This would be another great place to put in a hyperlink--to the supporting data, for example.

So were houses in the suburbs the 20th century equivalent of the "landed yeoman" that Jefferson idealized? It's an interesting idea, though you could be more clearly in laying it out--explicitly referencing the corresponding republican ideal.

A formatting tip--rather than sticking this in, almost like a footnote, instead turn the text into a hyperlink (e.g., the quote, in this case), and then link directly to the source.

I like the connections you're making. As your commenter says, you should be more specific in making the comparisons--are there specific Populist policies, for example, the correspond to policies being proposed today--but it is interesting also to see general trends repeating.

As I said, that raises a further question--do we see these movements/ideas repeating themselves because the economic situation is the same now as it was 100 years ago?

Be sure to proofread carefully! There are too many phrasing or spelling errors.

This sounds like your key point: promotion of economic equality, looking out for "the little guy," is what unites the Populists of the 19th century with the populists of today. Is that correct? And if so, do you think you're seeing similar responses because the economic situations are similar?

Definitely a Populist idea. Of course, it goes back even further. Jackson expressed similar ideas in his veto of the Bank of the U.S.

I like that you're getting into specifics here.

There was really a sustained and continuing decline in farm prices throughout this time period--not just as a result of the Panic of 1873.

Which industry?

A provocative post! You use images very effectively. and your point about Trump and Sanders is interesting. Of course, it's hard to know how much to infer from one rather bizarre election cycle, but it is an interesting pattern. I do think you could bring out the history more. The strongest connection is with the reference to the Gilded Age and the history of unionization, but there's more you could say.

A formatting suggestion: rather than sticking the full URL into the text of your blog, instead you can turn some of the text into a hyperlink (e.g., "the GOP's economic webpage") and then link directly to the webpage.

"Is viewed" by whom? You have to be careful with passive voice--it tends to hide who's doing the action.

What do you think Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth has to say about this?

In general, I like the style--it could be more polished at points, but overall it's got an informality and a vividness that works well in this medium. I think you're also doing a nice job of connecting with the history. I think the weakest point is providing clear arguments and evidence (from history, from economics, or ideally from both) that the policies you suggest would help. You do provide the link to studies of the minimum wage. But, for example, the OEO--did it work, back in the 1960s? You don't say, but it matters, if we're deciding whether to reinstitute it. So those links could be clearer at points.

Interestingly, there was just an article in the Times about monopoly in the tech sector. I recommend it. You can find it here.

Some more regulation was put in place by the Dodd-Frank Act--though it did not restore the separation of commercial and investment banking, nor did it break up big banks. Though there are plenty of people, even on the left, who think it's okay to have big banks, so long as they are properly regulated. Here, for example, is such an argument from Paul Krugman. It's really another version of the New Nationalism/TR vs. New Freedom/Wilson debate--is bigness inevitable in the modern economy, or not?

I think this is an effective style in blogging--more informal and more forceful than you would typically find in a more "academic" paper.

You're correct that you have to be careful drawing causal links. That being said, you could link here to information showing that the real value of the minimum wage peaked long ago, and has been on a downward trend for much of the past 40 years or so.

In terms of formatting, it looks better not to include the full URL in the text of your blog post. Instead, choose some text and then hyperlink it--for example, the text "According to many studies" could be a hyperlink linking to this URL.

Very interesting ideas in here--very provocative, if a bit depressing! Given that there is still much to like about republican ideals, it's a little sad to suggest that they pare passé. True, you suggest that we can recover republican values--but what if those values are out of synch with our economy and society?

A very depressing conclusion!

Wow! Kind of a troubling idea, as consumerism is so built into our society these days? It would be interesting to hear more about this idea.

So maybe it's not industry, but corporations that are the problem? But maybe those are closely associated.

Again, this would be a great place to provide a supporting link.

