you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

You're misunderstanding my statement, there is no need for increased production, because it already existed. There is no need for an expanded distribution system, it already existed. There is no need for more of anything, because it was already sitting there, just going to somewhere else. The only changes needed were which wagon, or which ship, the only consequences were who made how much profit, and who got credit for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Oh no I understand your statements, it's just they are inherently wrong.

    Honestly if you said in the last 200 years (maybe even 300) we wouldn't be arguing. I think you're severally over-estimating the surplus created by pre-industrial farmers and the amount of the economy engaged in luxury or profiteering. Most people then produced what they needed and little more. Yes there were portions of the economy tooled to serve the needs of the elite, but I'm not convinced that is enough labor to completely eliminate hunger even if redistributed to production and logistical networks.

    We're not even getting into how common slavery was for agricultural production. If we are creating a new system to ensure everyone is fed how do we deal with that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I've made a simple historically verifiable statement, if you had any case what so ever, you'd be able to point to a counter example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    I've made a simple historically verifiable statement

    You did the opposite. You insisted that your version was true and that re-tooling an entire supply chain is easy.

    Your entire arguement is hypotheticals with no source.

  • source
  • parent