What if the Slave Industry of the Anti-Bellum South operated as publicly traded companies?

[NewToCA]

I think the point that the OP wanted to discuss has been covered to the extent reasonable. I see potential here for folks getting infractions due to personal reactions, and I don't want to see folks lose their posting rights over something this quasi theoretical.

I had some reservations about this thread early on, but thought I would see how the discussion evolved. I'm now closing the thread.

[NewToCA]

Based upon a request, I'm reopening this thread.

If the conversation isn't civil and on topic, it will be reclosed.

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by anonymous

AKA, you made them up. You can't expect anyone to understand your idea when you make up your own phrases and words.

You referred to a "current servitude structure." It is 2007, we have no current servitude structure. We make our own decisions.



Those are not called subsidies - those are called tariffs. Tariffs existed between the states before the U.S. was formed, I believe, but I'm not sure.


Cotton, tobacco, indigo, and rice were all traded globally since the settlement of the new world, tariffs or not.


I'm aware of what GNP and GDP are. You don't need to be so condescending, suggesting that I review civics material.

You totally failed to address the issue I brought up. Why would a plantation voluntarily sacrifice its profit for the welfare of the state? Why would a colonial plantation care about its states' GNP/GDP?



1. Slaves would've be far more capable of revolting with wages. They could buy swords, knives, guns, and bullets.

2. You make the assumption that the plantation would be more lucrative. I don't know this to be true. You also fail to acknowledge that slaves wanted to be free, wages or not.


Your theory rests on dozens of assumptions.


Someone without freedom. Someone who is a slave. Wages don't mean anything if you can't use them. You might as well pay them in leaves.


No. False.


Like I said, slaves WERE educated to a limited extent. I don't see how your example differs from what actually happened.



Ford doesn't keep you locked up in a shed behind the factory. Your scenario is wildly different from today's capitalism, and it is shocking to me that you can't see this.

Okay, first let me explain that a subsidy is synonymous with a tariff. In other words a Tariff is a form of subsidizing domestic companies from foreign competition. Subsidies take many forms, for instance in the United States we currently subsidize, the steel industry, Medicare, Medicaid, and certain aspects of farming. When you say “subsides are not called tariffs” it is like saying a Testerossa is a not a Ferrari or an M5 is not a BMW. Just to reiterate the terms are synonymous a Testerossa is a Ferrari (so it goes without saying) just like an M5 is a BMW (it also goes without saying). The two are different production of their respective car makers, but they are still Ferrari’s or BMW’s just like a tariff is still a subsidy.

Yes, cotton, tobacco, indigo, rice, corn, sugar, and a number of things were and are still traded globally, and plenty of countries since the dawn of time put tariffs on products. Tariffs are protective measures taken by governments to increase production for products grown domestically. It shields the domestic product from stiff global competition. For instance Japan was a closed society for many years meaning that they had huge tariffs on imports if they even had any imports during those years.

A plantation, does not have to “care” about its state, just by the laws of doing business and it being successful, it will benefit its state regardless, if it intends to or does not intend to. All plantations paid taxes, thus the more successful they were the better able they were to pay taxes. All plantations utilized global trade, so if a state put a tax on exports (either globally or via interstate commerce) the more a Plantation produced and exported overseas (or between states) the more revenue a state received in taxes. Also, this would increase both GNP and GDP. Have you ever read or heard of the “Invisible Hand?”

Why would slaves be more likely to revolt when

• They are being paid a competitive wage
• Their housing, food, and shelter is being provided by The Plantation
• All of their wants and necessities are being provided (The Plantation under this situation would actually act sort of like a Feudal society, but with competitive wages and no military service.
• Sure, slaves want to be free, but that does not necessarily lead to a revolt in which blood would need to be shed. As Plantation owners realized they could no longer effectively operate, market forces would have taken over and they would have allowed for freedom. Why would they continue to produce a good at a huge loss? It was something that was bound to happen regardless of the slave’s desire or want to be free.
• Wages would mean something to a slave. It would be the incentive in just going out and picking cotton versus actually attempting to increase productivity to make more money.
• Sure, a slave could spend the money. The Plantation would act as a spending resource for slaves. The Plantation becomes a small town with a thriving economy due to the wages paid, which a smart Plantation owner would tax, since the slaves would probably not be subject to taxes. However, I'd bet a smart local or state government would have made The Plantation liable by the numbers of competitively paid slaves etc. The towns on the plantation would serve the basic needs of the slave. Those towns would eventually develope into merchants and other services to meet the slave’s need that The Plantation could not meet. ( in the end you could argue, that a Plantation owner would inherit his own town and be able to govern it. Or once slaves a free allow slaves to govern the town etc. It would have been a totally differnet south if this happend.)
• Under a competitive wage there’s really no reason to lock up a slave. He/she could basically roam free all day long and he’d still come back to The Plantation if the benefits, housing, food, family, and clothing were all there and taken care of. Also if he had a thriving business of his own on the plantation why would he need to leave?

MOD CUT

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

This thread is a subtle jab at Capitalism by saying it's tied to slavery. Go say "No" to your friendly neighborhood block capitan in China, see what happens.

Subtle jab at Capitalism? NO, I most certainly think not, this thread is a statement/testament to capitalism. What happend under the Slavery of the Anti-Bellum south could be argued was pure communism.

Think about it. Slaves were all paid the same amount of money, which was a big fat $0 for any amount of work no matter how big no matter how small, no matter how challenging, no matter how easy. I do not see your argument against captialism, if anything like I previously said, this is strongly an argument against communism and heavily in favor of capitalism. The Slave owner had all power (centralized government) operation on this sort of plantation. This lead to a number of inefficencies on a large number of plantations. While many farmers, thought it was a brilliant idea to keep the "negro" ignorant, this proved to be one of the most destructive ideas in maintaing a successful plantation, the first was not paying competitive wages, the next was significant lack of investment in human capital.