This is an interesting idea. It's not that capitalism was new, even during the antebellum era. The US was already capitalist. So was it industrial capitalism that was the problem, do you think? And what about industry is it that promotes this sort of harmful (if that's the right word) competition?

This would be a great place to include a link, to provide supporting evidence.

I see how we're back to Gilded Age levels of inequality. What's the conclusion you can draw from that?

But it would be an interesting post!

I would encourage you to put a descriptive caption here, and then turn that into a hyperlink to the image source.

Actually focused more on other things--but we'll talk about those soon.

You have a good, clear argument. You do a nice job of supporting your points with evidence, particularly evidence from the web. There's less of the history of the US in here, and I would have liked to hear more about how the history of the US either shows that income inequality is a problem, or that what you propose is a good solution.

I also agree with mnr2017: there are conservative positions very different from yours. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but it's always helpful, I think, to look into counterarguments and address them.

Putting some images into the post would add to visual appeal--something to think about in the future.

Well, this is true, but how do you know it's the result of the taxes. If I were a blue sweater to school, then bomb a test, that doesn't mean the blue sweater caused me to fail; it could just be a coincidence. ("Correlation is not causation" is a common way to phrase it.) So you have to be careful about the claims you make.

Of course, this does show that high taxes are compatible with a thriving economy....

I love all the links your putting in--they do a nice job of complimenting your article. You could phrase things a little more smoothly. Rather than saying, "This article says..." it would sound better to write "In a recent article, Patricia Cohen states." Or even just leave out "in a recent article" (And then of course, hyperlink it) It's a stylistic thing--the substance is there.

Is this your argument for why decreasing income inequality is important? It's definitely an argument that is raised. It would be great to back it up with historical evidence--for example, as we discussed, some historians argue that it was lack of purchasing power (due to a skewed income distribution) that contributed to the Depression.

There is a popular argument. There are also arguments against. Did you have a chance to look into them at all?

But then, why is this a problem?

Good to have a link--you could also put the graph directly into your post as an image (with attribution), so your reader could see it.

And yet, if you look at Henry George and his writing, he argued for the single tax precisely because it would save the republic--perhaps not exactly as Jefferson imagined it, but better than the sort of industrial capitalism that Carnegie represented.

By the way, there is some dispute about whether there is a shortage of science and engineering students. See this article for links to multiple studies suggesting that there is no shortage, at least not currently.

I would have liked to see more reference to the economic history of the US. You reference the G.I. Bill--an important reference--as well as the post-WWII boom, but beyond that, there's not as much historical justification for your policy proposal.

That being said, you do a nice job of using hyperlinks to back up your evidence and your claims. I also appreciate that you engage directly with Paul Krugman's claim that it's not about skills (though I think you could argue more strongly there--attacking the "skills based" explanation is a major point in the article).

Very interesting.

You write in a clear, accessible style here, and make effective use of both hyperlinks and images (though your captions could be improved). Your ideas are interesting, but more explicit reference to the economic history would be better--for example, explicitly noting that that rise of unionization rates corresponded with that period of post-WWII prosperity, or making more explicit references to recent government limits on support for unions (some were mentioned in that 40-year-slump article).

By the way, the varying font size and color is a bit distracting. It would be better if you can be consistent there. That being said, overall I like your post here.

This is an interesting argument. I'm not sure if all economists would agree. I suppose it depends on the sorts of work rules that unions impose. But from the employers' perspective, does it make a difference whether payroll costs go up due to the minimum wage, or to unions? Either way they pay more. Or perhaps you're saying that unions will be more flexible than a minimum wage law could be?

It's better if you name the website, rather than just putting "link." Or even put "source," to make clear what it is.

Well, that's true--but maybe they would do it anyway? I've certainly seen conservatives making precisely the argument that unions destroyed themselves by pushing wages too high.

This would be another place to put in a hyperlink (in general, though, you've done well at using hyperlinks to back up your factual claims).

