Dilandu's little hysteria,

Spoiler

Montrose Toast wrote:There is another factor: Financing new innovations without the pressure-cooker of war.

Most of Safehold is still repaying debt or dealing with economic disruptions of the war - it has only been 15 years. 15 years after 1918 was 1933 (Great Depression)...

Charis has its gold mines and a leadership to continue pushing innovation.

What does the other nations have? Economic collapse, civil-war, prelude to civil-war, economic disruption, political stagnation. Not condusive to innovation.

Actually, this is the best time for technological innovation. Economic dislocations disrupt because such circumstances disrupt the flow of capital. Siddermark chose to reject added Charisian liquidity right after the Jihad. They wanted to energizr their economy on their own, but they didn't have the capital until their bank was set up. Once set up the BoS still needed people who wanted to build that economy. Charisian investors were gun shy because the property laws in place were not as secure as other places. Even so, those investors still invested. However, locals were still leary of committing what wealth they had into the industrialization effort. Then followed those carpet baggers ripping off loyalist land owners, then followed the assasination, then followed the election with the broader electoral base. All of those issues inspired a lack of confidence which inhibited domestic investment.

Had Siddermark's government bit the bullet and accepted their own Ahrmahk Plan, they likely would have avoided the serious investment fraud because Cayleb would have been in place to take the hit for that. There would likely still be hard feelings, but not nearly as much because too many slabs of personal bacon would have been saved.

All that suggests the lack of capital exacerbated the alreadyrisk averse populace of Siddermark. Capital injections would have bolstered that skittishness. Having reasons to invest, like in industrialization, would have been the vehicle to circulate liquidity throughout the economy. Industrialization would have been nearly risk free. That is the investment would have gained sufficient return with near certainty.

PeterZ
True.
What always happens is the rich and powerful lock down a country so only they can prosper, this cripples innovation and advancement.
And that sure as hell applies to so-called Western Capitalist Democracies as well as any other system (most.of them are neither truly Capitalist or Democracies, we've become Corporate Fascist states, alas)

So whenever there's a big shake up, say a world war or the like, it breaks the constriction and so fresh blood as it were, takes advantage and you get change.

SilverbladeTE wrote:PeterZ
True.
What always happens is the rich and powerful lock down a country so only they can prosper, this cripples innovation and advancement.
And that sure as hell applies to so-called Western Capitalist Democracies as well as any other system (most.of them are neither truly Capitalist or Democracies, we've become Corporate Fascist states, alas)

So whenever there's a big shake up, say a world war or the like, it breaks the constriction and so fresh blood as it were, takes advantage and you get change.

Ayup, big and intrusive governments tend to stifle economic activity by warping the sorts of activity that is valuable to the enterprise. Complex tax structures mean companies spend time and resources acoiding the taxes. Complex regulatory environments mean companies spend time and resources on compliance. Innovation is risky, avoiding tax expenses is a much more reliable investment. As for fascists, the West is leaning towards government control of the private sector rather than the reverse.

The West is capitalist. They all maintain environments where property rights are protected. The issue is the dispersion of wealth. That's the primary problem with the Antebellum South. Too few people controlled too much of the South's resources and everyone else was just along for the ride.