I wouldn't have thought that bank robbery is so profitable in this era.
Well, I'm afraid it's you that do not understand what comparative advantages (and many other concepts you've been dabbling with) are. Not because you're "too dumb" to understand it. As I've said, I believe you are a somewhat smart kid. But like many others smartass kids that start reading about libertarianism and suddenly think they've "understand it all" and that other people "are too dumb to see", you're suffering from a form of premature enlightenment.
How do I know that? Because ten years ago I was you. And if a guy appeared talking about "comparative advantages of slavery" and how violence and coercion are rational options under certain circumstances, I would also tell him to shut up and wouldn't listen and go read some books.
Now, try to pay more attention to what I'm writing, it's not that complicated, but it's also not that superficial.
When you assume that "slave-owning cultures" didn't outcompete "non slave-owning cultures" you are simply dead wrong, for like 99.99% of the time it was the opposite.
But cultures are complex things, and can have a complicated mixture of free and unfree labor.
And for some industries, unfree labor was the cheapest form to mobilize manpower in larger scale, and that lasted for millennia.
That is, before certain technological enablers as diverse as steam-power, financial credit and labor-contracts, it was simply easier and less costly to buy and keep slaves for certain tasks involving lots of physical force and not too much brains.
And that's precisely why slavery was a staple of all great civilizations.
Then, little by little, many industries evolved to a technological and institutional point where it became, effectively, less costly to hire people than to buy slaves.
So when you say "they could have gained more by hiring people but they didnt realize that at the time" you're just being completely naive and idealistic.
It's similar to saying that the hordes of Gengis Khan could have been stopped before entering Europe if western powers decided for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It's complete stupid revisionist non-sense. You're assuming technologies and institutions that were simply not availiable, and thinking that a decision maker taking concrete decisions could have bypassed millienia of knowledge acquisition just like that.
Let me state it clear for you: A roman patrician would not have gained more by hiring people to substitute his slaves in most cases, otherwise he would have done it. And the same goes for a southern land owner in America. The economic structures where they were embeded created a price structure where slavery was a nice profitable option. To deny it is to attest utter ignorance of history and economics.
Non slave operations eventually became more comparatively effective, but under the conditions prevailing during most of history they were not.
When you say they simply are comparatively more effective, irrespective of their environment, you are just going full retard, kid.
It's not your fault though, you're just repeating some popular misconceptions that arise among people with insufficient training in economic history.
Well, of course, all that won't help you if you stick to your bratty attitude towards me. But then again, I don't blame you. Some motherfucker came to me ten years ago telling these things I would probably react just like you. My brain wasn't there yet.
Far be it from me to defend Malachi, but what Toxic wrote is TIBO [= True In Bizzaro-world Only].
http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_1.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.html
One thing I learned here. With the exception of Smiling Dave, the more smug and condescending the writer, the less he actually knows.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Far be it from me to defend Malachi, but what Toxic wrote is TIBO [= True In Bizzaro-world Only]. http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.html One thing I learned here. With the exception of Smiling Dave, the more smug and condescending the writer, the less he actually knows.
I presume you've posted these links to "show" how much slavery in southern US was a dying industry with low profit margins at the onset of the civil war, as if anything of what I've said before meant the opposite.
That comes only to show how much our ideological predispositions can impair our reading skills and lead to pathetically biased conclusions. I invite you to read my post again and find anything that would corroborate your previous post, otherwise, it will look like just another weak attempt to mischaracterize my arguments by posting unrelated material as rebuttal.
In any case, it was not my intention to come across as too condescending towards our friend "malachi". But that becomes increasingly inevitable once the interlocutor decides to go back to elementary school debate tactics, calling you "dumb" and "stupid" every other sentence.
Being somewhat condescending seemed like the only alternative to adopting a similar behavioral pattern, and I believe if I would be outlasted and outperformed if I did.
Of course, I could've ignored him altogether (like I use to do), but he's one of the few kids here who's giving me back at least some action, regardless of his inexperienced argumentation and ill-mannered disposition. :)
@TA:
Do you think what you are saying plays into what peter leeson was talking about when he says "effecient institutions are context dependent?
