What are the positive and negative qualities of a capitalistic model?

[Axulus]

Slavery ran cotton, it didn't run society.

- - - Updated - - -

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

So the government giving away vast tracts of land, is not in any way similar to the government giving away vast sums of money, then?

No. That was about getting people to settle in the west.

Sure, that's the purpose of it. But the effect is one of giving away vast wealth. In land, not dollars; but nevertheless, a big chunk of wealth was given out by the government.

And if they didn't see the encouragement of settlement in the west as an investment, why the fuck did they encourage it at all?

The land wasn't worth much, and much of it was freshly stolen

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. That was about getting people to settle in the west.

Sure, that's the purpose of it. But the effect is one of giving away vast wealth. In land, not dollars; but nevertheless, a big chunk of wealth was given out by the government.

And if they didn't see the encouragement of settlement in the west as an investment, why the fuck did they encourage it at all?

The land was of very little value at that time. I see no massive investment.

 

[bilby]

Sure, that's the purpose of it. But the effect is one of giving away vast wealth. In land, not dollars; but nevertheless, a big chunk of wealth was given out by the government.

And if they didn't see the encouragement of settlement in the west as an investment, why the fuck did they encourage it at all?

The land was of very little value at that time. I see no massive investment.

Those who risked their lives to settle the land clearly thought it was pretty valuable. Just because something is given away free of charge does not make it valueless.

 

[Axulus]

The land was of very little value at that time. I see no massive investment.

Those who risked their lives to settle the land clearly thought it was pretty valuable. Just because something is given away free of charge does not make it valueless.

Not valueless, but the land was unimproved, remote, no infrastructure around it, and in high supply.

 

[bilby]

Those who risked their lives to settle the land clearly thought it was pretty valuable. Just because something is given away free of charge does not make it valueless.

Not valueless, but the land was unimproved, remote, no infrastructure around it, and in high supply.

Nevertheless, giving it away to settlers represented a significant government stimulus to the growth (both economic and territorial) of the nation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not valueless, but the land was unimproved, remote, no infrastructure around it, and in high supply.

Nevertheless, giving it away to settlers represented a significant government stimulus to the growth (both economic and territorial) of the nation.

The point was territorial growth. It wasn't a driving force behind our economy.