2 ms·

Haven't cities always been centers of trade, power, and innovation?

• 082349872349872 6y ago
  See book reference in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549551 I think the historical political reasons for favouring landed interests[1] is one of commitment: (a) as the spartan proposal of using a currency of iron implies, it's much easier for an urban magnate to "sell out" on short notice and continue trading in exile than for a rural magnate (consider the pejorative "rootless cosmopolitan"), and (b) that innovation is often greeted with scepticism: urban traders are sometimes interested in disrupting markets, agricultural[2] producers are almost always for the status quo. [1] from a game theory perspective, the urbanite would also prefer to defend their own city and either pay besiegers to go away or wait for their logistics to fail. if one is a monarch raising an army, rural dwellers would be more interested in travelling to defend their land (or even to acquire foreign land. cf "filibuster"). Compare "no viet cong ever called me", uttered by someone whose profession could be conducted anywhere there was a large venue. [2] if one believes US political memes, ag policies favour the "family farm" and small towns. if one follows the money, they tend to favour the likes of Archer Daniels Midland.