3 ms·

Those needs could be met in an agrarian model, but you'd get swept away by the industrialized nations in pretty short order. Meeting those basic needs wouldn't

• Retric 6y ago
  I am not suggesting a hypothetical economy which only did those things. Governments need to build militaries and roads etc. I am rather suggesting 170 years ago the yardstick for success may have looked very different. Something that is obviously flawed today may have seemed far more reasonable to people at the time and even somewhat worked. Hell the US still had slavery back then, it was simply a very different time period. Which kind of makes me think what biases someone in 170 years in the other direction aka 2190 would have thinking about our time period.
  • 082349872349872 6y ago
    ... and back then one of the arguments for keeping slavery was "if you (bostonians) start attacking the right of property (in people), you're going to wind up with communism!" It's funny how little the slippery slopes differ from the pre-internet (pre-telephone!) era to our own.