This is a pretty good post. You make an argument that the existence of a large middle class powered a consumer economy, which led to widespread prosperity in a kind of "virtuous cycle." It seems very plausible. It would even stronger if you could more explicitly contrast with other eras in US economy history. I'm also wondering: why then, and why did it fail? You do address the last point, ascribing it to globalization and automation, and those are definitely factors that economists mention. Still, it's not like they were new. Automation had been going on since the antebellum era, and there had been trade before. Were they suspended at all during the post-war era? Interesting questions. Although I have to say your conclusion is a little depressing!

This is true, though it is worth noting that since then inflation and interest rates have been low--especially over the last 15 to 20 years or so.

I'm wondering if there are statistics on this. It is true that the size of the middle class has decreased since then (there was a recent report on that). I wonder if there are stats about the size of the middle class before World War II--in the Gilded Age, say, or the Progressive era.

This sounds like the core of your argument. It's an interesting point.

This is interesting. It almost sounds like WWII resulted in a "nest egg" of savings, like fuel for the economy, which eventually was exhausted--not when the money itself was spent, but maybe the aftereffects of that money. Of course, that's not the theory in "The Forty Year Slump" article--are you rejecting his arguments?

In fact, they couldn't spend as much money--rationing limited what people could spend.

You should put the hyperlinks directly into the text

This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that it's not just that republicanism doesn't work, but also that the values themselves are old-fashioned. That touches on my main question about your ideas. You say that republicanism has been discredited by economic developments, but republicanism includes not only an ideal of small government and independent citizens, but also ideals such as liberty, equality, and self-government. Are the values obsolete, or just the small government part?

Is this true? There are plenty of conservatives who would come to the exact opposite conclusion--that the crisis and its aftermath shows the need for a smaller government.

This is a very counter-intuitive idea. Most critics of the Great Society say it showed the failure of Big Government (and implicitly, showed the need to return to the small government ideal of republicanism). But you seem to be saying it showed the failure of republicanism. How that's so is not clear--how does a program which expands government show the failure of limited government?

What in particular are you thinking of here? After all, weren't most Americans employed by private companies and firms?

This isn't clear. Wasn't the national bank gone by the Gilded Age?

I think you're writing doesn't do justice to your ideas. In a less formal assignment like this, your ideas deserve a more vivid style.

This is a provocative idea, and I'd love to hear you say it even more forcefully and vividly. Aren't you effectively saying that republicanism is a bad idea? Or is that an inaccurate way of translating "faulty and inefficient"?

It's an important issue, one that is much discussed. One of the interesting aspects of it--and a way that it interacts with increasing income inequality--is that over the past few decades life expectancy has gone up for the wealthy, while it has stagnated (or even gone down) for the poor. Some people use that argument to suggest that we shouldn't raise the retirement age--since the poor aren't dying older, they would be hit harder than the rich. (Here is one story on that). It would be interesting to hear your take on that argument.

I'd have liked to hear more about how this would address the underlying economic problems which seem to have come out since 1974 or so, since the question was phrased in terms of addressing the economic issues that have hit the US over the past 40 years. It's not clear, from what you write, how that very real declining ratio of workers to retirees is related to, say, income stagnation for many Americans since 1974, or how it would address it and create a more prosperous future. So it would be good to hear more about those connections.

This would be an ideal place to include a hyperlink, to provide a supporting source.

Your analysis in the first part of the post is good. Although you could have stronger evidence on a couple of points, on the whole you do pretty well at arguing that being sheltered from international competition is what enabled post-WWII prosperity. The solutions you put forward don't seem to fully mesh with the analysis. It's not clear how unions fit into international competitiveness (and weren't unions at their most powerful in the 1950s, when the economy was prosperous?) And how to promote consumerism? There's a chicken and egg problem: people need money to spend, if we're going to promote manufacturing, but to get the money (you suggest) we already need to have domestic manufacturing.

