I figured we might, because answering it accurately will support my position, but will go against yours. :)
Harbor cities don't get rich by growing corn. They get rich by facilitating trade. Other industries follow, but it is the trade activity that gains them their initial capital. New York is wealthy precisely because it has an excellent natural harbor. The same is true of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and various other major port cities. Geography decreed that they would become locations of cities, and those cities would become wealthy.
Did we ever come to a conclusion about the other question, the one Pubbie has been trying to get you to answer?
I think we have all came to our own conclusions about that. So far as i'm concerned, it is a pointless effort to dramatize the entire focus so that someone can once more beat the drum of virtue signaling; So that someone can once more regurgitate the propagandized position that has been taught to all of us as we were growing up;
So that they can once more focus the spotlight on something they regard as emotionally satisfying, but which does not actually fit the facts, though people are intent on ignoring that bit of inconvenience.
I don’t want to come to my own conclusion, I want you to specify exactly what YOU were signaling when you posted that the North was trying to force social changes on the South. It’s not like we all smell something bad and I’m demanding to know who farted. Just explain what you meant. How simple is that?
Where this is going is to say that everybody in politics is only in it for the money. That's dubious to begin with, but how one gets back from such cynicism to any kind of morality is hard to say. I suspect your answer is that you are moral about everything - the world's moral yardstick, the one exception to all the world's materialism and opportunism. Like here:
I think you might very well be surprised. I don't like to talk about anything in my own personal life because information can provide your enemies with an advantage, but I grew up being taught that all this "stuff" is transitory, and in the larger scheme of things, meaningless.
I don't value "rich" things. I can afford "nice" stuff, I just don't care about it. If I had their wealth, I would probably try to wreck the existing media system, because I see it as the most dangerous force facing us.
Yeah. Everybody else is mercenary and materialistic, and you are the only exception. Yet another contradiction in your posts and world view. If it's all about money or power or position with other people, it's likely that the same is true with you.
Harbor cities don't get rich by growing corn. They get rich by facilitating trade. Other industries follow, but it is the trade activity that gains them their initial capital.
First, is that wrong? Is taking advantage of a good harbor immoral? Is New Orleans benefiting from being on the continent's biggest river system an unfair advantage? And really, what would early America's tobacco and cotton production have been with climate and the advantages of the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River?
Second, contrary to what people now think, New York was long a major industrial center -- right up until the time the country as a whole started deindustrialization. Plenty of people in 19th and early 20th century Brooklyn worked in factories, workshops, machine shops, and shipyards. And New York City financed factories upstate and in the neighboring states.
So by the mid-19th century it wasn't all about trade and finance or all about cotton. A large population meant that New York was incredibly productive economically. New York's experience with shipping and commerce attracted industries and dealing with factories, workshops, and retailers improved the financial acumen of the city's bankers and merchants.
So far as i'm concerned, it is a pointless effort to dramatize the entire focus so that someone can once more beat the drum of virtue signaling; So that someone can once more regurgitate the propagandized position that has been taught to all of us as we were growing up;
So that they can once more focus the spotlight on something they regard as emotionally satisfying, but which does not actually fit the facts, though people are intent on ignoring that bit of inconvenience.
"Virtue signalling" is this year's buzz word, I guess. You can throw it about so liberally, that you don't notice the "virtue signalling," the pompous and phony moralizing, in your own posts and in every rant about the evil Republicans and big city people. What is a lot of the neo-confederate stuff but virtue signalling writ large?