4 ms·

Slavery is very profitable for slave owners, it’s just not very productive. Think about it this way: imagine you run a business, and suddenly one day you no lon

by xyzzyz 6y ago

Slavery is very profitable for slave owners, it’s just not very productive. Think about it this way: imagine you run a business, and suddenly one day you no longer have to pay wages to your employees. This obviously makes your profit margin shoot through the roof. However, it doesn’t make your company produce more stuff. That’s the point: slavery was indeed profitable for slave owners, but it did not produce any more wealth than in an alternative scenario, where the slaves were free wage labor instead. Thus, while slavery surely made some slave owners wealthy, it did not make America wealthy, and in fact, it did quite the opposite.

watwut 6y ago
When people say richest country per capita, they dont mean "including native Americans and slaves". Those were not citizens. It is profit and wealth of whites that count. You are however averaging production to slaves too. So in countries where blacks outnumber whites you get much smaller wealth then what contemporaries commented on. The alternative scenario is north in any case. The kind of society and production south was is plain impossible without slavery. It just did not exist.
- rayiner 6y ago
  The GDP per capita statistics include everybody.
skohan 6y ago
> Think about it this way: imagine you run a business, and suddenly one day you no longer have to pay wages to your employees... it doesn’t make your company produce more stuff I don't really understand this argument. Surely reducing one of the operating costs of doing business to zero leads to economic growth right? In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity? Alternatively, they can lower their prices in order to beat competitors. If they're producing a commodity, this can have the knock-on effect of lowering the price of finished goods using that commodity. Another point of comparison is, in places where they discover "free resources" like petrochemicals, like Norway, that does lead to prosperity, doesn't it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 6y ago
  You’re not reducing operating costs to zero. Enslaved people are still people, they must be fed, housed, etc. And while reducing the operating cost of say cotton production can make that business bigger, taking those enslaved people out of the market for consumption makes those other businesses smaller.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity? Sure, but imagine the alternative where the slaves are paid workers instead: then the same money that you use to invest into your business in slave scenario is instead spent by your workers on other businesses, which then use it to produce other things or invest in their businesses. Again, slavery, instead of increasing total wealth, just redistributes it in favor of slaveholders.

by xyzzyz 6y ago

watwut 6y ago

When people say richest country per capita, they dont mean "including native Americans and slaves". Those were not citizens. It is profit and wealth of whites that count. You are however averaging production to slaves too. So in countries where blacks outnumber whites you get much smaller wealth then what contemporaries commented on. The alternative scenario is north in any case. The kind of society and production south was is plain impossible without slavery. It just did not exist.

rayiner 6y ago
The GDP per capita statistics include everybody.

skohan 6y ago

> Think about it this way: imagine you run a business, and suddenly one day you no longer have to pay wages to your employees... it doesn’t make your company produce more stuff I don't really understand this argument. Surely reducing one of the operating costs of doing business to zero leads to economic growth right? In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity? Alternatively, they can lower their prices in order to beat competitors. If they're producing a commodity, this can have the knock-on effect of lowering the price of finished goods using that commodity. Another point of comparison is, in places where they discover "free resources" like petrochemicals, like Norway, that does lead to prosperity, doesn't it?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 6y ago
You’re not reducing operating costs to zero. Enslaved people are still people, they must be fed, housed, etc. And while reducing the operating cost of say cotton production can make that business bigger, taking those enslaved people out of the market for consumption makes those other businesses smaller.
xyzzyz 6y ago
> In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity? Sure, but imagine the alternative where the slaves are paid workers instead: then the same money that you use to invest into your business in slave scenario is instead spent by your workers on other businesses, which then use it to produce other things or invest in their businesses. Again, slavery, instead of increasing total wealth, just redistributes it in favor of slaveholders.