That's part of it. Another part is that America has lots of fertile land (therefore can have a big population) and good communications (the Mississippi was very important in pre-railway times).
Germany is supposed to be a rule-following country (not a rule-breaking country). Maybe this would characterize European cultures overall?
The US is both legalistic and rule-breaking. Maybe it's not legalism ("law-orientedness") itself that produces US-scale sclerosis. It might be individuals wanting what they want and fighting to get it for themselves, regardless of the bigger picture -- maybe that's really what drives litigation (and capitalist competition). Maybe even environmental groups (one altruistic culture that can hold up development) are individuals (individual groups) that want what they want (a version of the greater good) and fight to get it for themselves, regardless of the bigger picture (taking into consideration the elements of the greater good that they are not into, have not written into their individual charters, that they don't raise funds for, are not their brand, etc.) If so, maybe individualistic adversarialness --> capitalist dynamism and sclerosis. A big GDP that you spend on expensive healthcare, education, and public infrastructure.
(Maybe it makes sense to distinguish "law-making" legalism from "litigious" legalism? Trump is litigious and rule-breaking, overall an aggressive and adversarial person. But Germany is law-making and law-abiding? Some sclerosis coming from excessive law-making, some from litigation, and some law-making itself from litigation.)
You make a good point. Perhaps two things are necessary. A standard of doing things according to rules, and a culture of rebellion, which leads to an unusual amount of gridlock. We've created an environment where not following the rules carries significant social cost, but we're still going to bend them towards our own interests as much as possible.
One of the things I wondered while reading this book is which would the "deserving" poor rather have? Direct money transfer from the government? Or lots of infrastructure spending, so that they can afford an apartment, and it's easy to get to yout job, and the necessities of life are affordable in general.
And which is better for the health of society as a whole?
> I think it was competition
That's part of it. Another part is that America has lots of fertile land (therefore can have a big population) and good communications (the Mississippi was very important in pre-railway times).
Germany is supposed to be a rule-following country (not a rule-breaking country). Maybe this would characterize European cultures overall?
The US is both legalistic and rule-breaking. Maybe it's not legalism ("law-orientedness") itself that produces US-scale sclerosis. It might be individuals wanting what they want and fighting to get it for themselves, regardless of the bigger picture -- maybe that's really what drives litigation (and capitalist competition). Maybe even environmental groups (one altruistic culture that can hold up development) are individuals (individual groups) that want what they want (a version of the greater good) and fight to get it for themselves, regardless of the bigger picture (taking into consideration the elements of the greater good that they are not into, have not written into their individual charters, that they don't raise funds for, are not their brand, etc.) If so, maybe individualistic adversarialness --> capitalist dynamism and sclerosis. A big GDP that you spend on expensive healthcare, education, and public infrastructure.
(Maybe it makes sense to distinguish "law-making" legalism from "litigious" legalism? Trump is litigious and rule-breaking, overall an aggressive and adversarial person. But Germany is law-making and law-abiding? Some sclerosis coming from excessive law-making, some from litigation, and some law-making itself from litigation.)
You make a good point. Perhaps two things are necessary. A standard of doing things according to rules, and a culture of rebellion, which leads to an unusual amount of gridlock. We've created an environment where not following the rules carries significant social cost, but we're still going to bend them towards our own interests as much as possible.
One of the things I wondered while reading this book is which would the "deserving" poor rather have? Direct money transfer from the government? Or lots of infrastructure spending, so that they can afford an apartment, and it's easy to get to yout job, and the necessities of life are affordable in general.
And which is better for the health of society as a whole?