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/
(2nd post down)
If so, I think you are more right than wrong - I'm not too sure about the historical narrative, or the details that would require some serious thought - but the broad overarching theory is probaly good.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I presume you've posted these links to "show" how much slavery in southern US was a dying industry...
You didn't actually read them, did you?
That comes only to show how much our ideological predispositions can impair our reading skills and lead to pathetically biased conclusions.
We agree on something.
I invite you to read my post again and find anything that would corroborate your previous post, otherwise, it will look like just another weak attempt to mischaracterize my arguments by posting unrelated material as rebuttal.
You wrote, "slavery was a staple of all great civilizations." The links show that to be TIBO.
I understand first hand what you are saying about insults bringing out ones dark side. Had my share of that, trust me.
Just the last one, I'm not opening useless pdfs.
Oh really, that might be insteresting. I might read some day when I'm feeling game for some revisionist bullshit. Maybe after I see a few DVDs on how the aliens build the pyramids. Then I give you my opinion.
And you know they are useless without actually reading them.
I might read some day when I'm feeling game for some revisionist bullshit.
To quote your earlier words, "That comes only to show how much our ideological predispositions can impair our reading skills.'
Anyway, my last post on this subject. Good luck in your studies of this fascinating topic.
vive la insurrection: @TA: Do you think what you are saying plays into what peter leeson was talking about when he says "effecient institutions are context dependent?
I don't know, maybe. I would need to read his argument, but the notion of context dependency is really key here.
Keep in mind I was trying to keep it simple to help out our friend "malachi", so I might have sacrificed a bit of accuracy here and there. But thanks, I'm glad someone finally shoew some appreciation for my effort here :)
I was getting kinda tired of being called "dumb" and "stupid" and "ignorant of austrian school of economics" by everybody. But then again, I had seen it coming.
Smiling Dave: And you know they are useless without actually reading them. I might read some day when I'm feeling game for some revisionist bullshit. To quote your earlier words, "That comes only to show how much our ideological predispositions can impair our reading skills.' Anyway, my last post on this subject. Good luck in your studies of this fascinating topic.
Oh, really? So you take it seriously every time some internet jerkoff tells you that the Holocaust didn't happen and get all excited to read his material?
Because that's what you're telling me to do.
But let's make a deal. The day you feel like telling us how slavery was not a staple of past civilizations, and that's all a big fat lie we've been told, write your own post outlining the main arguments and I might give it a look. But don't go around dumping pdf files before people ask you for your sources, this is annoying and useless, and every internet dumbass who believes reptilians are putting fluoride in his water and Hendershot generators are being kept a secret by the CIA/big Oil lobby could be doing just the same. And guess what, that's exactly what most of them are doing.
See you around kid.
Well, I'm afraid it's you that do not understand what comparative advantages (and many other concepts you've been dabbling with) are.
no need to be afraid, I understand these concepts quite well. youre the one who needs help, in fact even Smiling Dave tried to educate you but for some reason you arent interested in the actual facts pertaining to the examples that you referred to. perhaps thats also part of the reason you cant seem to talk about slavery except in the most vague and general terms.
And if a guy appeared talking about "comparative advantages of slavery" and how violence and coercion are rational options under certain circumstances, I would also tell him to shut up and wouldn't listen and go read some books.
any reason for your reluctance to discuss those certain circumstances?
can you give me examples? what were the slave owning cultures and what were the non-slave owning cultures they outcompeted?
is this supposed to be your escape hatch? why wouldnt the "unfree" labor outcompete the "free" labor? is it because the circumstances you are reluctant to discuss were not in effect?
I'm impressed at how much falsehood you crammed into that one sentence. you think credit is a recent innovation, haha ok.
it was less costly to keep slaves, haha, ok why? why didnt the slaves just leave? could it be that, due to ideology, there was no local place to go? could it be that these slaves were taught that slavery is a normal part of society, being conditioned to accept the phenomenon? could it be that the rest of the people were also conditioned to support the institution of slavery?
or do you really think that the costs associated with making people do things they dont want to to for their whole life are less than the costs associated with obtaining a temporal agreement?
let me ask you this, do you own slaves? why or why not?
my statement is true so the only recourse you have is to dismiss it out of hand, even to countenance such an idea would shatter your entire thesis.
A roman patrician would not have gained more by hiring people to substitute his slaves in most cases,
can you tell me why not? or will you ignore this question too?
