from the antebellum era? try anything by eric foner, but a good place to start is forever free: the story of emancipation and reconstruction. it's accessible history that includes a bit of background about the political economy leading up to the civil war. any of his books about reconstruction might be interesting but not exactly what you're looking for. "black reconstruction in america" by dubois is a keystone text that has a bit about the southern economic history. and maybe "old south, new south" by gavin wright for post reconstruction economic history
i read that and i was like hey wait a second, that's not how you do that? shouldn't you be having conversations with your team first to find common ground to help with buy in? and also learn from them about the org.
starting with a presentation that nobody asked for is a good way to be ignored.
If you mean battery powered, then yes, but I was hoping for some hypothetical 50kW device powered by a cable from my equally hypothetical all-electric F-150. That would be fun.
And most of his ICE raids on farms were in blue states where he could care less about farmers since because of the electoral college, there votes don’t matter.
As far as Memphis, the rest of mostly Red Tenessee could care less what happens to black people in Memphis. He was invited in by the governor to save face.
On the other hand, if you expect me to argue that most of America gives two shits about what happens to minorities, you are arguing with the wrong person.
Of course as someone who sees a minority every time he looks into the mirror and he whose still living parents grew up in the segregationist south, I have never had any illusions about the US.
I’ve been able to navigate it quite successfully though
can you please explain how these graphics are supposed to support your argument? it's not clear to me and i'm trying to understand the georgist POV.
nonetheless, materials and the cost of labor are the most significant costs for new buildings. not land, taxes, or zoning regulations. here is one example where this is a fact: www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-23/uvm-halts-student-housing-project-construction-costs-workforce-shortage
Switch from "national level" tab to "metro level", and select los angeles for an extreme example. Look at the the figures right of the map, that says "share of SFD units build before 1980 with a land share of" and compare the figures between 2012 and 2024. Just by eyeballing the percentages, it looks like the land share went from 50-60% to 70-80%. This is confirmed if you sum up the figures in a spreadsheet, you go from an average share of 51% to 72%.
You can compare this to overall housing prices in the LA area[1], prices in 2024 is 262.7% of 2012 prices. Suppose you have a $100k house in 2012, that will worth $262k in 2024, an appreciation of $162k. Using the land value percentages above, the land value of the houses are $51k and $188k respectively, an appreciation of $137k. That means 85% of the appreciation was in land, not because building materials got more expensive or whatever.
this is the blues. just learn how to play a blues progression on the piano and you'll learn what this poster is trying to teach.
reply