Are you thinking of something in particular? Some industry in particular?

An interesting analogy--companies used to hire immigrants, but now they just hire people before they leave other countries?

You have to be very careful in making claims. The evidence you show does definitely suggest a much lower level of competition to American manufacturing. To show that there was an increase in domestic manufacturing, you'd have to show additional date--manufacturing output or employment, for example.

Western Europe was probably even more important, as countries like France, Britain, and Germany were more important potential competitors to American industry.

I'm not quite sure where you end up. You state your point very clearly--the post-WWII economy was the exception--and the discussion of technology makes some sense in that context (due to technology, we can't "go back to the 1950s"). But it's not clear how the discussion of unions, regulation, and spending fit in. Are you saying we "can't go back" because unions are weaker? But why then can't they be stronger? Or is union power a bad thing? It's also not clear how the discussion of Progressivism fits in. Are you saying Big Government is the problem? But then, liberal New Deal-ism was the dominant economic philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s, so you'd have to explain more clearly why we can't go back to that philosophy. You seem to want to say it's bad for the economy, but you need to provide evidence, showing that in periods of Big Government (e.g., Progressivism, New Deal, 1960s), the economy did poorly. The difficulty is that the economy was often doing well during those time periods (e.g., Progressive Era, 1950s/1960s).

By the way: affect vs. effect--make sure you use the correct word.

This doesn't seem correct. Neither the Keynesian nor the monetarist view (the two dominant accounts) takes this view. Low demand, or poor Federal Reserve policy--but not defaults on loans to the US government.

But what's your evidence here? Wasn't this shortly before the 40 year slump? If anything, as immigration rates increased, median incomes started falling. That doesn't mean the former caused the latter, but it does complicate an argument for liberal immigration policies.

I appreciate that you've got a theme going through here, and you're trying to tie it all together. I don't think the evidence quite holds up. As I note in my other comments, some of the data doesn't match up with what you say. And looking back to the Gilded Age as the era to go back to is problematic, I would say. It's true, as you note, that it led to innovation and large corporations. Still, that "frequent exploitation of workers" that you mention seems like a problem.

Actually, oil production has been rising in recent years. See this graph, for example.

But it's not these time periods which people look back to as a golden age of the economy. The post-WWII era was an era of widely shared prosperity--more so than these two eras, I would say.

There is a little ambiguity here. Are the tariffs on manufactured goods, to promote American industry (which is what tariffs in the past have done)? Or are they on natural resource imports?

Rather than putting the hyperlink into the text, you should actually choose some text to be the hyperlink, so the readers click directly on the text (rather than the URL).

That's not exactly what the graph shows (although it does show increasing dependence on imported oil).

BTW, I'm not sure this accurate. The webpage you link to dates from 2004, and there has been a revolution in oil production since then, due to fracking. You can see this webpage for some information.

You should make this the title of the blog post!

There's still an ambiguity in here that needs to be resolved (which HG picks up on as well): on the one hand, you seem to declare republicanism outdated; on the other hand, you seem to want to still claim certain republican values. So fundamentally, do you think republicanism can be saved?

By the way, the shifting font size is distracting. Especially when you're publishing on the web, you should make it as polished as possible.

And did they succeed at that?

It's not just corporations--did you see this article from the New York Times, about the influence of a handful of political donors?

So where is this from? Again, putting in a hyperlink would be good.

By the way, since this is online, you should make this a hyperlink and link directly to the source--even better than a footnote!

It's a very depressing graph!

I'm not sure if this got posted or not, so I'll repost here. What you say is interesting, but I had a similar question as Alex did. The values that republicanism espoused--liberty, equality, public virtue--are still very appealing to many people (including me). Are those outdated along with the ideology they were associated with? Or is there a way to update republicanism for the modern, industrial capitalist era? What would a New Republicanism look like?

This is the sort of place you should put in a hyperlink--you can link to the actual webpage.