And the same goes for a southern land owner in America.
youre wrong on this one, I would post a link but you already admitted you arent willing to consider the possibility that youre wrong so why bother?
utter ignorance
I know, youre ridiculous.
under the conditions prevailing during most of history they were not.
what are the relevant conditions?
Some motherfucker came to me ten years ago telling these things I would probably react just like you. My brain wasn't there yet.
apparently it still isnt. you have trouble following your own posts, I guess I should understand when mine go right over your head.
its alright, Dave, he does in fact know better, so he has no need to read the links. he's just trolling because its fun to troll.
Malachi:no need to be afraid, I understand these concepts quite well. youre the one who needs help, in fact even Smiling Dave tried to educate you but for some reason you arent interested in the actual facts pertaining to the examples that you referred to. perhaps thats also part of the reason you cant seem to talk about slavery except in the most vague and general terms.
I don't know about you, but I don't trust the skills of Smiling Dave that much to waste my time reading every paper he dumps here just to find out in the end that either Smiling Dave got it all wrong (most probable scenario) or the scholar writing the paper is as clueless as he is (an improbable scenario, but not impossible).
Had Smiling Dave really wanted to "educate" me, he would have at least outlined a few arguments on his own words, and then, if he wanted or if I asked, pointed out to external sources corroborating his argument. Instead, he just dumped a few texts he likes and thinks it makes a valid counter-argument to my analysis.
But even skimming the begining of DiLorenzo's text in Lew Rockwell's site we see that he does not deny that slavery was profitable in the institutional environment of the South. His claim is basically that this profitability, in the mid nineteenth century, was dependent on laws that subsidized slave holders.
That might very well be true (however it's also a very hard claim to very with data), but it's similar to saying that Microsoft's profits are not real because of laws of intellectual property that subsidize them.
And that doesn't refute my general point, which is that profit making operations are conditional to their (institutional) environment, a point that only "vive la revolution" seems to have grasped. It actually confirms it even further.
But I'm not a college student anymore, I just have a few moments in my day I can spend reading crazy stuff, and right now I'm wasting all of that trying to get yourself acquainted with some very basic economic and historical facts, and it has been an uphill battle, I must say.
Imagine if I also had to read all the crap Smiling Dave links to just to try to infer where the poor guy is getting things wrong? I would have to quit my job.
Malachi:any reason for your reluctance to discuss those certain circumstances?
Who's being reluctant?
The circumstances under which slavery is a good industry are quite well known. But I can repeat them here:
Relative concentration of military and organizational technology by an elite group, relative abundance of exploitable unskilled human capital, and relative scarcity of installed capital structure and/or technological knowledge and/or institutional contract-based labor supply that can offer cost-efficient alternatives to the coercive use of raw manpower.
Whenever these conditions are present, institutional slavery emerges as an economic efficient pattern of resource allocation.
And those conditions were precisely the conditions throughout the lion's share of human existence. Not surprisingly, slavery has been the norm, rather than the exception.
Now let me use my psychic powers here and predict what you're going to say next (which of course, you will deny later and call me troll, but what the heck).
You will tell me that my assumption of "scarcity of technological knowledge of efficient alternatives [to slavery]" is exactly what you've meant by them using slaves because they, as you've said, "did not know better".
Well, if that's what you've meant by them "not knowing any better", then I have to agree, even though you've chosen a very stupid way to say it.
"Knowing better" here actually mean having access to a framework of institutions and technologies that were not available or entirely developed at the time, and knowing also that other economic partners were using them.
It was not "knowing better" like in the simple decision some business men might face at some point of using either slaves or contract laborers, and the former being more efficient in every circumstance to those who "know better".
Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that's exactly what you've meant. I suspect you've meant that slave-owners could've been more productive and profitable if they, individually, opted for creating themselves, regardless of their surrounding environment, contract based alternatives for his slave-driving operations.
And that each slave-owner didn't chose to hire free labor because unfortunately "malachi" wasn't born yet to him he was being stupid all along in his business practices.
And if it's that what you've meant by "they didn't know any better", then you are dead wrong.
You're not being stupid per se, though. You're just not thinking at all. You're repeating some simplistic misconception that are fairly common among inexperienced "free-market" enthusiasts like you.
