That's not what substance farming means. Plantations sold crops for profit to buy thing such as slaves or raw materials. Nails require mining to produce Ore and have nothing directly to do with farming. So, yes plantations may have been reasonably self sufficient, but that has more to do with transportation and transaction costs than everyone working in a field somewhere.
PS: Rememebr prior to the revolution the US was sending a great deal of wealth back to England. The even then the colonies enjoyed a relatively high standard of living at the time.
Re:Apple's cash hoard swells to $246B
by WalterBright on Sunday April 16, 2017 @06:23PM
(#14127894)
Not having a consistent food surplus means subsistence farming.
(There's always been some level of trade.)
Your definition of basically spending what you make would end up with subsistence fortune 500 CEO's. People who don't directly farm are by definition not subsistence farmers.
PS: Yes, subsistence farmers can include minimal trade, but not support more than local governments as that would imply a significant surplus.
Re:Apple's cash hoard swells to $246B
by maxerickson on Sunday April 16, 2017 @08:19PM
(#14128403)
The more widely used definition of subsistence farming implies literal self sufficiency and living in a simple self constructed dwelling, not sending your children to college while slaves work in the fields or hiring local artisans to construct a grand estate (Monticello).
Not really. Nearly everything a farm family needed was produced on that farm at the time. Note that Jefferson made his own nails on his plantation. People were short, malnourished, and bone evidence of having worked incredibly hard. There was no farm mechanization.
A consistent food surplus was not produced until around 1800.