Dangerous in what way?
I'm European and baffled by this sentence.
2. Several developed countries have "overwhelming taxation", yet quite high economic growth and are among the world's top 10 regarding human development.
3. Developing countries will have to increase their taxation. That's how development works: you get a bigger and more effective state that can offer advanced services reliably.
4. Almost all underdeveloped countries, on the contrary, have weak states that can barely collect taxes.
2. Name some countries - are they growing more than 10%?
3. Increasing taxation is how the strangulation of a population works, so in that sense you are correct. The state always fails. If it didn't, and taxation "worked", we would be living in a utopia.
4. Weak States that cannot enforce taxation are the ones where the population has freedom to grow without onerous tax burdens and corporate protectionism.
A static view of the world assumes taxation is necessary. A nonlinear view recognizes the destruction it causes.
2. Sustained growth at more than 10% is not realistic, especially for developed countries. I'm from a developing country and turning dirt farmers to office workers consistently will grow your economy by 10%. At some point you're going to run out of dirt farmers. This point is moot.
Regarding high, realistic growth (2-3%) for developed countries: Singapore, Sweden.
3. States tend to fail far more often due to external factors. In the modern era that's becoming rarer and rarer as the cost of destabilizing a foreign state generally outweighs the benefits.
4. I'd be very happy if you could show me some examples. Which "weak states" are developed states? I wouldn't call any state in a developed country a "weak state".
3. Yes, most states are not part of the core; peripheral nations fail long before the foundation does. Thankfully the cost of such failure has become much less likely to result in loss of life.
4. Not weak states that are developed states - ones that are considered developing, yet experience growth largely due to lack of excessive taxation and regulation thanks to weak government. They are thus progressing toward becoming developed. Two examples are Georgia and Puerto Rico - the amount of growth and development in those locations are proportionally far greater than other nations in similar locations and situations. This is directly affected by investment capital, much of which has left high-tax jurisdictions.
Which country are you from?
3. I'm an optimist, I don't see any signs of the foundation falling. The counterargument is that the fall is rarely seen ahead of time. Still, I think we can just file this as a difference in perspective and call it a day :)
4. Georgia, the state, I assume? Assuming it's the state, ok. But how come the vast majority of high-flyers still don't move to these states? How come those "oppressive" taxation regimes keep producing heavy hitters? Same thing is happening in Europe. Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, the UK, etc. have high productivity and high taxation. You'd expect everything to leak over to the low taxation countries. Yet these countries to lose a percentage of the high productivity members but come up with new ones. There must be something at work here (such as high taxation, coupled with half-decent administration, creating a good overall environment for productivity).
Romania. Not sure it's relevant :)
3. The larger the trend, the easier to forecast. Historically, empires fail slowly and then enter a rapid final decline. Martin Armstrong may be of interest, as he has built an extensive database and system that has analyzed the set.
4. Georgia the country, although the US state is one that is doing better than others[1] in the nation. Residence is sticky since it's expensive to relocate, so the incentive to move must be particularly high. There are certainly perceptions that persist with a lag since a practical perspective depends heavily upon direct experience, e.g. NYC is not the same place depicted in movies from the 1980s. The magnitude of resources available to be redistributed within a highly dynamic system can be significant. It is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact breaking point but the trend can be much more easily observed.
Turkey is an interesting place - domestic production includes almost everything except higher technology, yet the economy is precarious due capital fearing the government.
Romania is on my travel list :)
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-bay-area-resid...
What I'd personally favor is super high income tax brackets for the very rich (income > $1 billion puts you in a 95% tax bracket for everything above 1 billion) and the state getting a percentage of a corporation automatically after it goes above a certain scale (say 5% at 1 billion, 20% at 20 billion), with the restriction on the state's share usage. This should take care indirectly of the "robot production", via the owners. Once you'd do this universal basic income would be interesting.
This should only be implemented if there's some sort of global tax agreement, otherwise the state that does this will have its tax revenue slither away to other countries.
But this needs an attitude of "fixing the state", not "starving the beast". Treat the state as an unavoidable single point of failure and harden it. Checks and balances, more transparency, more direct democracy, etc.
3 & 4. This is already getting super philosophical. I need to follow this phenomenon more, can't really say anything super relevant. Intuitively I'm not sure I agree.
> Romania is on my travel list :)
Go to Bucharest for the night life (preferably with a somewhat reliable local guide). Go to Brașov, Sighișoara, Sibiu for the medieval monuments and buildings. Go to Bucovina for the great landscapes and the beautiful monasteries. Go to Maramureș for the same reasons, but with a different twist. Go to the Apuseni for the rural life, unchanged since centuries.
Avoid the Black Sea (Constanța, Mamaia), except for the Danube Delta, which is a nature reserve.
Thanks for the recommendations!
You value work too much, if anything.
One's economy tends to do well when one has intact factories & workforce while the rest of the civilised world has been levelled and much of its workforce slain. We'll never see something like the post-war boom again unless we see something as utterly, senselessly destructive as the war itself (note that the economy would ultimately have been better in the long term had there never been a war).
Much like signing up for Netflix, except more expensive and a slightly different collection mechanism.
And if you think that's weird, look at the British "Chancel repair liability"
It was particularly bad until recently, as the obligations were often hidden. They no longer are - if there's an obligation it's right there on the land register, just like covenants, and show up in the standard searches during the conveyancing process. It's effectively a land tax to support a local amenity -- churches are part of the cultural background of British villages. I'd rather a formal land tax system to support all local amenities.
A larger concern to me are faith schools.
Of course, as mentioned, you can not have that and just pretend you're not in any of the recognized religious organisations.
There is a certain irony, seeing that bar outright dictatorships (China), the US state is and has been the strongest one for over half a century...
That system has been attacked from the beginning and the US is rapidly becoming a nation where government replaces the family as social structure. What is now will not always be - the trend is of far greater importance than momentary status.
Individuals are not able to do any of that when they're stuck working 3 jobs just to get by, or when they go bankrupt due to a simple medical procedure.
Multiple jobs just to get by sounds a lot like today yet plenty of people still grow, learn and create.