I'm not sure if it's fully shown. After all, expenditures don't really take off until after 1930/1940. Though it is true there is a small bump in the early Progressive era--though I expect that's more the result of WWI.

For future reference, you can embed pictures in the middle of a blog post, which makes them easier on the reader--no need to scroll down to see it.

By the way, the presentation is nice. Headings are good in a blog post, and the visuals are nicely presented.

I'd like to hear more about this. You mention some of the goals, but I'd like to hear more about specific policies we could adopt, as well as how they would help. For example, how will raising taxes help? How would you strengthen unions? And how would these help with the purchasing power issue you raise? And so on.

How would you do this? For example, would you limit the use of robots and computers? I can imagine that that would be controversial.

You're right that this is a key question. As I noted above, you can think about this as a price problem or as an income problem. Which is it for you?

The opening is pretty good. I like that you're making an attempt to grab the reader's attention.

This is true, of course, but that's just another way of saying that incomes haven't risen. During the 1950s, prices rose, but incomes rose even faster. In recent decades, the problem has been that incomes have been rising slower than inflation for many people. It could be thought of as an inflation problem, but it's more fundamentally an income problem--for many people (unlike in the 1950s) incomes aren't rising.

I'm not completely clear what you mean by this. Do you mean that two wage earners today make what one did back in the day? If so, are you suggesting working spouses as the solution?

You should give your post a title. I think you could also proofread more carefully--there are fairly frequent spelling or usage errors that careful proofreading should catch. When you're writing on the web, it's important to present your best work!

In terms of your argument, I see the point I keep coming back to is how you see the relationship between the selfishness you describe and the economic trends we've studied. That seems to come through in most of my comments.

Really post-1974. Remember, from WWII until then, the economy was booming and everyone was gaining in income.

This seems to be your key point, but it still leaves me wondering about the question I asked earlier: is this selfishness the result of the economic changes we've seen?

And also, why does income inequality increase in some eras and not in others? Were people less selfish in the decades after WWII? Or is something else going on?

Interesting questions to think about!

This is a pretty damning indictment of business leaders. I wonder if that's a result of the economic trends we studied. Is there something about industrial capitalism that undermines civic virtue and promotes selfishness among the economic elite?

For future reference, you can insert pictures into the middle of a post.

Maybe, but surely people earlier in history wanted to make money, too. Do you mean that they lost "civic virtue"? And if so, that begs the question: why?

Do you think the selfishness is what killed republicanism? Or was that just a symptom?

This is an important point. It's what keeps republicanism from just being laissez-faire.

Not exactly. Men had to buy land--and it wasn't always the same amount.

Of course, dependency is mostly an issue of one believes in traditional republicanism and the individualism that is part of it. If one rejects republicanism as a guiding ideology, as you do in this post, does this dependency matter?

The New Deal is a great example for your argument.

It's great that you include a link. I would have liked to see something more authoritative than shmoop.

The economist is a great source. But could you find a newer article?

Given current debates, your recommendations are interesting. You're essentiall producing increased immigration and more government spending--proposals that would be controversial today, to say the least!

This is a place where specific reference to the American experience, and what the American government did, would be helpful.

There is an interesting economic puzzle here. You're suggesting that if people come, factory jobs will appear--that, in essence, immigrants cause their own jobs to come into existence. Or is it that the immigrants are a necessary but not sufficient cause for factory growth?

That being said, I think most economists would agree that a growing labor population does help economic growth, and it certainly seemed to help in the case of the US.

For both of these--funding of canals, and funding of research--can you point to specific examples from US history when we pursued these policies? Specific examples like that always strengthen an argument.

Definitely!

There's an interesting economic puzzle here--if you bring people into the city, will jobs "automatically" be created? There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue going on here. That being said, I think you're right that population growth really did help the American economy, by providing labor. So what should the Flubarian government adopt as a policy.

What policy do you recommend? Is there something the government should do?

