秦老师无疑读了很多书,但我觉都他的取证多是为我所用。如果有个别观点支持他的意识形态,那他就只用那个观点。其实这个讲座整篇多是在说中国的低人权高剥削, 对吧,秦老师。这种说法其实理论水平低我就不说了,但是看下数据再说话, “The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.” 我觉得秦老师国内文献读得多,国外的,还是先把英法德文学过关再说吧。这种为了意识形态而学术的态度我觉得还是。。。。也就是骗骗不读书不思考的大众。搞得好像是无所不知无语不通似的。有本事少做讲座,多写书。书里错了,不敢乱写的,要流传于世的。哪个学术大家整天搞视频,取媚大众的?
你这段话出处我看了,问题还写了: By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. 视频里全程在讨论南北经济顺差和逆差,由此导致的关税区别,跟工业发展水平并没有直接联系。如果你想反驳,你需要找到正面南方是逆差北方顺差的证据
另外这篇文章还提到了: The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. 南方工业落后并不是由于经济劣势,相反由于奴隶制,南方拥有巨大财富。奴隶消费能力差,南方资本家又很有钱,难道不正好说明南方州是贸易顺差吗?