When will slavery be financially viable again?

[Grammatron]

Let us not forget Sudan, where slavery is anything but in small numbers.

 

[Dancing David]

Slavery requires a very high profit motive, there are a number of areas where it is practised.
Enticing women with false jobs and then holding them as sex slaves is the big one.

 

[Malachi151]

Because it wasn't just a case of the government allowing it! They subsidized and enforced it! If you were a slave, and you escaped, the government would arrest you and take you back to the slaveowner! Even if you had managed to escape into another state!

Actually from what I know only private bounty hunters did this. Show me evidence of state of federal employees that did such things.



And mechanization is a product of the free market. Thank you for supporting my point.

Mechanization has nothing to do with the free market one way or the other, every society uses machines, including Communist Russia and China, etc.

But the slaves did not become slaves of their own free will. And as Gandhi showed quite clearly, you cannot enslave an unwilling people without the use of extensive government force.

The slave trade was entirely privately run. In fact the US government waged war against slave traders even while slavery was still legal in America, but after they had outlawed the import of new slaves.

The Barbary Wars:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/barbary.htm

African Slave Trade Patrol

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/slave.htm

1820-1861 Long illegal, the infamous slave trade was declared by Congress in 1819 to be piracy, and as such, punishable by death. The Navy's African Slave Trade Patrol was established to search for and bring to justice the dealers in human misery. Never exceeding a few ships in number, the Patrol, which from time to time included the USS Constitution,USS Constellation, USS Saratoga and USS Yorktown, relentlessly plied the waters off West Africa, South America, and the Cuban coast, a principle area for slave disembarkation. By the start of the Civil War more than 100 suspected slavers had been captured.

Then there would have been no recourse for a slaveowner whose slave had escaped. They needed the government to enforce that just like we need the government today to enforce our property rights

No, if the govt had no position one way or the other then they would have been free to capture and hold slaves as long as they were capable of doing so. If slavery were not made illigal today, I could go nextdoor and kidnap someone and put them in chains, hold a gun to their head and tell them to start doing my dishes As long as the govt or anyone else does not stop me then I can do it.

No "formal" government...nice out. They still had an effective government in some form, usually that of the elders, and the slavery was very much enforced.

So essentially two people in a room together constitutes a government and as long as they agree then they can both do whatever they want. If they both agree to rape someone then they can, if one disagrees and is will and able to prevent the other then so be it. And you call that government I guess? I see no way to get around such conditions.

It was big in that respect. Big government is government that acts outside the principles of liberty, and slavery does exactly that.

Define liberty

If you can't answer the question, just say so...

I did anwser the question. Free markets do not and cannot exist.

No, because slavery is not a function of a FREE market, just like theft isn't. It's called a FREE market for a reason.

No, you simply don't understand what a free market is. You are using it totally out of context and in a way that the phrase is not even intended to be used.

Tell me, can an animal be bought and sold on the free market? If a horse is sold to a master that is does not like is that a violation of the free market? In reality the term free market does not even apply to that scenario or the salvery scenario either in the way that you use it.

A "free market" is a market where the price of goods, in this case slaves, is determined by supply and demand. The slave is in that instance a good, and object of property. A person can be property just like and animal can be. The property is defined by law and if the law says that a person is property then they are property and thus a commodity to be bought and sold.

 

[Dancing David]

-snip-
The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.
-snip-

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

Very cogent post just a few tweaks,

Slavery is not free labor there is a high cost, and therefore the need for a high profit. Historicaly slavery only lasts where there is a labor shortage and/or a very high profit motive.

 

[Blue Monk]

Slavery requires a very high profit motive

I don't see why.

You'd have an initial investment for housing but who cares if they have plumbing or electricity.

You can feed a person for a day with about what you'd pay a minimum-wage employee for a single hour only you can work them from sun up to sun down 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Say you work them an average of 12 hours a day every day and you spend a kingly $10 a day to feed them (you could probably do it much cheaper) then I figure your getting a 84 hour work week for $70. Sounds pretty cost effective to me.

You'd probably carry some sort of insurance to protect your investment but it couldn't even come close to the cost of health benefits and workman's comp wouldn't even be a consideration.

 

[Dancing David]

Assuming that there is a profit that justifies the very low productivity of slaves. They don't work very fast, they ofetn break things, they often screw up instructions.
They are very expensive to purchase.
The economics of slavery is very well studied in sociology, thats why in the original; slavbery in the US, the slave got a certain amount of time to grow a garedn or work for wages, because then they had to feed and cloth themselves.
You also have to take reasonable care of your alsves, due to the cost.

capitalism is much cheaper.

 

[shanek]

Let us not forget Sudan, where slavery is anything but in small numbers.

Sudan is hardly a shining example of a Libertarian paradise...

 

[EdipisReks]

Assuming that there is a profit that justifies the very low productivity of slaves. They don't work very fast, they ofetn break things, they often screw up instructions.
They are very expensive to purchase.
The economics of slavery is very well studied in sociology, thats why in the original; slavbery in the US, the slave got a certain amount of time to grow a garedn or work for wages, because then they had to feed and cloth themselves.
You also have to take reasonable care of your alsves, due to the cost.

capitalism is much cheaper.

exactly the points i was trying to make.

