|
The South has and has always had a more extreme concentration of wealth than the North. Piketty compares the South and North to Britain and France in 1810 on page 161 of Capital in the 21st Century. I'll post some graphs later if I can. Essentially, the system of slavery overcame the relative abundance of land, which gave the South a capital stock equivalent to 6+ years of national income. That level of concentration is approximately in line with Britain and France. The North, by contrast, had a capital stock equivalent to 3+ years of national income. The end of slavery brought K/I in the South more in line with the North, but persistent racism and general backwardness even through the middle of the last century means the south still has the greatest level of wealth inequality of any region in the USA. But, really, this wouldn't be a problem if the South was actively developing a Leftist political movement. I've become reconciled to the fact that we can't just Shermanate the South, and the vast majority of people in the South should be our natural allies in the fight against the capitalist class. Unfortunately, they are electing these people:  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/meadows-boehner-defund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html To be fair though, Indiana and Ohio also need to GTFO
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
computer parts posted:This chart is also hilarious because it's basically "who uses more roads". Show me a chart that eliminates road contributions and you'd probably see a lot more in the Give vs Get pile. Explain yourself. I don't see an obvious connection aside from a few of the New England states.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The 10 highest states are all heavily rural or in mountainous areas. The 10 lowest ones are either highly compact, have the vast majority of their population in one part of the state (Nevada/Illinois), or have some of the richest regions in the country (New York with NYC and California with SF/LA). There's some exceptions like Minnesota but in general it's either compactness or brute forcing it with heavily rich areas. I'm not really buying that. The poster below has charts that dispute it pretty thoroughly. The bottom 10 besides VT all essentially break even. edit: to say nothing of the fact that road spending is a relatively small portion of the budget. crabcakes66 posted:Road spending is like 3% of the overall budget. Please try again. Actually it is probably less than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
So can we discuss some of the Southern Progressive groups and movements? I'm displeased with the number of Suicide Caucus members that come from the South (and the Midwest), but I'd like to do something constructive about it. At the turn of the 20th century the South proved itself very capable of leftist radicalism. Say what you will about the faults of the Populists, but much of their agenda would be supported by DD today. Populist Platform 1892 posted:We believe that the powers of government-in other words, of the people- should be expended... to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land. They supported farm price supports, a graduated income tax, the secret ballot, direct election of senators, the initiative and referendum, and government ownership of railroads, telegraph, and telephone lines. Woodrow Wilson talked a big Jeffersonian game, but the Southern radicals forced a very Rooseveltian program through his administration. The New Deal Coalition would never have worked without Southern leftists, and much of the progressive policy that we cherish here is a direct result of the efforts of Southern leftists. So what exactly can we do, and who can ally with in the South today to bring the Southern Left back to prominence?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:Isn't part of the problem with the rise and fall of the Southern left linked to how race has historically operated in the South? The South's racial caste system hindered labor movements, for example, with white workers refusing to enter unions with black workers. The Populist Party certainly had its own problems with race (certainly Populists like Tom Watson subscribed to white supremacist ideals) and the New Deal Coalition in the South was often held together by the understanding that many New Deal benefits would be restricted to whites (the Democratic Party's insistence on civil rights legislation was one of the key factors in the GOP prying apart the New Deal Coalition). This is generally accurate, yes, but there is more to the story of the Southern Left's collapse. If we can move past race, can we revive the Southern Left? Who are some actual good leftist Southern politicians? They don't have to be currently holding office, but at least seeking office or acting positively to bring the left into power.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:My understanding of the history there was that the portion of Virginia that became West Virginia was against Secession from the Union over the issue, and not necessarily out of any great love of Abolition. It was basically a "If you want to Secede from the Union, we won't be going with you" thing. South Carolina seceded in Dec 1860, Virginia on April 17, 1861 (referendum in May 1861), 5 days after the attack on Fort Sumter. The rebel states didn't exist on their own for "a few years." They formed a fake country in February and the war started two months later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:26
|
|