5 ms·

If they're literally at the point of starvation, maybe true - though famines often happen when people simply can't get access to food, even if they have the res

If they're literally at the point of starvation, maybe true - though famines often happen when people simply can't get access to food, even if they have the resources to buy it. So, bringing food to a starving area is unlikely to be bad for business. However, the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money - i.e. they would starve without you, so they accept whatever trickle of resources you deign to assign. This is extraordinarily common throughout history, coupled with a threat of violence that all states use.

WalterBright 2y ago
> the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave. I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class. The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.
- eat_veggies 2y ago
  Slavery created the wealth that made industrialization in the north possible, and was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of. You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent? https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-economy-capitalism-violence-cotton-edward-baptist https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-ec...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Here's why that's wrong. When the Confederacy seceded, the economy of the South slid into ruin. The economy of the North thrived. The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg. Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North? > was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground. "made the South its most prosperous region" That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
    - eat_veggies 2y ago
      Do you understand the difference between starting an engine and keeping it running? I'm referring to northern wealth btw. > Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize. > Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North? The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery. > Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865 Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data. Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies? > Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it. I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously. > slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize Or that one. Sorry. The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
- belorn 2y ago
  In the past there was a fairly common practice to create a monopoly by outlawing people from importing food to a local economy. People may recognize the concept of mining towns, company stores, or its role in debt slavery. The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves. This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > outlawing people from importing food I.e. the government is doing it.
    - belorn 2y ago
      No, this was companies doing it. They controlled ports, rail and roads (or what ever roads that may exist in remote areas), and controlling in-going supplies was a matter of policy and enforcement. Mining and railway companies where once very large and powerful, similar to some trading companies in the past.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        In systems such as our own, where government power has been essentially captured by corporate lobbying, there is little difference between "government is doing it" and "companies are doing it."
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        "outlawing" means a law, and the law is done by government.

WalterBright 2y ago

> the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave. I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class. The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.

eat_veggies 2y ago
Slavery created the wealth that made industrialization in the north possible, and was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of. You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent? https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-economy-capitalism-violence-cotton-edward-baptist https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-ec...
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Here's why that's wrong. When the Confederacy seceded, the economy of the South slid into ruin. The economy of the North thrived. The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg. Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North? > was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground. "made the South its most prosperous region" That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
  - eat_veggies 2y ago
    Do you understand the difference between starting an engine and keeping it running? I'm referring to northern wealth btw. > Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize. > Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North? The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery. > Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865 Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data. Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies? > Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it. I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously. > slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize Or that one. Sorry. The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
belorn 2y ago
In the past there was a fairly common practice to create a monopoly by outlawing people from importing food to a local economy. People may recognize the concept of mining towns, company stores, or its role in debt slavery. The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves. This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > outlawing people from importing food I.e. the government is doing it.
  - belorn 2y ago
    No, this was companies doing it. They controlled ports, rail and roads (or what ever roads that may exist in remote areas), and controlling in-going supplies was a matter of policy and enforcement. Mining and railway companies where once very large and powerful, similar to some trading companies in the past.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      In systems such as our own, where government power has been essentially captured by corporate lobbying, there is little difference between "government is doing it" and "companies are doing it."
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      "outlawing" means a law, and the law is done by government.