Unlike the US and China, who's societies are so eerily similar.
Money talks and bullsh*t walks. You show people they can make or save money by dealing with you, and you will get dealt with regardless of how dissimilar is your society and theirs. You simply keep ignoring the profit motive when it comes to understanding human behavior. And you call me a "Marxist." :)
Look, you really contradict yourself. If the South became a great economic powerhouse, the same people who resented the East would resent the South.
That doesn't even make sense. I'm sure the Southerners at the time were resenting North Eastern control of their shipping, their banking, their insurance and other matters, but there is no reason to believe these same people would resent more reasonable costing services originating in Southern cities.
Remember, the North East had the South as a "captive market." They had no where else to go before independence.
You've even said you'd do the same. So, please, for once take a good look at the contradictions in your theory.
Are we talking about the present, or are we talking about the 1860 era? You can't keep switching back and forth while keeping things in context. I said I would likely be resenting the Liberal Elite of Charleston lording it over everyone else in the country. I said this because they would have simply become the "new" New York, and because they would have been wielding outsized control and influence on the government, same as our current wealthy liberals do in New York nowadays.
I'm talking about countries and large populations. A country or a region or class doesn't automatically become rich by throwing off the people or the government it labels "exploiters."
No, if anything they become more impoverished. It is the leaders and party officers that gain in wealth when a revolution occurs. The ordinary people are generally worse off.
It has to have the know-how and ability and put in a real effort to become wealthy.
Many people have to put in no effort, or very little to become wealthy. They inherit wealth or are married into it. Monied people boost and protect their own. This is why I say that once a City like Charleston has acquired sufficient capital, (which it would have with 40% extra profits on it's exports) it will diversify into all sorts of industries. Money grows industries just by it's very existence. Again, why am I having to explain capitalist ideas to you? Are you some sort of Marxist or something? :)
If I'm "misunderstanding" you it's because you get so enthusiastic about the idea of Charleston or some other Southern city displacing New York. Sometimes it seems like it's all you ever talk about.
I'm not enthusiastic about it, I simply recognize that if the South was an independent country, some city would take over the financial business that New York used to perform. It might not have been Charleston, it might have been Norfolk. It might have been New Orleans. About the only thing I can say for sure is that it would have been a major port city.
Good luck getting rid of elites. Name a society that didn't have them. Or cronyism for that matter.
Where do you get this idea that i'm trying to get rid of "elites"? Everything I have written in this exchange should have made you realize that I consider the rise of the "elites" to be an unavoidable consequence. They will always emerge in any society sufficiently prosperous, and the best that can be done is to blunt their influence as much as possible regarding their efforts to tamper with the national government.
Getting rid of "elites" is like trying to remove the top or bottom step of a staircase. Once you've done it, all you have done is create a new top or bottom step.
You greatly misunderstand my thinking in numerous areas, and it's not for my lack of effort in trying to clarify what I think.
My first advice to you is get rid of some of your pejorative assumptions about me. I hate communism and socialism. On the opposite end of the scale, I consider "Crony Capitalism" to be a form of "Aristocracy", which is no less objectionable.
I believe in the system our founders created where we are free and equal (in the eyes of the law) individuals who may pursue our efforts at happiness with a minimum of intervention by the government or the masses.
Call it the "middle road" between the opposite extremes of Socialism and Aristocracy.
Minnesota was as unlikely to join in a political union with South Carolina in opposition to the United States as the US is to join with China. Let me remind you of what you wrote in an earlier post:
Without a war, the economics of the North were in serious trouble, not to mention the possibility of states in the Midwest eventually being brought into the economic orbit of the Confederacy instead of continuing on with the established trade through New York and Chicago.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A de facto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
That is the idea I was responding to. Now you're backtracking and denying with a snarky comment. Own up. Admit your original idea and try to defend it if you can. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke and being dishonest.
That doesn't even make sense. I'm sure the Southerners at the time were resenting North Eastern control of their shipping, their banking, their insurance and other matters, but there is no reason to believe these same people would resent more reasonable costing services originating in Southern cities.
Were they? Was the average Southerner really aware of the nuances of finance and international trade? Some planters and ideologues who were already worked up over slavery were, but the average Southerner in 1850? I really doubt it.
And again, you change the subject. We were talking about Midwesterners. The few who did have a grudge against New York would have a grudge against New Orleans or Charleston if it became the continent's major financial center. I don't think there were that many who hated New York in 1860, but saying that some Louisianian who hated New York or New England wouldn't hate New Orleans if it became the new financial capital is evading the issue, isn't it? We're talking about people who hate some far away rich people, and if the rich people are closer to hand, that's not the same thing.
This is why I say that once a City like Charleston has acquired sufficient capital, (which it would have with 40% extra profits on it's exports) it will diversify into all sorts of industries. Money grows industries just by it's very existence. Again, why am I having to explain capitalist ideas to you?
Then why don't resource rich provinces become great industrial powers when they become independent? Whether we're talking about Haiti or the Congo, countries that had great natural resources or cash crops don't always capitalize on their success. There's no magical process. In some of your paragraphs you admit that. In others you ignore or deny it. Sometimes, you say wealth is inevitable once you throw out the "exploiter" and sometimes you admit that it isn't. You've got to figure out who wins your argument with yourself before you can discuss this with other people.
I believe in the system our founders created where we are free and equal (in the eyes of the law) individuals who may pursue our efforts at happiness with a minimum of intervention by the government or the masses.
Except you're squishy soft on slavery and more apt to get angry about slave owners losing money than about slavery itself.