 

[shanek]

Actually from what I know only private bounty hunters did this. Show me evidence of state of federal employees that did such things.

The Federal Marshals did it!!! That was the whole point of the Fugitive Slave Act!!! And they arrested anyone who helped a slave escape!

Mechanization has nothing to do with the free market one way or the other,

Bull$#!7. Technology comes about because of the wealth creation of the free market.

every society uses machines, including Communist Russia and China, etc.

It's not a matter of who uses it. It's a matter of who invents it! You can't use a technology if it hasn't been invented yet!

The slave trade was entirely privately run.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And I've already shown why.

No, if the govt had no position one way or the other then they would have been free to capture and hold slaves as long as they were capable of doing so.

How would that not be kidnapping?

If slavery were not made illigal today, I could go nextdoor and kidnap someone and put them in chains, hold a gun to their head and tell them to start doing my dishes As long as the govt or anyone else does not stop me then I can do it.

Who on Earth is saying the governmetn shouldn't enforce laws against kidnapping? This is just another of your pathetic lies!

So essentially two people in a room together constitutes a government and as long as they agree then they can both do whatever they want.

I never said that and you know it. That isn't even close to the situation with these tribes. Your blatant dishonesty is really getting on my nerves...

Define liberty

Liberty means you are free from the initiation of force or fraud. You have the means to defend against it, you have recourse if someone does it to you, and you can do anything you like except initiate force or fraud on others.

Now, ANSWER THE FARKING QUESTION!!!

I did anwser the question. Free markets do not and cannot exist.

Big surprise to economists everywhere, I'm sure...

No, you simply don't understand what a free market is.

I think it is you that does not understand it. Moreover, it's clear that you do not want to understand it.

Besides, I thought you just got through saying that free markets do not and cannot exist? How can slavery be the product of something that does not and cannot exist?

 

[shanek]

You'd have an initial investment for housing but who cares if they have plumbing or electricity.

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

 

[shanek]

Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

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?

 

[Malachi151]

Right, so the definitions of a free market, whcih I already posted from a economci glosarry that call it theoretical are just garbage I'm sure. Please enlighten us with some of your own references then....

Economics definately accept that a "free-market" is a theoretical concept.

 

[shanek]

Right, so the definitions of a free market, whcih I already posted from a economci glosarry that call it theoretical are just garbage I'm sure. Please enlighten us with some of your own references then....

I've already answered that. Your definition of free market only considered supply an demand for the marketing of goods, not for employment as well. But as I explained, the job market very much works on the basis of supply and demand.

Economics definately accept that a "free-market" is a theoretical concept.

You're sounding like a creationist here. Here's another theoretical concept: The Earth revolves around the sun. Gravity is another theoretical concept.

 

[Dancing David]

Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

-snip

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?

Exactly shaneK, there has to be a high profit or a low labor market for slavery to be profitable. Part of the eventual rise of the middle class was the fact that the Black Plauge destroyed a lot of the labor in Europe, allowing serfs to profitably run away, the city burghers had a reason to protect the serfs, labor!

Ithink that those who wish to critique capitalism just find slavery to be a major sitting duck.

 

[Gem]

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?

It is "free market" in the sense that the supply side is not provided by slaves, but by slavers. In the American South there was a demand for labor. Now I don't know all the details but slavery was the cost effective choice. So slavers then began selling slaves to the South. The government was probably involved in delivery.

There is such a thing as a free market of slaves, but it has a bunch of problems:

-High costs, we've detailed this. Moving people from Africa to America is not cheap.
-Labor that runs away, which forces owners to spend money to pursue them.
-Upkeep, you have to hire people to "keep them in line."

After the civil war, slavery was abolished, but the new slavery, share-cropping, worked just as well, but was "legal." And I doubt share-cropping was instituted by the government.

Today's slavery is even MORE expensive because now the government tries to capture slavers, which rises costs. Though it is still profitable in some industries (prostitution in Europe, for example).

It is also hard to get slave programers or slave engineers these days

Gem

 

[Gem]

Ithink that those who wish to critique capitalism just find slavery to be a major sitting duck.

Capitalist is an ever changing institution. As long as it is profitable, it will remain unless government steps in to stop it or makes it unprofitable.

One of the reasons I think capitalist did so well is because it actually uses the scientific method to derive theories and laws, unlike Marx who used ideology to make communist (which is why it is flawed).

Though that doesn't mean we should revert back to the laissez faire of the 19th century.

Gem

 

[shanek]

Now I don't know all the details but slavery was the cost effective choice. So slavers then began selling slaves to the South.

Well, at least do something to back up this claim. And respond to my question above: If it were so cost-effective, why weren't more farmers using them?

Answer: Far from being cost-effective, they were luxury items used by the rich to show off their status. If you had slaves, you were Somebody. Kind of like having a Rolls Royce.

