This.
Before colonization:
>be a hunter-gatherer
>or starve
After colonization:
>work on a farm
>or work in a sweatshop
>or be a hunter-gatherer
>or starve
One hour of labor in a sweatshop buys way more than one hour of labor hunting on the Savannah.
Is it possible for an American to be a reactionary?
>One hour of labor in a sweatshop buys way more than one hour of labor hunting on the Savannah.
They were less likely to starve on the savannah. And also probably more fulfilled than having to work 12 hours a day just to buy some shitty clothes and a single hotdog to share between your family.
>less likely to starve on the savannah
Wrong. Definitionally, higher spending power means you're able to buy more food for the same amount of labor.
>work 12 hours a day just to buy some shitty clothes and a single hotdog to share between your family.
Okay this is just ignorant. Go lurk on Veeky Forums.
>Wrong. Definitionally, higher spending power means you're able to buy more food for the same amount of labor.
This is complete bullshit and hopelessly naive. Agricultural societies are horribly prone to systemic failure in underdeveloped economies. If there is a supply shortage, then everyone fucking starves. See Ethiopia etc. Small tribal societies tend to have no problem acquiring enough food for themselves, and generally have to exert less time "working" to do so.
> Go lurk on Veeky Forums.
That board is even stupider than this one, by far. You probably couldn't have undermined point more.
Are you saying that hunter-gatherers are better off in the long term?
Agricultural economies have much higher population. They can feed more people, so the population grows. The reason hunter-gatherers have no problem feeding themselves is that their populations are small enough that they can easily live off nature. Supply modulates population.
It is true that there are shortages and surplusses, but crop insurance and speculation handle the rationing problem elegantly and fairly. Additionally, higher spending power allows you to import more food during hard times.
Where do you stand on economic theory? I'm legit curious about what your thoughts are.
What are the main criticisms of Peyerson? Newfag only spreading my wings, and his stuff seems nifty compared to what he describes as post modernism, also in what ways are his interpretations of post modernity off since he seems pretty biased due to his situation
I really like Peterson, but this pasta is gold.
>colonialism in the middle east
What the bloody fuck are you talking about