How important are 'economies of scale'?
:/ I've got strong opinions here, even if they might be a bit radical to all jam in one post. It is likely that the reforms of the 1970s broke the US [0] and if it wasn't them then something changed (maybe access to cheap oil, maybe other nations recovering from WWII) that really broke the environment where the US understood how to be successful. The US has to ask itself how effective its 'capitalist economic system' really is.* It has a higher tax:GDP than China [1]. That is to say, the nominal ratio of money siphoned into government vs money retained by private citizens is less free than China's. There isn't really a point of comparison here because the two countries are so different (eg, China has state ownership) but there is some shock value in just how large the US government is in the economic sphere.* It has socialised access to capital. Large banks have the power to create new money and the US government steps in during crisises to pick winners and losers when the lenders are proven to be incompetent at taking risks (eg, 2008 era). China does this too, but the battle becomes which government is more astute at supporting bad risks rather than which system is more effective. China is probably more long-term strategic, using the money to build useless infrastructure instead of the US using money to uselessly boost asset prices. This point is a huge deal to me and really undermines my faith in the effectiveness of free markets used elsewhere in the system.* A complicated IP law system where people are prevented from doing things they know are good ideas. China largely ignores this system.This article teases at one point; which is socialised access to capital favours companies that are too large to compete but can negotiate for loans and are known to government/large investors.[0] https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ & EDITED from 1980s, a decade too late.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...