You're echoing a group-think stance, and this group-think is stupid, not you.
malachi:can you give me examples? what were the slave owning cultures and what were the non-slave owning cultures they outcompeted?
Yes.
Basically every major civilization that existed before the consolidation of the British Empire in the 18th-19th centuries.
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Cartagenese and other semitic peoples; Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celtic and Germanic and Slavonic Barbarians and the European kingdoms of the Middle-age and modern age, the Hindu people and other Indo-European cultures; Mongols, Chinese, Indochinese, Japanese and other East Asia and Oceania cultures, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and other Pre-Colombian cultures; Zulus, the Malinese Empire, and many other african cultures, and so on.
Of course, there are differences between slavery in Ancient egypt and serfdom in the Carolingian empire, if you want to nitpick.
And it's interesting to note that the Islamic civilization was one of the first to incorporate very clear abolitionist ideals, but slaves were still intensely used by Arabs, Ottomans and other turkish peoples, typically as galley slaves and concubines and sex-slaves and eunuchs and household servants for centuries.
So, go ahead, pick your favorite.
Oh, right, you're going to ask me now about the non-slave owning cultures that were outperformed. I'm sure a better historian than me can find a rich sample of smalish cultures that existed during the periods of those above and whose labor organization didn't incorporate slavery. Those were basically hunter-gatherer cultures with insuficient gross population and social stratification to accommodate the complex class structures which are required by the institution of slavery, like many of the indigenous tribes in North and South America, Africa, Polynesia and Australia.
But as we can infer, they were not as extensive or notorious as those above, most don't even have recognizable lasting names, and there's a reason for that: slavery was efficient.
Of course, you can say that ultimately the British Empire outperformed Mesopotamia and all the rest, but that's equivalent of saying that a modern penguin outperformed a velociraptor.
By the time the Britsh Empire became a dominant force, those conditions for profitable slave-driving were no longer valid, at least in the Britsh Isles, so much that britsh people there could afford taking a self-righteous negative view of slavery around the world, even in those places where slavery would remain economically justifiable and inevitable.
Yes. All of those "ideological" and "educational" factors contributed to the cost-effectiveness of slavery. They were not the original factors that generated slavery, nor the most relevant in keeping slavery going on, but still.
So what's your point? Don't you see you're shooting yourself on the foot when you assume it?
I mean, if you agree that in a slave-holding society where slavery is a established institution it's comparatively cheap to keep a slave in bondage since he has little opportunity to survive if he breaks free and little incentive to rebel, you're just acknowledging the point in question.
Of course, for idealistic young libertarians like you, these institutional points of ideology or education do seem easy to rationally overcome, specially now when we live in post-slavery societies.
But that's only due to a ridiculously hindsight-biased perspective.
It's easy now to see the economic advantages of free labor, under certain institutional conditions that are valid today. But it was not so easy back then. Actually, it was false, given the economic incentives of the institutional situation of those times.
And people cannot forecast the economic incentives of institutions of the future, no matter how much they think they can.
I mean, don't you ever stop to think that men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were slave owners?
Do you consider yourself smarter than these men?
Note to those following this discussion.
Just because Toxic doesn't want to read the links provided above which refute all he wrote about Mesopotamia, Egypt, Phoenicians, etc., doesn't mean you have to go ostrich, too.
He is old and settled in his ways. He knows all the answers because ten years ago he was as smart as Malachi.
But you, oh curious onlooker, know where to go. Cast thine eyes up to a few posts ago to find the links, listed in order of importance.
I'm 27. Not that old overall, but as old as Methusalah compared to the average user here, who writes like a high school dropout (and reads even worse).
I don't know Malachi's age, but his opinions, the structure of his argumentation and thought process, his overall culture (or lack thereof) and even his insolent attitude are very much like mine when I was 16 or 17. That's why I've ballparked a 10-year developmental gap.
It might be less, I'm a slow learner.