Does this mean that it should be built by the government? This is a place where discussing specifically what was done by the US government could really clarify things.

And out! So factories had a larger market.

This sounds intriguing. A specific historical example here would really help clarify.

Another interesting recommendation, given current political disputes. Certainly, there is a fair amount of both "anti-corporate" and anti-immigrant sentiment in the country today--and you're saying to increase economic growth, a country should encourage corporations and immigration!

Good, clear recommendation here. Is this something the US government did?

Interesting recommendation, given the political controversies around immigration today.

I would like to hear a bit more about how immigrants/population growth matter.

I don't think this was a trade deal as we know understand them. But your broader point seems correct: seeking markets abroad is crucial. At lot of East Asian countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea, and China, have pursued export-led growth.

Of course, the example you provide here--cotton--isn't an industrial product.

This raises in my mind the same question I asked above: should the government create the system? What did our government do?

Since this is an advice memo to the leader of a government, do you mean by this that the government should invest in technology? The historical experience of the US would be good to reference here; is that what our government did?

I'd like to hear more here about the specific connection with industry. Can you say how this helped build industry in the US.

This was done in the US--at least, governments provided a substantial amount of capital, a point worth making explicitly. It's important to understand that the government played a key role in encouraging early economic development in this way.

A nice faux historical touch

Good to appeal to specific policies. Personal support is interesting. I know when Japan was modernizing, the Emperor of Japan would often make himself seen using Western goods and products, to show his personal support.

I like that your explicitly referencing American government policy here. Is there some specific example you had in mind.

Transportation is also important. It would be helpful to hear something about what the U.S. government (and state governments) did to build up the transportation network.

Labor is key to the transformation. Do you have a specific policy in mind for encouraging this transformation?

Makes sense. But what policy can the government pursue to help this?

Headings are helpful. I like the clarity in brings to the organization in a medium like this. In memo format it's always helpful to highlight your recommendations.

This makes sense. As you note, coal was an important driver of industrialization at the time. But do you have a specific policy in mind that the government could use to promote new sources of energy?

Interesting recommendation! Especially given current political controversies over immigration.

So people are workers. But don't forget that they're also customers, so they benefit the economy that way as well.

Recommendations are always more convincing if they have strong historical examples or evidence to back them up. Is this something the U.S. government did?

Just to clarify--you mean free them and then allow them to work in factories, correct?

This is an interesting point. There is an ongoing debate among historians about the relationship between slavery and industrial capitalism. The traditional view is the view you take here: the slavery gets in the way of industry. Just look at the South, is the argument. Recently some historians have began to take the tack that there isn't so much of a conflict. The Half has never been Told is one such recent book. It's an ongoing debate.

By the way, which recommendation does this fall under?

But how to get factories in Flubaria? That's the question. Should the government, for example, build factories? Provide financing for factories?

And without workers, of course, it's hard to have factories.

Do you think the government needs to do anything to attract them, or it enough to not discourage them?

Just so you know, tariffs are always (by definition) on imported goods. So do you mean reduce taxes on domestic products? Because that would indeed reduce their price.

Also, was this something the U.S. pursued?

These were important companies, though much later, in the late 19th century.

Is sounds a little bit like you're describing a "virtuous cycle" here: factory work leads to income, which leads to more demand for factory goods, which leads to more factory work, etc. Is that what you have in mind?

Can you explain a little more what you mean here?

Interesting idea. Inventions were an important idea, and giving prizes is definitely a way people have encouraged innovation. They still do -- think of the X Prize.

This sounds a little vague. Do you have specific policies in mind, or are you thinking of something specific from US history?

This seems like a good policy. Does the experience of the US provide any specific guidance for how the government might do this?

This would certainly be a controversial position in today's politics!

Your policy here makes sense, given the economic history of the US. It's interesting to contrast your proposal here with what is often being said about immigration in politics today.

