This is something that really needs supporting proof (in so much as there is proof of any economic estimate). I'm sure a convincing case could be made for the contrary. A relatively small investment in a neglected transport system in Leeds (for example) may well yield greater returns.
But a Country's intelligence apparatus doesn't 'govern'. I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative but it seems to me that there is a clear and obvious distinction between a government and the organisations tasked by it to provide intelligence.
The security services have a large amount of operational discretion and privileged access to ministers. They have the ability to present secret "evidence" which cannot be publicly challenged.
Let's not forget that the CIA effectively ran the governments of several Latin American countries, and in the UK Northern Ireland was effectively governed by the police Special Branch.
How do they have those traits without being taught them? They are 'character' traits, but they are still taught. Surely we can agree you are not born with a good work ethic?
I find as I get older I get more organized and disciplined. Maybe its because memory isn't as good at absorbing information as effortlessly as it used to be.
I've got more organised as I get older, not because I want to make the world a better place or anything altruistic. Over time I've learned that if you are organised it takes less effort.
It seems to be a common mistake of our age to assume that decision makers are "incompetent" or "ignorant" when it comes to tech. Individually it is unrealistic to expect these people to be universally competent in any field of expertise. It has always been thus, and that is why decision makers surround themselves with expert advisors.
I would suggest we should never underestimate the deliberate and meaningful consideration taken by decision makers when it comes to complex technology. Regardless of if you agree with the outcome or not.
We should never underestimate either competence or incompetence. Instead lets put very wide error margins on statements about the intentions and plans of leaders. It is too easy to fall into the trap of assuming total incompetence, or the other hand Dumbledore-like foresight. The truth is, most leaders have moments of both and luck plays a big role (See Steve Jobs or Winston Churchill).
The UN is broadly as impartial and 'intelligent' as its voting members, which is kinda by design. The happy reality is that the UN is successful at most of the almost unimaginably diverse myriad of thing it's has to do. It seems to me to be a great choice for the role.
Except 5, other countries don't have a permanent say in the system. The 5 can veto any resolution. The sad reality is that UN has been successful on various issues (while still failing on very many) despite being an utterly undemocratic establishment and that is constantly being used as an excuse to continue with the current system.
