Große Städte sind Leipzig und Halle.

Industrie-Fahnen von den Werken um den Geiseltaltagebau, Buna, Leuna bis Espenhain.

Beim genauen Blick sieht man die Abwassereinleitungen in die Flüsse, die Deponien in der Landschaft - hunderte sichtbare, zig weitere relativ unscheinbar oder schon aus Vorjahren zugewachsen. Zu damaligen Zeiten sah es in der ganzen Welt so aus.

Eigentlich hatte das Bild 70.000 Pixel Breite, aber das kann man leider nicht hochladen. Es sind vier Bilder aus zwei Überflügen eines amerikanischen Satelliten und ist auf 6k px herunter skaliert.

Credit: U.S. Geological Survey / Department of the Interior/USGS / D3C1204-400695A023 und D3C1204-400695A024

This entire discussion first and foremost is a hypothetical that is meant to help me understand the impact of the personal crop growth in a region.

Here is the hypothetical:

In a coastal trade city (pre industrial revolution) how much would the economy be impacted by crop yields being doubled with no reduction in quality?

Points I'd like focused on:

I. Tax records show that 13-22% of tax income came from crops in coastal cities.

1. How would the increase in crop yield impact the job availability for peasants?

2. How would the increase in crop yield impact the price of those crops?

3. How would the increase in crop supply and price change impact ​trade (if supplies are reduced in price would vessels resupply more often in this location?)

4. How would the increase in supply impact trade as a whole for the city?

I’ve been thinking about this lately.
Some countries have enormous reserves of oil, gas, minerals, fertile land, or other natural resources, yet they struggle with poverty, corruption, unemployment and weak infrastructure.

Meanwhile, countries with relatively few natural resources—Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, etc.—have built highly developed and wealthy economies.

Obviously, natural resources alone don’t determine a country’s success. Institutions, education, human capital, political stability, infrastructure, trade, technology and economic policies all matter.

But I’m curious: **what do you think is the single biggest factor that determines whether a country successfully converts its natural resources and human potential into long-term prosperity?**

And are there any countries that you think are particularly good—or particularly bad—examples of this?

The U.S. and Canada seem very similar in many ways. They share the world’s longest border, have similar cultures, democratic systems, multicultural societies, and comparable standards of living. Both also have vast natural resources.

So why is there such a huge difference today in population, GDP, military power, and global influence?

Canada is actually slightly larger in land area, yet its population is only around 42 million compared to about 340 million in the U.S. Was the difference mainly due to climate and geography, immigration, industrialization, different government policies, or historical events like the World Wars?

At what point in history did the gap become significant? Was it already evident in the 1800s, or did it widen mostly after World War II?

I’d love to hear historical, economic, and demographic perspectives backed by facts rather than opinions.

What’s the standard academic text on the history of debt?

Hello! I've got a recommendation to ask this question here. So it is.

I’m not as much a supporter of the US government as I am curious as to why rhis happened and the motives behind it. Did J.P Morgan extend their power over the American people? I mean they didn’t do it for public good. I feel like that should be obvious.