4 ms·

> but the writing was on the wall once it became obvious just how much wealth a motivated free person could create. Obvious to whom? Definitely not the slave o

by croon 6y ago

> but the writing was on the wall once it became obvious just how much wealth a motivated free person could create. Obvious to whom? Definitely not the slave owners. A motivated free person might create more wealth for themselves, but it's the society as a whole that potentially benefits from that (for sake of argument), not the previous slave owners. So why would it sort it self out? It didn't, and hasn't. This change could only have come politically, which is why that was the case.

roenxi 6y ago
> but it's the society as a whole that potentially benefits from that (for sake of argument), not the previous slave owners. A rational slave owner would sell all their slaves and buy stock in a company that didn't employ any - that it is going to make vastly more money. Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. After a generation or two there'd be basically no slaves left because nobody would want one. Cost money to maintain with very little payoff versus alternatives. Look at Apple, AWS, Google, etc, etc vs some slave-run plantation in wherever-they-have-slave-plantations. Which one would people rather invest in, just from a greedy capitalist perspective? All the money is in owning productive capital and businesses made up of motivated employees.
- croon 6y ago
  > A rational slave owner would sell all their slaves and buy stock in a company that didn't employ any - that it is going to make vastly more money. Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. After a generation or two there'd be basically none left because nobody would want one. [citation needed] > Look at Apple, AWS, Google, etc, etc vs some slave-run plantation in wherever-they-have-slave-plantations. Which one would people rather invest in, just from a greedy capitalist perspective? All the money is in owning productive capital and businesses made up of motivated employees. I'm having trouble taking this comparison seriously. There has always been employees aside of slavery, usually at different positions. Look at Apple's production history in China, or Amazon warehouse workers or Google/Amazon turk work. If there was no regulation, and with unscrupulous C-levels, those positions would probably be slaves, from a "capitalist perspective".
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The net number of slaves remain equal when your hypothetical slaveowner sells them... At some point somebody will still have to get rid of slavery.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The economic disadvantage of slavery is the same one as that of communism -- people don't work as hard or as smart when they don't receive the fruits of their labor. So now someone has a factory. They could, in theory, buy slaves and try to get them to work in the factory. But you would run away or, if you stayed, have no desire to work hard because you're not getting paid. Or, the factory could "buy" slaves and offer them a buy-out mechanism. The factory pays $500, but after you make 1000 widgets, you get your freedom. The factory earns $800 from 1000 widgets, so that's a profitable deal for them. The former slave gets out of slavery as soon as they make 1000 widgets, so they have the incentive to make widgets. Try to get someone to make widgets as a slave without any reward and they only make 500 widgets, and then the factory would have to pay $500 to get $400. So the factory that ultimately frees the slaves out-competes the one that doesn't, and the slaves get freed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. True, 250+ years after slavery was abolished in the U.S., slaves are no longer an effective (or legal) asset. Companies like Apple, Google, etc., did not exist in the 1800s. Stock ownership did not become common until the 1900s, even amongst the wealthy, so there was no alternative for this hypothetical slave owner. Moreover, unlike the North, the South did not have easy access to shipping or to the raw materials for heavy industry. (For example: Pittsburgh didn't become the Steel City because it was a nice place to live; it became the center of the U.S. steel industry because of its proximity to the raw materials and the methods of transportation available at the time.)
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
>Obvious to whom? Obvious to the free market. The slave owners were already heading towards bankruptcy when the Civil war began. Nonenforcement of the escaped slaves act could well be seen as a refusal of other participants in the economy to subsidise slave owners' unprofitable business models.

by croon 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

> but it's the society as a whole that potentially benefits from that (for sake of argument), not the previous slave owners. A rational slave owner would sell all their slaves and buy stock in a company that didn't employ any - that it is going to make vastly more money. Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. After a generation or two there'd be basically no slaves left because nobody would want one. Cost money to maintain with very little payoff versus alternatives. Look at Apple, AWS, Google, etc, etc vs some slave-run plantation in wherever-they-have-slave-plantations. Which one would people rather invest in, just from a greedy capitalist perspective? All the money is in owning productive capital and businesses made up of motivated employees.

croon 6y ago
> A rational slave owner would sell all their slaves and buy stock in a company that didn't employ any - that it is going to make vastly more money. Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. After a generation or two there'd be basically none left because nobody would want one. [citation needed] > Look at Apple, AWS, Google, etc, etc vs some slave-run plantation in wherever-they-have-slave-plantations. Which one would people rather invest in, just from a greedy capitalist perspective? All the money is in owning productive capital and businesses made up of motivated employees. I'm having trouble taking this comparison seriously. There has always been employees aside of slavery, usually at different positions. Look at Apple's production history in China, or Amazon warehouse workers or Google/Amazon turk work. If there was no regulation, and with unscrupulous C-levels, those positions would probably be slaves, from a "capitalist perspective".
whatshisface 6y ago
The net number of slaves remain equal when your hypothetical slaveowner sells them... At some point somebody will still have to get rid of slavery.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The economic disadvantage of slavery is the same one as that of communism -- people don't work as hard or as smart when they don't receive the fruits of their labor. So now someone has a factory. They could, in theory, buy slaves and try to get them to work in the factory. But you would run away or, if you stayed, have no desire to work hard because you're not getting paid. Or, the factory could "buy" slaves and offer them a buy-out mechanism. The factory pays $500, but after you make 1000 widgets, you get your freedom. The factory earns $800 from 1000 widgets, so that's a profitable deal for them. The former slave gets out of slavery as soon as they make 1000 widgets, so they have the incentive to make widgets. Try to get someone to make widgets as a slave without any reward and they only make 500 widgets, and then the factory would have to pay $500 to get $400. So the factory that ultimately frees the slaves out-competes the one that doesn't, and the slaves get freed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
gamblor956 6y ago
Slaves aren't an effective asset in this century. True, 250+ years after slavery was abolished in the U.S., slaves are no longer an effective (or legal) asset. Companies like Apple, Google, etc., did not exist in the 1800s. Stock ownership did not become common until the 1900s, even amongst the wealthy, so there was no alternative for this hypothetical slave owner. Moreover, unlike the North, the South did not have easy access to shipping or to the raw materials for heavy industry. (For example: Pittsburgh didn't become the Steel City because it was a nice place to live; it became the center of the U.S. steel industry because of its proximity to the raw materials and the methods of transportation available at the time.)

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

>Obvious to whom? Obvious to the free market. The slave owners were already heading towards bankruptcy when the Civil war began. Nonenforcement of the escaped slaves act could well be seen as a refusal of other participants in the economy to subsidise slave owners' unprofitable business models.