The government was probably involved in delivery.

They were involved in a lot more than that, as I have shown.

After the civil war, slavery was abolished, but the new slavery, share-cropping, worked just as well, but was "legal."

Share-cropping was also a big government program.

And I doubt share-cropping was instituted by the government.

It most certainly was! It was part of "Reconstruction." The landlords, who owned the farms, were considered to have a lien on them by the government. The share-croppers themselves lived on the farm, and got paid half of what the farm made, but the problem is that usually the farm didn't make anything at all. The whole thing was basically one big government subsidy.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Slavery was more of a status symbol of the elite than anything else. I come from four separate lines of North Carolina farmers, and there's no evidence that any of them owned slaves. None were reported in the censuses between 1810 and 1850. They were large families who worked the farms themselves. So, let me ask you this: If slavery is so economical, why didn't these farm families, who each had over 500 acres of farmland, not have any?

I will sum up the information below: there were 3.9 million slaves in the South in 1860, 75% of which were field hands. When I've pointed this out before, all you offered then (as now) was your own personal incredulity. Bully for your ancestors on not owning slaves; however, 31% of their neighbors did. Deal with it.

P. S. Next time I see this "status symbol" b**llsh*t, I will just post the information below without comment: it speaks for itself.

******************

According to the 1860 Census, 39% of the population in the Confederate states were slaves, and 31% of families owned slaves (1860 Census from Civil-War.net)

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States
For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

The Economics of the Civil War
Gerald Gunderson (1974) estimated what fraction of the income of a white person living in the South of 1860 was derived from the earnings of slaves ... for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites' income. Small wonder that Southerners -- even those who did not own slaves -- viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system.

From: http://www.peddie.org/faculty/pkraft/revolution/Review Notes/class2w.htm
Slave Holdings were Small: Unlike sugar, rice, or (to some extent) tobacco, one did not need a large number of slaves to harvest cotton profitably. The result was that most masters owned fewer than five slaves, and only ¼ of all slaves lived on holdings of more than 50 workers. The majority of slaves worked tracts that had between 20 and 30 slaves, which was large enough for a community but were far less than the massive plantations of myth.

3/4s of Slaves were Field Hands and ¼ were "Other": Though this changed considerably, the general proportion of field hands to other slaves was approximately 3:1. This ratio was higher in the Deep South and lower in the Upper South. [edited to add: "other" includes factory workers, tradesmen, and hirelings in addition to house servants]

Slavery in the United States

Consensus That Slavery Was Profitable
This battle has largely been won by those who claim that New World slavery was profitable. Much like other businessmen, New World slaveowners responded to market signals -- adjusting crop mixes, reallocating slaves to more profitable tasks, hiring out idle slaves, and selling slaves for profit. One well-known instance shows that contemporaneous free labor thought that urban slavery may even have worked too well: employees of the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia, went out on their first strike in 1847 to protest the use of slave labor at the Works.

Slavery in the United States

Gang System
The value of slaves arose in part from the value of labor generally in the antebellum U.S. Scarce factors of production command economic rent, and labor was by far the scarcest available input in America. Moreover, a large proportion of the reward to owning and working slaves resulted from innovative labor practices. Certainly, the use of the "gang" system in agriculture contributed to profits in the antebellum period. In the gang system, groups of slaves perfomed synchronized tasks under the watchful overseer's eye, much like parts of a single machine. Masters found that treating people like machinery paid off handsomely.

Antebellum slaveowners experimented with a variety of other methods to increase productivity. They developed an elaborate system of "hand ratings" in order to improve the match between the slave worker and the job. Hand ratings categorized slaves by age and sex and rated their productivity relative to that of a prime male field hand. Masters also capitalized on the native intelligence of slaves by using them as agents to receive goods, keep books, and the like.

Slavery in the United States

Masters profited from reproduction as well as production. Southern planters encouraged slaves to have large families because U.S. slaves lived long enough -- unlike those elsewhere in the New World -- to generate more revenue than cost over their lifetimes.

 

[shanek]

I will sum up the information below: there were 3.9 million slaves in the South in 1860, 75% of which were field hands. When I've pointed this out before, all you offered then (as now) was your own personal incredulity. Bully for your ancestors on not owning slaves; however, 31% of their neighbors did. Deal with it.

31% is a minority. A minority of southern landowners owned slaves. That's the fact. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by keeping bringing up this 31% figure. 31% is a minority.

Slaves were EXPENSIVE. This 31% represents not even the top 1/3rd, and the vast majority of those—ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE—owned less than five slaves. Most owned only one or two. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

31% is a minority. A minority of southern landowners owned slaves. That's the fact. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by keeping bringing up this 31% figure. 31% is a minority.

Slaves were EXPENSIVE. This 31% represents not even the top 1/3rd, and the vast majority of those—ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE—owned less than five slaves. Most owned only one or two. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

1. I never claimed a majority were slave owners. 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.

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

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

The Economics of the Civil War
In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly.