cities grow by drawing in people from around them. They can exist only thanks to the unproductive rural regions. If we separate cities from their region - it just means the money generated in cities won't be used (among other things) for fixing problems in the countryside. It's just hiding the externalities. Also from history I know of at least 3 unifications of small states and it was beneficial in all cases (at lea…

The point is that it's not the XIX century anymore. Telecommunications and airplanes allow people to literally bypass the countryside and hop from city to city. Cheap transportation costs mean that markets are distributed and not as heavily reliant on local expansion as they were. Before, if an industrial business wanted to expand, doing it locally was the easiest and cheapest option; that's not true anymore, and in…

Better communication is a point against the urbanization if anything? Why cram millions of people, endure traffic jams and pay outrageous rent when you can telecommute?

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#48

Post by logingone »

toyg wrote: post #36
ajuc wrote: post #19

Cities grow by drawing in people from around them. They can exist only thanks to the unproductive rural regions. If we separate cities from their region - it just means the money generated in cities won't be used (among other things) for fixing problems in the countryside. It's just hiding the externalities. Also from history I know of at least 3 unifications of small states and it was beneficial in all cases (at lea…

The point is that it's not the XIX century anymore. Telecommunications and airplanes allow people to literally bypass the countryside and hop from city to city. Cheap transportation costs mean that markets are distributed and not as heavily reliant on local expansion as they were. Before, if an industrial business wanted to expand, doing it locally was the easiest and cheapest option; that's not true anymore, and in…

Telecommunications and airplanes allow people to literally bypass the countryside and hop from city to city. Telecommunications were supposed to let us bypass the city, so that we could live in the countryside.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#49

Post by afsina »

ethagknight wrote: post #23
davidiach wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that an economy greater than Russia deserves to govern itself, or at least have much greater autonomy?

Or that perhaps the key to New York's success is dependent upon the existing government framework?

I doubt that. Singapore, Monaco and Luxembourg are doing just fine without the blessing of a big state.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#50

Post by de_Selby »

nkoren wrote: post #27

Yes. Countries were relevant back in the days when territory was the most prized thing and war was the best means of acquiring it. Countries evolved as a means of ensuring territorial integrity, via means both explicit (borders enforced by militaries) and implicit (cultural/linguistic homogeneity, leading to xenophobia and other such barriers). But territories are no longer the most prized thing: economies are. And e…

There was an episode of the ted radio hour recently[1] about this very topic, it seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

A lot of it makes sense, one of the big points is that democracy at a state level is broken, but it is still efficient at a city level.

1 http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/462178064/buildin...

Post reply on HN