Interesting choice!

Railroads were certainly important in the US. But what do you mean by "set up" here? Later you seem to suggest the railroad will be privately run, so you don't mean "established and run by the government." What do you have in mind? What did the US do?

Interesting touch--does the US want to encourage more industrialization in Flubaria so it can be a better economic partner?

This makes it sound a little better. I was worried that you were calling on the King of Flubaria to invade and annex neighboring countries (which is sort of what we did in the 1840s), but here you seem to be suggesting that he more carefully develop undeveloped areas of the country.

And also increasing the size of the consumer market! Every immigrant is not just a worker, but also a customer.

This sounds very important. I'd like to hear a bit more about it. What was new?

And are there specific policies that the king can adopt here?

I wonder about this the same thing I wondered about transportation: is there something concrete the King of Fulbaria can do to encourage construction of telegraphs?

Railroads and canals do seem important. I'm curious what practical policy suggestions you might have. What did the U.S. or state governments do to develop the transportation network? And do you think that is something Flubaria could do likewise?

This sounds good, but how to make it happen in practice. What do you think the government can do?

So are you suggesting that the government actively promote or otherwise encourage immigration? Interesting, given the controversies over immigration in the U.S. today.

Do you have specific policy ideas in mind?

Transportation was important. Is there a specific policy you suggest adopting?

What can the government do to make sure this happens?

Interesting idea, especially given current political controversies over government funding on infrastructure. Here is one example from this year.

The question of limited liability was big in the 1830s and 1840s. How do you think you can update the policy "help corporations grow" for later times?

And would you say that "help corporations grow" is the right way to think about your policy here? There are plenty of Americans who are skeptical of large corporations these days. How would you defend a "pro-corporation" policy to those people?

The question of capitalism is something that historians have talked a lot about recently. There are a lot of distinctions drawn. For example, merchant capitalism (which is what the US was) vs. industrial capitalism (which is what the US was becoming). I take it here, that you mean industrial capitalism.

I'm not completely clear on what this means. Do you mean easing the chartering of corporations, as was done in antebellum America? Or do you mean something broader, as the sentences after this suggest.

This seems like a valid point--technology in American industrialization was very important. I'm left with two questions, though. First, can you explain a little bit more about why it was so important. Second, what exactly can the government do to promote technology? Maybe there are historical examples from the US you could invoke.

I agree that these were critical. Is there a policy you recommend that Flubaria pursue to promote this?

This is an interesting phrasing. Do you think the government should encourage the establishment of factories in particular locations?

This point seems correct. But it also raises a further question: what can Flubaria do about this? What specific policy are you recommending the king adopt?

I would be nice here to hear about some specific technologies that mattered, and why they mattered. Interchangeable parts, for example, was a critical development.

I think this is an important point. You're at your best here at explaining the connection between industry and the particular factor you mention.

This was important--something a businessman really needs. So what should the government do to promote transportation?

It sounds like you're talking about investing in the workforce. Is that what you're suggesting?

Suppose Flubaria had serfdom (which was analogous in certain ways to slavery). What would you recommend then?

You make a pretty good argument for population growth being important for economic growth--with definite implications for now. At the same time, I wonder what the specific policy recommendation is. What, specifically, do you think the king can do to promote growth? Was there anything the US did?

A clear, direct, and explicit policy recommendation. Nice writing!

To me you sound a little ambivalent on large corporations. Do you see necessary limits on them? That's something to think about when you study Gilded Age history. I'd also be interested to hear why bigness of corporations leads to growth. And is bigness always better?

Do you think there were ethical problems with the way this was carried out at the time?

This is an interesting idea. Why is it that quick communication is so helpful to economic growth? Because you've separated communication from transport, it sounds like there is a particular role for communication which needs to be fostered.

Just as important are the ways in which railroads and canals facilitated the movement of labor and markets. It's easier to grow your business if you have access to more workers and more customers