War Room Lounge v94: I'd need to ice up when I wasn't pounding cakes in that kitchen

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Limbo Pete @Jack V Savage

On his first book and the middle paragraph caught my attention


"In the United States barriers to entry were laughably small"
source.gif
 
"In the United States barriers to entry were laughably small"
source.gif

It kind of makes sense the way he describes it compared to Europe and Asia with democratic regions.

Can I share a book a bought on Kindle?

Is be down for a book share on here
 
It kind of makes sense the way he describes it compared to Europe and Asia with democratic regions.

Can I share a book a bought on Kindle?

Is be down for a book share on here
I'm definitely considering giving it a read, or at least a power skim. That kind of a statement is a big red flag to me, though, and probably any Americanist. I get that this isn't a historical work, even though his research involves (i'm sure) a great deal of history, but it's on that fine line where I suspect people might take it to mean more than it does. It very well may be a good book, it's just that... well, it's hard to articulate. Historical analysis is very very much best left to historians. If he's speaking about barriers to entry in colonial United States, then I would say his statement is inaccurate or improperly worded to the point of inaccuracy- based on how I would explain what those barriers were/could be. But that's just a paragraph with no context, so I can't judge the guy until I read what he really is getting at. Furthermore, I think it's very easy for people to look at something like this, which i'm sure is fine in its own realm of geopolitical analysis, and make corollary leaps to broad historic understanding without knowing what the general feeling is in the secondary literature on said subject. Guys like this can sell books because of how accessible they are, and there's plenty of value to unpack, but writing about the facts of today and speculating about the future = / = understanding how colonial American economic and social stratification worked.
 
I'm definitely considering giving it a read, or at least a power skim. That kind of a statement is a big red flag to me, though, and probably any Americanist. I get that this isn't a historical work, even though his research involves (i'm sure) a great deal of history, but it's on that fine line where I suspect people might take it to mean more than it does. It very well may be a good book, it's just that... well, it's hard to articulate. Historical analysis is very very much best left to historians. If he's speaking about barriers to entry in colonial United States, then I would say his statement is inaccurate or improperly worded to the point of inaccuracy- based on how I would explain what those barriers were/could be. But that's just a paragraph with no context, so I can't judge the guy until I read what he really is getting at. Furthermore, I think it's very easy for people to look at something like this, which i'm sure is fine in its own realm of geopolitical analysis, and make corollary leaps to broad historic understanding without knowing what the general feeling is in the secondary literature on said subject. Guys like this can sell books because of how accessible they are, and there's plenty of value to unpack, but writing about the facts of today and speculating about the future = / = understanding how colonial American economic and social stratification worked.

Isn't it pretty definitively true that barriers to entry for real property ownership for white Europeans were lower in colonial America than in the more densely populated countries in Europe that also evolved from feudal land distributions? For England, for example, there was never really a time in which land could be claimed or transferred for prices far below their expected values because the starting point was mass private ownership.
 
Isn't it pretty definitively true that barriers to entry for real property ownership for white Europeans were lower in colonial America than in the more densely populated countries in Europe that also evolved from feudal land distributions? For England, for example, there was never really a time in which land could be claimed or transferred for prices far below their expected values because the starting point was mass private ownership.
In theory- which very fascinating implications/effects. But even among white Europeans, there was intense stratification. And we certainly shouldn't just be talking about white Europeans, anyway.
 
This pose does scare me a bit. Looking up and having both hands preoccupied makes vertigo increase imo, and wind becomes a more serious factor in your balance when you're not holding anything.

Go fuck a donut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top