But even skimming the begining of DiLorenzo's text in Lew Rockwell's site we see that he does not deny that slavery was profitable in the institutional environment of the South. His claim is basically that this profitability, in the mid nineteenth century, was dependent on laws that subsidized slave holders. That might very well be true (however it's also a very hard claim to very with data), but it's similar to saying that Microsoft's profits are not real because of laws of intellectual property that subsidize them.
those points are actually quite relevant to our main topic. you would do well to note them. I also suggest that you focus less on personalities, and more on the topic at hand.
look here dude, thats what I have been telling you these past week. thats why I keep drawing your attention to the fact that these enabling conditions are ideological or technological, so that we can deal with the issue at hand.
wrong. the only necessary enabling factor is an ideology that teaches people to act in the interest of others. lower technology environments are better for slavery because people dont have to be as smart in order to do the work, and this dumbness makes them likelier to believe in an ideology where they are some sort of slave. as people get smarter, they figure out that there is no real difference between people, except their individual characteristics.
technology as a factor in enabling the forced enslavement of people is a contributing factor but, the system of ideas must support this effort for two reasons. firstly, the technology to defend is generally speaking an order of magnitude less expensive than the threat it defends against. secondly, the higher your technology level, the less likely you are to want people who have been forced into slavery anyway, because you have no jobs for them to do.
And those conditions were precisely the conditions throughout the lion's share of human existence.
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Now let me use my psychic powers here
case in point.
Oh, right, you're going to ask me now about the non-slave owning cultures that were outperformed. I'm sure a better historian than me can find
so youre sure of your thesis even though you cant back it up, youre sure those links arent worth your time, youre such a self assured troll, thanks for playing.
thats because youre so dead set on "proving me wrong" or whatever you cant even shut up long enough to remember my point.
I mean, don't you ever stop to think that men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were slave owners? Do you consider yourself smarter than these men?
see? trollbait. of course, the answer is yes, so troll can scoff. but I mean really? who asks that? who plays this game? do you ever ask yourself, hmm, was Thomas Edison smarter than me? should I really be using alternating current?
I mean, do you ever stop to think that you call other people ignorant and uneducated on this topic, you dont have time to read some links, but you have time to spend a week arguing with me, you make four replies and I havent read a single thing I didnt know already, and you live under a bridge and eat schoolchildren, maybe youre a troll?
should I really be using alternating current?
No, you shouldn't go back and use direct current for high voltage applications where alternate current proved a better alternative.
And you shouldn't go back using slaves in agriculture either. You would probably loose money.
That's not what I was saying, and you seem to know it. I was saying that the profitability of a venture depends on the technological and institutional conditions where and when it exists.
Direct current, for instance, would be very profitable before large scale alternators and transformers were available providing more cost-efficient generation and transport of electricity. And it would profitable to use it commercially before this whole electrical infrastructure was ready. And we still use direct current for a large number of low voltage appliances.
Alternate current was known much before it became an economically efficient technology.
Similarly, contract labor was known much before it became good business practice. That's because slavery was very profitable before a variety of technological and institutional changes took place, making contract labor a more cost-efficient alternative.
In the case of electricity, the technology improvement was sufficiently fast that Edison could see his system get outperformed.
In the case of slavery, technological and institutional changes that made slavery obsolete for most forms of labor took place over a much longer timespan.
But just as with Thomas Edison, you can only "outsmart" all these enslavers in history after the fact.
In any case, I've been saying all along that the profitability of a business venture, regardless of how violent it is, depends on the environment of technologies and institutions (and ideologies and habits) it is embedded.
And your last posts were much more in lines with what I've been saying all along than you are willing to admit.
Of course, you still make a few mistakes. The ideological enabler of slavery was not the origin of slavery, for the obvious reason that before slavery was a consolidated practice there was no ideological tradition justifying it.
And slavery was a consolidated practice, outcompeting other forms of labor organization for so many centuries, because it was an economically efficient way of getting things done, in the sense that it created more profits for its businesses than the alternatives available at the time.
Pretty much like steam power was a profitable technology before internal combustion engines and electricity were available and cheap enough alternatives.
Get your order of facts right and then I will consider my job here done. I mean, you'll probably think you still disagree with me and that I'm an asshole, but that's ok. Some lessons hurt and sometimes the pupil hold it against his teacher. And I'm not here to seek fast praise. The important thing is that you're showing some obvious progress in your understanding of things.
