Continuing the discussion from Discussion about ZEDE and autonomy:
So you are definitly a heavy weight in the field of market theories in my universe.
This means i rather listen what you have to teach me, than opening my mouth to say something stupid. Like you i am not a fan of centrally planned anything - and that includes infrastructure - obviously.
My in part reserved opinion about the location Fonseca Bay is not primarily based on economics theory - it is more based on the perception that a seaseatead will probably develop along the lines of Venice which is the closest thing to a seastead history has seen. Although autonomous it is extremly well connected to all european economic arteries it even features a train connection with a direct train to Vienna.
My concern is not even that develop Fonseca to a new Singapore can not be done, the concern is rather that it needs a awful amount of upfront money to start this development and create the infrastructure to bring it to the point of first operation. Instead of creating the infrastructure of trade i would have expected a baystead to be plugged into existing highways of trade.
In short the concern is not can it be done or not - everything can be done. The concern is about the “awful long shot” that Fonseca Bay requires. Will investors go this long way upfront ?
Venice, 300m shore distance, well connected to a well developed Hinterland, dominating seatrade, a winning business plan.
New Venice the same base idea but solving the technology bottleneck - no doubth that we can sell high price prime real estate on this floating island. But can we sell high price real estate to investors in the jungle area of Fonseca ?