Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (870720)	7/6/2015 5:12:38 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578299

>> It might help explain why so few major companies come from that state. Instead of the Civil War, had the North negotiated a settlement with the South which called for the end of slavery in exchange for agricultural subsides for, say, 30 years, the South's economy would be in much better shape. In effect, the Yankees came to the south and ripped out its economy by the roots. One of the reasons why the Civil War happened is because there was no compromising with the South. They wanted their slaves and they wanted that status quo maintained. No one wants war. Had they agreed to make a transition to a non slave economy, the Civil War would not have happened. As for subsidies, the South has been subsidized for the last 150 years, paying less in than they get back from the Feds. Now, I'm not saying slavery was good or right or anything but evil. But it is an absolute fact that it was a key component of the southern economy and trying to recover from the sudden change in that economy left the southern states in a permanent economic doldrum that persists until this day. Always playing the victim..........when does it stop and when do you take stock of what the South's true problems are? So, when you criticize, you should understand that the South has had to endure difficult economic punishment for its wrongdoing in slavery and it is in spite of that that great companies like Walmart have succeeded. This is too sad..........I don't know what to say. The South's lack of a success has very little to with the Civil War and much more to do without the South conducts its 'business'.

To: i-node who wrote (870720)	7/6/2015 5:26:49 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578299

had the North negotiated a settlement with the South which called for the end of slavery in exchange for agricultural subsides for, say, 30 years, the South's economy would be in much better shape. In effect, the Yankees came to the south and ripped out its economy by the roots. So in this case you want fed subsidies....? Would paying the slaves a human wage solved the problem? Recognizing them as humans? The Yankees came to the South and ripped it's economy by the roots? Slavery was it's economy, are you admitting that?

To: i-node who wrote (870720)	7/6/2015 6:23:33 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578299

But it is an absolute fact that it was a key component of the southern economy and trying to recover from the sudden change in that economy left the southern states in a permanent economic doldrum that persists until this day. Not really. A substitute system quickly grew up. Sharecropping. It had the added advantage in that poor whites could, and were, brought into the same system. There was less investment, the actual purchase of the workers was not required nor was the costs of feeding and maybe housing them, but in many ways was the same. What hurt the South the most was the lack of industrialization. Very little of the South industrialized along with the North, there was no incentive for the wealthy to do it, they had their plantations. There wasn't a banking system in the South to match the North, so anybody in the middle class who tinkered around the edges had difficulty raising capital grow beyond what a small group of people could afford. So outside of a few gunsmiths and such like Griswald, foundries of any size were rare. Post-war, it was even worse. The wealthy were even more entrenched in their plantations, at least those that survived, and what little homegrown attempts at industrialization were swamped by companies up North selling off or moving their obsolete equipment down South. This kept wages depressed because the obsolete equipment required more manpower for the same amount of output due to inefficiencies and greater maintenance requirements. So the South kept slipping behind. Regardless of intent, a system was put into place that ensured that most of the profits were reaped by the wealthy and any possibility of advancement was capped for everyone else. This more or less stayed the same until the post-WWII era when some companies started to move more advanced manufacturing to take advantage of the lower costs. With the buildout of the interstate system, cost of transportation was cut dramatically and that led to a boom in industrialization starting in the 1950s and peaking in the mid-1970s. At that point, it all depended on what the wealthy families in the various states wanted. Those that liked being big frogs in a little pond, blocked attempts to attract manufacturing and later tech, those states stayed poor. Those who wanted to be a bigger frog in a much bigger pond didn't fight as much and even encouraged the new developments and those states did very well. Or at least better.