Who would have a stronger global economy...

Who would have a stronger global economy? A planet unifed under one government or a planet with several soverign nations?

If it's humans, probably the one with several competing nations since humans without an out-group challenge become lazy and corrupt.

...

Either can be rationalized for story purposes, and no single economic framework is exclusive to either option.

The only thing that's pointless with no real resolution is your post. OP proposed an interesting question that opens up room for a lot of ideas and brainstorming.

OP, I think I probably agree with , with the exception of a unified planet that is united against some powerful external force.

I think it's safe to assume that those external forces would be other planets/soverign entities.

Then again, we don't really have much to go on. For instance, what are multi planet coporations like? Is this Unifed world one with several large Corporations that operating on it (i.e have their Headquarters there) and they work out deals to have satelite branches on other worlds/nations? Do they allow outside business to operate on their planet?

I suppose we can just start making stuff up and put it together so I'll start:

Ownership of entire planets is rare as only a few fully habiitable planets have been settled. One being an empire and another composed of several nation states. Most of the rest of humanity either lives out of giant space stations or moons.

Almost certainly the one with a unified government; it would wind up spending far, far less on defense, which is usually an inefficient spending outlay of the government for economic development.

There's a reason why global economies almost perfectly scale with hegemonic stability.

The United planet. No tariffs, no sanctions, a unified legal system, no geopolitical maneuvering, standardization, no warfare, no tax havens, no need for protectionism.

It's all just one big global market with no superpowers/great powers divvying it up among themselves.

Muh free market, nigga. Without protectionism to hide behind and the world as competitors, anyone who gets complacent falls behind to more dynamic types.

Besides, competing nations tend to go to war, which is a massive economic drain. And that's before we get into lives lost or infrastructure destroyed. Without any other nations gunning for it, a unified planet can get by with a much lower defense budget.

That depends entirely - and I mean 100% entirely - on the policies of the unified government versus the sovereign nations. I agree with , it's a completely meaningless question unless we know a ton of details about the unified government versus the several countries. Regulatory policies, tax rates, trade barriers, culture, values, the list goes on and on.

The only real given here is that a unified global government will have consistent policy and probably no trade barriers between regions, which would help. However, if its policies are bad, then it's probably going to be less prosperous overall than a planet of many nations, some with good policies and others with poor ones.

Exactly. The united planet can just mandate free market competition.

There's also not going to be much of a language or culture barrier, which tends to be more an obstacle to trade than even distance.

Before I forget, you would also need to factor in large-scale discontent for the global government. Just how much effort do they have to put into maintaining their position of power? There are an awful lot of cultures that really, really resent people half a planet away ruling them. Is the unified government inclined towards an authoritarian or libertarian outlook? Free speech, is it there? What about religion, how does it handle that? How does it successfully compromise between cultures whose values are completely alien to one another? Governments right now only covering portions of the planet can barely handle regional hatred between cultures that are relatively similar.

I doubt an entire planet could be thoroughly controlled without either some kind of hive mind, or an advanced dictatorship with enough leverage to prevent disobedience. Perhaps a dystopia in which every individual's actions can be easily monitored?

Well, if it is a representative democracy (as in representatives elected from all around the planet) that primarily meets virtually, nobody can claim they're ruled from half a planet away. There's no capital on the other side of the world since the chamber of the parliament is virtual. And how distant will the other side of the planet feel if there is an easy, cheap and regular way to travel there in, say, thirty minutes?

So in other words, the globalists have the right idea and /pol/ is a bunch of short-sighted cucks.

Well yes, but we knew that already

>A planet unifed under one government or a planet with several soverign nations?

Realistically the several sovereign nations would on the basis that they'd have an real-world reason to remain competitive since when it comes down to it outside competition/threats is a stronger motivator than humanitarianism.

Basically first post is best post: The problem with these Anons is they're falling for the same fallacy that lets communism keep happening: thinking people are just going to quietly and predictably just let "x" happen because they predicted it on paper and that the government is just doing to to "y" in response because that's "best" and whats supposed to happen.

People get lazy, corrupt, commit selfish acts- even when everything is going 100% perfectly fine and correct because that's what people do all the fucking time. If they can't find an excuse they'll make one up- people are flawed.
UNLESS IT'S A SPACE COUNTRY.
IF WE'RE TALKING PLANET COUNTRIES COMPETING WITH OTHER PLANET COUNTRIES THEN IT'S BUSINESS AS USUAL.

>50533623

Pretty much. Globalization and free trade agreements lead to prosperity overall, on the large scale. They can suck if you worked in a factory in a rich country, but then you're a tiny part of the population who was probably going to lose their job to a robot soon anyway.

Everyone else would prefer cheaper goods to protecting a small number of jobs.

>Muh free market
never existed and never will. When you strip state regulation monopolies form and impose regulations of their own. The invisible hand can't jack off a dick, let alone regulate a market.

Globalization is a good thing. The problem IRL is that it comes on the wings of neocolonialism and forced cultural conversion. EU, USA and China don't want to create a unified superstate, they want to reformat the rest of the world into a standardized market for their own products, compatible with their own procedures and values.

The planet with more corrupt bureaucrats in the economic agencies.

All data is correct, economy is of doing strong.

Should also add that centralized governing systems tend to be very bad at doing anything, and make corruption costs very low. One world government is not a very wise idea.

There is literally nothing wrong with achieving a cultural victory though.
Memes like genes win out by outbreeding and taking over their competitors. to not advance your own culture is to condemn it do death.

Either could have a stronger economy due to any number of factors but all else being equal a unified earth could potentially create a more stable sustained economy from being able to look at all the data and organize things accordingly though a certain degree of cooperation among nations would have a similar effect.

We manage to fester with corruption even with outsiders to band together against, it's just human shit.

