>>3720188 (OP)while I do think the south had its good thing going on, I think America died when it started relying on companies to spend money on infrastructure, much like the whole west really. There used to be a balance I think, ever since ancient times really, everyone had a role, the common people were the most exploited but without them there wouldn't have been a kingdom, the aristocrats, kings and the top brass enjoyed life the most as they were the most literate but had duties to fulfill as well, they could afford to be corrupted sure but then if they'd face revolutions in case they happened to not uphold said duties they pledged to fulfill.
Now? Billionaires own the market, the state has to manage around them the most so that they put their money in the sector that is needed to be funded, and if they refuse or do something controversial instead of facing consequences they can just move their money elsewhere, with no type of patriotism they can just bring us all down if we protest for too long.
>That's the way it has always beenI don't think so, the US government used to be able to purge their own citiziens, whether rich or poor, famous or no baldi knows, something like the sort happened to Charlie Chaplin just because he made a small remark about the soviet union being good as it gives people a roof to live under or whoever burnt the US flag really.
If something like this happened now billionaires would take their funds out and citiziens would protest.
That's how I see it sorry for the sermon