3 ms·

Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it

Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)

KingOfCoders 2y ago
One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.