3 ms·

>From an economics standpoint the ideal labor force is slavery. How so? A happily paid worker with their own free time isn't likely to revolt and kill you. E

>From an economics standpoint the ideal labor force is slavery. How so? A happily paid worker with their own free time isn't likely to revolt and kill you. Even an unhappy worker who hates you will just quit. Is your calculations forgetting to count such costs? And a machine that replaces a person is far far more efficient. So machines backed by human operators/fixers/etc. end up outperforming humans, and free humans will have far better education possibilities. >From an economics standpoint there is no point to the elderly they should be killed off once they are no longer viable laborers. You are clearly zeroing out the cost of having all non-elderly realize this will be their fate as well. That seem an arbitrary cost to zero out and makes the results of your calculations unusable. >Children are only useful if they show potential slave labor ability A free child that is educated has a much higher return on investment on average. >otherwise should be killed in adolescence if there are obvious shortcomings Once again completely ignoring the costs of taking such a course of action. I'm not really having any confidence in your models.

asobalife 8y ago
> A happily paid worker with their own free time isn't likely to revolt and kill you Historically, slave revolts are extremely rare. Most slave populations are deliberately beaten into a state of learned helplessness so that they don't even believe that revolt will get anywhere. Or they are given just enough such that there is something to lose (besides their lives) in revolt, and the natural human aversion to loss kicks in. Many slave economies in human history have relied on this - see ancient Rome as an example. > A free child that is educated has a much higher return on investment on average. But that ROI takes 20 years to be realized. How many people, really, are going to forgo ROI today for bigger ROI two decades from now? There is a reason why on a normal yield curve, loans with long term maturity have higher rates of interest - psychologically, we are biased towards present income vs future income. > your models. Human history and empirical human psychology?
- Kim_Bruning 8y ago
  > How many people, really, are going to forgo ROI today for bigger ROI two decades from now? That's (part of) what governments are good for! They are great for making decisions in situations where larger investments over longer time periods pay good dividends.

asobalife 8y ago

> A happily paid worker with their own free time isn't likely to revolt and kill you Historically, slave revolts are extremely rare. Most slave populations are deliberately beaten into a state of learned helplessness so that they don't even believe that revolt will get anywhere. Or they are given just enough such that there is something to lose (besides their lives) in revolt, and the natural human aversion to loss kicks in. Many slave economies in human history have relied on this - see ancient Rome as an example. > A free child that is educated has a much higher return on investment on average. But that ROI takes 20 years to be realized. How many people, really, are going to forgo ROI today for bigger ROI two decades from now? There is a reason why on a normal yield curve, loans with long term maturity have higher rates of interest - psychologically, we are biased towards present income vs future income. > your models. Human history and empirical human psychology?

Kim_Bruning 8y ago
> How many people, really, are going to forgo ROI today for bigger ROI two decades from now? That's (part of) what governments are good for! They are great for making decisions in situations where larger investments over longer time periods pay good dividends.