About those Smiling Dave links, why don't you go there and extract the passage that shows how all these slave-holding enterprises were losing money dealing with slaves back in the day, and how they could've been making so much more money had they hired the free labor available, if only they were smart enough to calculate their costs right. And that they didn't do it for millenia out of stubbornness and attachment to irrational traditions, even though the price structures they were facing clearly pointed out to better alternatives.
I'm pretty sure the scholar doesn't do that in that paper, and if he doesn't, it's pointless to look there for a rebuttal to my argument.
Reading it would just come to show how impaired are Smiling Dave reading skills, something that I was already aware of and that I don't need further confirmation.
But hey, I might be wrong about that, so why don't you go there, read the whole thing and waste your time looking for the lost argument to my proposition here.
Find the passage where he says it, and where he presents hard data substantiating it.
And only then, after you've post it here, I'll be interested in reading the the thing.
Otherwise it just seems like an easy way out. He just dump some paper on the "economics of slavery" probably without even reading the thing and comparing to what I've being saying, this way transferring me the responsibility of finding there anything that can serve as your argument, because you kids are too lazy to do it yourself.
Face it, I can only realize that if not you nor Smiling Dave were able to outline the points in a shorter post, it's because there's no point at all.
I was saying that the profitability of a venture depends on the technological and institutional conditions where and when it exists.
thats been a premise for this whole discussion. quit trying to pretend its your main point when I had to tell you that. assming of course "institutional conditions" is translatable to a system of ideas that people refer to when they perform economic calculation.
can you explain why, or is this a faith-based proposition?
I've been saying all along that the profitability of a business venture, regardless of how violent it is, depends on the environment of technologies and institutions (and ideologies and habits) it is embedded.
and all along I have been attempting to discuss the actual environment of technology and ideas that enables or prevents certain categories of action.
more faith-based assertions on your part. the ideology that justifed slavery was necessary a precursor for slavery, because human action. you effectively suggest that humans embraced slavery out of instinct and then figured out how to justify it. justify it to whom? its animal behavior!
if they didnt have the idea that slavery was beneficial to them then where did they get the slaves? your statement above is some epic trollerskating.
And slavery was a consolidated practice, outcompeting other forms of labor organization for so many centuries
"so many" that you cant identify even one, but your sure a "better historian than yourself" (which could mean anybody, based on some of the ridiculous assertions you have made) could find some. thats enough to justify your belief to yourself, sure. no one else cares.
thats a good example of your ignorance, considering how much electricity is manufactured through steam power today.
Get your order of facts right and then I will consider my job here done.
if youre so interested in educating me then how about answering my questions?
Keep the negative commentary down or I will be issuing some time outs.
TA, if you believe you are mature, act the part. You certainly do not strike me as such.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
About those Smiling Dave links, why don't you go there
why dont you?
I'm pretty sure the scholar doesn't do that
good for you, mr psychic powered strawman.
Reading it would just come to show how impaired are Smiling Dave reading skills
I doubt that, he saw through you like a pane of glass or a non-refractive atmosphere, or some other basis for comparison that is characterized by extraordinarily high translucency.
I can only realize that if not you nor Smiling Dave were able to outline the points in a shorter post, it's because there's no point at all.
otherwise your ego would suffer. I understand.
roger that Jon.
great links Dave.
Gunderson does not understand that there is a difference between slave labor being "efficient" for the slave owner and its effect on society as a whole. Of course slavery was profitable to slave owners. This government-supported system helped them confiscate the fruits of the slaves' labor. But since slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor, and since so many resources had to be devoted to enforcing the system — most of which were the result of government interventions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, mandatory slave patrol laws, and laws that prohibited manumission — the system imposed huge burdens ("dead weight loss," in the language of economics) on the rest of society. Free laborers and non-slave owners in the South (at least 80 percent of the adult population) were the primary victims of these government-imposed costs, and would have been a natural political constituency for their eventual abolition. As Hummel concluded, "In real terms, the entire southern economy, including both whites and blacks, was less prosperous" overall because of slavery.
Don't worry bro, I'm certainly not as mature as I should be given my age. Not that I'm an old man, but it's certainly unbecoming to tease and ridicule kids and get into these dumb online arguments when you're no longer a teenager.
I'll assume the responsibility here. It won't happen again.
