If we relied on each other more, then maybe we’d each be more apt to listen to the other. But I like your example, because it’s the opposite end of the spectrum from my conclusion. A city without a countryside to support is the strongest player in a global economy.

However, Hong Kong’s is a future dependent on cheap oil and a globalized economy. Is this model durable into the future? Probably to a large extent yes…at least as long as we live. But eventually, at some point, it’ll stop working…basically because current economic theory doesn’t count anything extracted from the earth and used as a loss. When will that happen? Probably later than the left and sooner than the right thinks.

Hong Kong is a small rock with essentially no natural resources, no distinct geographical advantages, and a lot of political limbo. Yet its free market and lack of need to support a dependent country-side has made it a post-industrial economic juggernaut.

Atlanta would be a more efficient and thriving metro if it did not have to subsidize the rest of the state, which in the longer term would also make the non-metro area of Georgia more prosperous.

But as Andisheh sagaciously observes, fat chance the political structure of the state will facilitate this progressive idea.

And not just food, but also lumber and countless other natural resources…depending on the area of the country that your city is located.