Ten poorest states are Red States.

[_subgenius]

Your idea that growing corn is an "economic model" is juvenile...or worse, a coffee-shop hipster doofus.

Being as that this was never asserted by the poster, it would appear that you are once again exhibiting your usual reading comprehension difficulties.

sure it was, the poster noted that "poor states" had an agrarian economy both prior to and after the civil war which, while irrelevant to the topic at hand, is basically true and is characterized in my response as "growing corn". But none of that is an economic model.

But comprehending the inaccuracies and fallacies of EA's post is not difficult...just tedious.

[_canpakes]

Being as that this was never asserted by the poster, it would appear that you are once again exhibiting your usual reading comprehension difficulties.

sure it was, the poster noted that "poor states" had an agrarian economy both prior to and after the civil war which, while irrelevant to the topic at hand, is basically true and is characterized in my response as "growing corn". But none of that is an economic model.

But comprehending the inaccuracies and fallacies of EA's post is not difficult...just tedious.

Antebellum farming practices are not the same as modern-day corn farming, in either product or methodology. Please update your understanding of history.

[_subgenius]

Antebellum farming practices are not the same as modern-day corn farming, in either product or methodology. Please update your understanding of history.

Um, speaking of updates...note that an agrarian economy is one that is based upon producing and maintaining crops and farmland. This was true antebellum and is true postbellum. Using a mule or a John Deere to accomplish the production/maintenance does not change that definition....nor does it change the topic at hand. Much like how a knowledge based economy is where science and tech are the products. See the former relies on physical input and/or natural resources...the latter primarily on intellectual activity.

This is the glaring, and widely understood, distinction that history actually teaches us....no matter what side of the "bellum" you are on.

[_aussieguy55]

https://www.industryweek.com/talent/top ... ry?slide=1

China China China Not only the farmers. China has stopped oil imports from the US

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.industryweek.com/talent/top-10-us-states-losing-jobs-deficit-china/gallery?slide=1

China China China Not only the farmers. China has stopped oil imports from the US

What does this mean? Your link was to pictures of US manufacturing. Or something. It was incoherent.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Antebellum farming practices are not the same as modern-day corn farming, in either product or methodology. Please update your understanding of history.

Um, speaking of updates...note that an agrarian economy is one that is based upon producing and maintaining crops and farmland. This was true antebellum and is true postbellum. Using a mule or a John Deere to accomplish the production/maintenance does not change that definition....nor does it change the topic at hand. Much like how a knowledge based economy is where science and tech are the products. See the former relies on physical input and/or natural resources...the latter primarily on intellectual activity.

This is the glaring, and widely understood, distinction that history actually teaches us....no matter what side of the "bellum" you are on.

Well, I didn’t want to have to mention the obvious, but you insist on trying to defend your crappy comparison.

We tend not to use slave labor anymore.

That does change the economic picture a bit.

Now you know.

[_subgenius]

Well, I didn’t want to have to mention the obvious, but you insist on trying to defend your crappy comparison.

We tend not to use slave labor anymore.

That does change the economic picture a bit.

Now you know.

slave labor, indentured servant labor, union labor...you will notice how none of these actually change an agrarian economy to an agrarian economy.


Thanks for noticing.

[_canpakes]

Well, I didn’t want to have to mention the obvious, but you insist on trying to defend your crappy comparison.

We tend not to use slave labor anymore.

That does change the economic picture a bit.

Now you know.

slave labor, indentured servant labor, union labor...you will notice how none of these actually change an agrarian economy to an agrarian economy.


Thanks for noticing.

That an economy is agrarian was never the point.

You should go back and read through the thread.

[_subgenius]

That an economy is agrarian was never the point.

You should go back and read through the thread.

Ok, re-read and EA still babbles some incoherent mish-mash of pseudo-intellectual musings on economic "models".....and yeah, there really was never a point there, so i see what you are getting at - EA is insisting that 2+2=5 and the 2s don't matter because its all about the 5.

Nevertheless, the source of labor and/or means of production are irrelevant because the economic model for blue/red remains the same. The general consequence of agrarian and of knowledge-based have remained the same among the states - antiquated but the same. The only recent difference has been that states with knowledge-based economies (eg Blue) have experienced the most dramatic occurrence and rates of increases in income inequality - surpassing that of agrarian economies. Furthermore, regardless of the past tradition, the viability of the state's economy is being extended by the adaptation of the "other" model whereas a "purple" economic model is being created.

But hey, what do i know? i am just regurgitating facts...EA's much more imaginative at quilting together random thoughts that he consider to be the sensible way things should be - history be damned, amiright?