Malachi: Gunderson does not understand that there is a difference between slave labor being "efficient" for the slave owner and its effect on society as a whole. Of course slavery was profitable to slave owners. This government-supported system helped them confiscate the fruits of the slaves' labor. But since slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor, and since so many resources had to be devoted to enforcing the system — most of which were the result of government interventions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, mandatory slave patrol laws, and laws that prohibited manumission — the system imposed huge burdens ("dead weight loss," in the language of economics) on the rest of society. Free laborers and non-slave owners in the South (at least 80 percent of the adult population) were the primary victims of these government-imposed costs, and would have been a natural political constituency for their eventual abolition. As Hummel concluded, "In real terms, the entire southern economy, including both whites and blacks, was less prosperous" overall because of slavery.
Excellent! We can start here.
There are few good things about this quote.
First, he recognizes that slavery was a profitable option for slave owners, more so than hiring free labor.
That's one of the points I was trying to defend. That slave owners were not being morons by not hiring people to do what slaves were doing, they were following price incentives.
And he seems to use be comfortable using the word "profit" in the usual sense of the word, and not your definition of "non-violent gains".
Anyway, he is also telling us that the profitability of slavery was a result of laws subsidizing it.
This is a very difficult proposition to prove, even in presence of hard data (which he doesn't mention in the paragraph, but he might in the text).
You would need to control for a number of variables, like intensity of state subsidies and profitability rates of similar slave owning operations. I don't think this kind of data even exist.
So I will use my psychic powers again, before reading anything, and guess he doesn't do any of that. I might be wrong, and in that case, I would be curious to read the full paper.
But if all he has is some "soft data" about the institutional framework of the slave states in the US in the mid nineteenth century, like laws about fugitive slaves becoming state concerns, that's hardly enough evidence to substantiate an informed opinion about general profitability of slavery in America, and much less for institution of slavery in elsewhere throughout the millennia.
For instance, fugitive slaves in Brazil were usually captured back by private contractors, and the state in practice didn't give a flying fuck about them. Some slaves managed to escape for good though, and they created their own autarkies, called Quilombos. Interestingly, some ex-slaves Quilombo leaders became so powerful they started holding slaves themselves.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilombo
And as far as "soft data" goes, we can find a lot of examples of qualitative dynamics that favors the notion that slavery was an economic inevitability, and not some historic accident or a design of our ancestor's despicable cruelty, like we're taught today by politically correct know-nothings.
But (apparently) he doesn't address that.
On the contrary, he starts by postulating an unqualified statement that "slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor", so if you wanted a clear example of petitio principii, there you have.
In any case, as I've said, even if slavery in america during the ante-bellum period was largely an artifact of institutional subsidies, an hypothesis that doesn't seem that absurd to me, it doesn't refute the point, that slavery is a natural and effective way of economizing resources in some societies facing certain constraints of technology, infrastructure, and so on.
And it certainly doesn't corroborate the ridiculous notion that profit-seeking entrepreneurs that owned slaves would have hired people had they known better how to run their businesses.
yes, they were following price incentives when they manumitted their slaves, recognizing the superior earning power of free labor.
yes he does. I didnt see him try to impose that definition on anyone else, however.
Anyway, he is also telling us that the profitability of slavery was a result of laws subsidizing it. This is a very difficult proposition to prove, even in presence of hard data (which he doesn't mention in the paragraph, but he might in the text).
no, it isnt.
but youre not very well informed on this subject, and youre not interested in becoming informed, so why do we care what you think about data existing or not?
So I will use my psychic powers again, before reading anything
anything to protect your ego, huh.
For instance, fugitive slaves in Brazil were usually captured back by private contractors, and the state in practice didn't give a flying fuck about them.
that sounds like the legal status of chattel, if they were actual human beings, but the state viewed them as property. presumably the state didnt give a flying fuck about some escaped chickens either, and so you hire your cousin Bruno to capture them and bring them back.
I'm sure it does appear that way from the refuge of your dunning-krueger bubble.
why would anyone want to debate the meaning of "natural" and "effective" with you? can you quote yourself making that argument earlier or did you move the goalposts yet again?
can you explain the prohibitions on manumission? why would someone manumit a slave if it was more profitable to keep him as a slave? why would they pass and enforce laws restricting and prohibiting manumission if slave labor was more productive?