[FoRK] Misunderestimating "The" Tea Party
Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo
ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Sat Mar 20 17:35:55 PDT 2010
--- On Sat, 3/20/10, Damien Morton <dmorton at bitfurnace.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> > > Again, I'm not arguing that big is always better, but that it's not
> > necessarily the case that smaller is always better.
> > Absolutely agreed, historically. The point I'm trying to make is that,
> > systematically and all other things being equal, smaller is always
> > *potentially* better with respect to satisfaction in aggregated preferences.
> > If you can acknowledge *that* then we can move on to the more-interesting
> > questions: why, historically, has it *not* always been better, and how
> > could we arrange things to make it so in practice?
> Since, in the mists of time, we started of with multiple smaller "units of
> aggregation", and in every region, without fail, those smaller "units of
> aggregation" aggregated into larger and larger "units of aggregation", would
> you say that the exploration space has been explored and larger units of
> aggregation were found to be better than small ones?
The answer might be a qualified "Yes". But it really begs the much more important questions: "... found to be better ..." for what and by who?
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
More information about the FoRK