3 ms·

Comparative Advantage increases prosperity for all when both sides can reinvest and become more efficient and more productive. That's why industrialized China

by amayne 16y ago

Comparative Advantage increases prosperity for all when both sides can reinvest and become more efficient and more productive. That's why industrialized China is a better trading partner than a non-industrial China was. Coerced, uncompensated labor diminishes the upside. That's one of the economic reason why Europe and later the US moved away from slavery. It also decreases your market for your products.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Slavery was economical for the slaveowners [1]. Agriculture wasn't economical relative to industrialization (which is why the economy of the US South sucked), but that was a separate matter. Slavery was abolished primarily due to the religious beliefs of assorted evangelical Christians (quakers, baptists, methodists), not for economic reasons. [1] If you ignore the utility function of the slaves, slavery is economically equivalent to robots.
- amayne 16y ago
  I absolutely agree that changing morality had an effect on the abolishment of slavery. However the mechanical harvester and other machines made slavery inefficient. While the cotton gin increased the potential yield from cotton (and increased slavery in the South), later machines like the mechanical harvester made mechanical production more efficient than unskilled labor. Since an industrial robot from 2010 is much more efficient than one from 2000, I'm not sure if we can make a statement that a robot is mechanically equivalent to a slave. You can only use more whips to increase the productivity of a human being. After a point it's more productive to free him and educate him so he can increase his or her efficiencies.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    The only time a machine would make slavery inefficient is when such a machine could do everything a human can do, and with less energy requirements. Slaves were not limited to harvesting cotton. Slaves were meant to provide wealth to their masters in any form which could be had, including both physical (working fields, being maids/nursemaids, cooking, cleaning etc.) and often sexual labor. It's also not a widely known fact that slaves built much of the U.S. capitol. Many Americans would love to have a butler, but can't afford one. Well, you could if the only payment required was feeding them scraps you intended for the trash anyway. Having slaves provided tremendous economic benefit and wealth to slave owners, even if not always measured in dollar terms.
    - amayne 16y ago
      Before you replace a slave with a machine there are other steps. Indentured servants, share croppers, migrant labor. There is a whole ladder of human exploitation. Ultimately, slavery is a less efficient substitute for free skilled labor. Having a slave is more than just feeding them scraps. You have to be able to contain a slave population and keep them from murdering you. There are real costs to this. At a certain point the costs are outweighed by the benefit of freeing people and letting them create surpluses. Communist Russia and North Korea were slave societies. They couldn't compete with the free west. When China enable certain economic freedoms and gave up (some, not all) of their slave-state tendencies they experienced the greatest economic boon in history.
      - jeromec 16y ago
        Hold on a second. You're suggesting slavery is in the same category as indentured servants, share croppers, and migrant labor for human exploitation? The difference is night and day! If I have to spell it out, in one case you work of your own free will, and in the other you don't and are abused and beaten. I do agree that in the macro sense it's better economically to free people and educate them, but that is NOT the logical path slave owners in the U.S. were on. And once, after war, slaves did become free they were not made to be educated as whites.

by amayne 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Slavery was economical for the slaveowners [1]. Agriculture wasn't economical relative to industrialization (which is why the economy of the US South sucked), but that was a separate matter. Slavery was abolished primarily due to the religious beliefs of assorted evangelical Christians (quakers, baptists, methodists), not for economic reasons. [1] If you ignore the utility function of the slaves, slavery is economically equivalent to robots.

amayne 16y ago
I absolutely agree that changing morality had an effect on the abolishment of slavery. However the mechanical harvester and other machines made slavery inefficient. While the cotton gin increased the potential yield from cotton (and increased slavery in the South), later machines like the mechanical harvester made mechanical production more efficient than unskilled labor. Since an industrial robot from 2010 is much more efficient than one from 2000, I'm not sure if we can make a statement that a robot is mechanically equivalent to a slave. You can only use more whips to increase the productivity of a human being. After a point it's more productive to free him and educate him so he can increase his or her efficiencies.
- jeromec 16y ago
  The only time a machine would make slavery inefficient is when such a machine could do everything a human can do, and with less energy requirements. Slaves were not limited to harvesting cotton. Slaves were meant to provide wealth to their masters in any form which could be had, including both physical (working fields, being maids/nursemaids, cooking, cleaning etc.) and often sexual labor. It's also not a widely known fact that slaves built much of the U.S. capitol. Many Americans would love to have a butler, but can't afford one. Well, you could if the only payment required was feeding them scraps you intended for the trash anyway. Having slaves provided tremendous economic benefit and wealth to slave owners, even if not always measured in dollar terms.
  - amayne 16y ago
    Before you replace a slave with a machine there are other steps. Indentured servants, share croppers, migrant labor. There is a whole ladder of human exploitation. Ultimately, slavery is a less efficient substitute for free skilled labor. Having a slave is more than just feeding them scraps. You have to be able to contain a slave population and keep them from murdering you. There are real costs to this. At a certain point the costs are outweighed by the benefit of freeing people and letting them create surpluses. Communist Russia and North Korea were slave societies. They couldn't compete with the free west. When China enable certain economic freedoms and gave up (some, not all) of their slave-state tendencies they experienced the greatest economic boon in history.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Hold on a second. You're suggesting slavery is in the same category as indentured servants, share croppers, and migrant labor for human exploitation? The difference is night and day! If I have to spell it out, in one case you work of your own free will, and in the other you don't and are abused and beaten. I do agree that in the macro sense it's better economically to free people and educate them, but that is NOT the logical path slave owners in the U.S. were on. And once, after war, slaves did become free they were not made to be educated as whites.