#2 Smaller is less risky and more robust, with lower costs from complexity:
From Nassim Taleb
Small is beautiful and more robust.
Most journalists are trapped in verbalistic concepts devoid of logical/empirical clarity, & are to be taken in reverse. A New York Times article claims: "big countries tend to be more resilient to shocks.", which is pure BS.
Just look around: Singapore, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Dubai, compared to their neighbors. Focus on otherwise same ethnicity (Cyprus vs Greece, Lebanon vs Syria). Things are a bit more complex: it is the decision-making unit which would put federations like Germany and the US in the same group).
Articles, by people affilitated with the Extreme Risk Institute, on SIZE (by yours truly): mathematical derivation of the statement that small is MORE resilient of SILENT RISK:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIQnpwZEdFNjRlRGc/edit
Note that for small state to do well, all we need is a "pax" of an Empire, "pax Romana", "pax Ottomana", etc. Which we have with EU, US, Nato, etc.
I thought that the literature on size and growth also finds little correlation between economic volatility and size.
ReplyDelete