When will slavery be financially viable again?

[Ed]

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

Why is a slave any different from a self-replicating machine? Before they were, *ahem* obtained they were not part of the labor force, nor were they likely to be. Now they are here. There is a capitol expense associated with their purchase, certain fixed and variable costs associated with their maintainence. Hell, they can even be depreciated. Same thing, slave-machine.

Boy, I too wish people would take economics before posting.

 

[Ed]

. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

A BMW can be very financially viable. It is a question of fitness to task.

 

[shanek]

1. I never claimed a majority were slave owners.

You always bring this up whenever I mention they were a minority. That is the clear implication.

It's called context; try reading the other numbers as well. If you want to believe that 3.9 million slaves (that's 2,925,000 field hands) were only "status symbols," and not an economically vital work force, then you're entitled to your delusion.

How many BMWs are there? Lexuses? Lincolns? Acuras? There's no real difference between those cars and cars costing half the price, yet people by them because of the status it affords them. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant. You have NOT shown that they were a vital work force; you have NOT shown they were economically viable, and you have NOT responded to any of my critiques of this!!!

2. I'm done discussing the topic with you.

It would have been nice if you had actually discussed it at all...

3. I will continue to post this information for those capable of gaining a clue.

 

[shanek]

Boy, I too wish people would take economics before posting.

I just wish you would answer the question. Is looting a part of the free market?

 

[shanek]

A BMW can be very financially viable. It is a question of fitness to task.

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable other than the label and the price tag. Why, then, are people buying Mercury Sables instead of Ford Tauruses? It can't be any "fitness to task" crap because they're the same! It must be status.

Same thing with everything else, from wristwatches to houses. There is a big desire of the upper classes to show symbols of their status to others. I can't believe that people are even denying this!

 

[Mike B.]

I am not sure what people are arguing here.

If owning slaves was indeed a status symbol, which it was, what exactly does that prove?

That still does nothing to refute how important they were to the economy of the South.

 

[Ed]

I just wish you would answer the question. Is looting a part of the free market?

Sorry, I missed this, I guess. What was the question?

 

[Ed]

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable other than the label and the price tag. Why, then, are people buying Mercury Sables instead of Ford Tauruses? It can't be any "fitness to task" crap because they're the same! It must be status.

Same thing with everything else, from wristwatches to houses. There is a big desire of the upper classes to show symbols of their status to others. I can't believe that people are even denying this!

Sorry, there is a difference. Status counts in business. That is undeniable.

 

[Blue Monk]

Plumbing or electricity? In the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries????

The topic I was addressing was the economic viability of slavery today.

 

[shanek]

Sorry, I missed this, I guess. What was the question?

Here's the whole thing again:

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

 

[shanek]

Sorry, there is a difference. Status counts in business. That is undeniable.

Not only in business, but in many segments of society as well. Denying that is just denying reality.

 

[shanek]

If owning slaves was indeed a status symbol, which it was, what exactly does that prove?

That slavery offered something to people beyond the economic benefits of slavery. Slaves were always something espensive that a majority couldn't afford, and as the free market was making them obsolete by providing cheaper alternatives that just made them more of a status symbol.

 

[a_unique_person]

Only partly...Like all good parodies, there's a nugget of truth there. You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.

But the government is elected by the people.

 

[a_unique_person]

Many people are referred to as the underclass, wage slaves or working poor. That is, they earn enough to live, but not much more. Their ability to get out of that situation is extremely limited.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Its free labor; what is not financially viable here?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

That slavery offered something to people beyond the economic benefits of slavery. Slaves were always something espensive that a majority couldn't afford, and as the free market was making them obsolete by providing cheaper alternatives that just made them more of a status symbol.

That's why the south embraced Lincoln, he was getting them rich.

 

[JAR]

In the U.S., slavery was ended by Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't a slave. I wonder what he was supposed to gain from freeing the slaves.

[Edited to add: I guess he just thought slavery was immoral.]

 

[Malachi151]

Its free labor; what is not financially viable here?

What I want to know it, why is it supposed to be financially unworkable to use slavery, yet using aniamls for labor is perfectly reasonable?

Let's see, will shanek argue that using oxen and horses for labor can't work becuase it costs money to maintien these animals?

How it is any different to put a human being in place of an ox when society treates those human being like animals?

Whether somethign is against the will of the individual doing the labor or not is irrelevent, be it in the case of people or other animals, in terms of economic viability.

Now though lets get into the real economics of proving WHY slavery will ALWAYS be more cost effective then wage labor.

Whenone pays wages they have to pay the worker enough for that worker to be able to provide at least food and shelter for himself, and in most cases also enough to help care for other family memebers who do not work in addition to other costs. The wage laborer has to pay for these things at market prices.

In the case of slavery the slave owner only has to provide food and shelter for the individual with no extra needs or wants being supplied and the cost of food and shelter is not paid for at market prices, the slave is typically forced to build his own shelter and provide his own food so the only cost if the labor value of the slaves time. The only other cost is for policing the salves and maintaining security.

The argument that slavery was naturally on its way out due to cost is just one o fhte more rediculous claims of free-marketers, who try to act like the "free-market" was naturally "solving the problem" (of course 100+ years too late) to show that government action to stop it was not "really needed".

Slavery was perhaps on its way out, but not due to economics, due to changing morals and views, which were expressed by the act of civil war of course.

 

[shanek]

Many people are referred to as the underclass, wage slaves or working poor. That is, they earn enough to live, but not much more. Their ability to get out of that situation is extremely limited.

And their best hope is a free market which tends to make the best use out of their skills, whatever they may be, and increase wealth for everybody. These people are held back by government policies like welfare and the minimum wage.

 

[shanek]

In the U.S., slavery was ended by Abraham Lincoln,

Not true. Not true at all. It was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single one of them; it was a political ploy, nothing more.

[Edited to add: I guess he just thought slavery was immoral.]

Then why did he propose and even sign this proposed amendment to the Constitution:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Explain that to me.