People a hundred times smarter than anyone who has ever posted on Veeky Forums have been arguing over this for years

Neither option makes either outcome more likely.

Unified planet; singleton doesn't imply communism.

The biggest driver of economic growth, at its core, is diversification and specialization. If a world government were capable of a style of governance that was decentralized enough to allow for regional specialization, it could work, but we since can't even get a continental-level authority before legions of bored politicians begin ruling what kind of shape bananas ought to have, it seems doubtful.

This is actually why I believe that space colonies would eventually group to be more powerful than Earth, despite Earth having the head start.

Colonies that grow to take over a whole planet will have a planet that has always known a single authority structure. There will still be friction and conflict, because humans by humans, but they won't have the thousands of years of dickstabbing that Earth has in its history.

And because the planet grew out from a single source, rather than arising from a bunch of competing ones, the central authority has basically always been in charge and civilization of the planet has only grown as fast as the authority has been able to manage it, by definition. Not because the authority has totalitarian control, but because colonizing an alien worlds is HARD. Any colonists that went off to try and make their own go of it without the authority almost certainly died because they didn't have the logistics or resources for surviving on an alien world.

Earth will never unify. Its a pipe dream. But an offworld colony can START unified, and stay that way. And a nation that controls a planet will eventually be stronger than the planet that has hundreds of infighting nations.

Thats...an interesting take on human nature. But it still doesn't really address the issue. Any sort of one world government would need to either avoid the temptation to over-legislate, something that it commonly fails to do even on smaller-scales here on Earth, or legislate absolutely perfectly, to somehow predict exactly what specialization levels each and every resource and person would need to commit to. On the off chance you don't fully realize how mindbogglingly complex an economy would be to micromanage, I'd recommend you google and read "I, pencil".

>manned human colonies
Not going to happen, it will all be robots, unless we get robot's asking for equal rights and participating in our economies as actual members and not as slaves.

You're expecting planets to be colonized by a single country to create some sort of homogenity, which will not happen. And factionalism has a good chance of fracturing them across a span of multiple generations.

Also, colonies are not going to outbreed Earth. Post-industrial countries have population growth rates in the negatives. Colonies are unlikely grow at any appreciable rate, beyond migration from a variety of Earth cultures.

In any case, its not like this solar system's planets can support any amount of humans without building habitats. You can't really terraform them either; Mars can't sustain neither water nor a breathable atmosphere across long term. Venus is too close to sun.

>When you strip state regulation monopolies form and impose regulations of their own

Monopolies can't survive without government regulation. An actually free market sees these dinosaurs get dragged down by smaller, more agile competitors that they couldn't shut out -- and the number one tool for shutting out competition is regulatory capture, where the business gets the "fair market" regulations written in their favor.
For an example, see when Toys 'R' Us had that scandal with cheap toys from China made with contaminated paint. Their lobbyists then helped push through new safety regulations that required expensive testing of toys for contaminated paint, which all toy sellers would have to do -- knowing full well that it was much cheaper at their scale of business than at that of their next biggest competitor, much less the tiny mom and pop reseller operations that weren't importing shitty toys from china anyway. Those little guys bore the heaviest costs, giving Toys R Us greater market advantage, all out of a scandal that only affected them, and should probably have led to them falling from the #1 position if they hadn't immediately used the government to choke out their competitors.

>Monopolies can't survive without government regulation.
The opposite is true.
See: Embrace, Expand, Extinguish business strategy.
A monopolist can erect non-market barriers to entry for competitors, often by using initial success to secure vertical means of production.

My personal trigger is when no one knows the awesome source for this

Securing those means of production ALSO requires government protection.

>Mars can't sustain neither water nor a breathable atomsphere across long term.

Long term, in this case, being millions of years. By which point, we'll either be dead as a species, or have moved beyond Mars before the atmosphere completely dissipates again.

If we can properly Terraform Mars, we'll get a good 10,000 years out of it before we have to worry about major issues like that. By which point, we'll hopefully have been able to solve said issues.

Mind letting us in on it? It looks familiar, but I can't place it.

>government protection
Surely, you mean "PMC/personal corporate army".
It's like you don't even ancap.

No it doesn't, because the monopolist can pay for protection, becoming its own de facto government.

The only weapon against aggressive monopolists is theft. Anti-trust proceedings are state sanctioned and expedited theft for that reason.

>People get lazy, corrupt, commit selfish acts- even when everything is going 100% perfectly fine and correct because that's what people do all the fucking time. If they can't find an excuse they'll make one up- people are flawed.

And they don't when things aren't going perfectly fine?

Corruption and waste happen in all systems, and are largely functions of effective oversight, not how many states are extant in a setting.

>Realistically the several sovereign nations would on the basis that they'd have an real-world reason to remain competitive since when it comes down to it outside competition/threats is a stronger motivator than humanitarianism.

Which is of course, why states like Nazi Germany, KMT China, and Stalinist Russia were models of efficiency. Oh wait, they weren't, they were bloated, corrupt nightmares of organizational modeling. And that's despite the fact that they were all locked in literal death struggles for their survivals as states.

Get bent, retard.

The very concept of an economy of scale means that any sufficiently large business will be able to shut out smaller competitors by virtue of lower production costs.

Call 'em nation states or not, but you need some degree of local autonomy.

If you look at China or the modern USA or EU, you can easily see that nobody knows how to run a polity with a few hundred million in it and make things run smoothly--much less a global polity with BILLIONS of people.

A worldwide representative republic would require a small nation of representatives in order to have any sort of responsiveness to their constituents.

Communism is a shitty system, but when the government has complete economic control, they get big shit done.
That's why russia was able to launch astronauts into space and build the most powerful land army in the world even while their people were starving.

I agree, and the government of the whole planet matters less than the reaources and cultures on the planet.