Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, due to competitive market forces, under their current servitude structure, they would not be able to survive, without heavy government subsidies, such as high tariffs on imports(state wide), and significant tax brackets. [/font]
I'm trying really hard to follow you here, but I just don't understand you. What competitive market forces? The ones today or back then?
What "current servitude structure" ? Are we talking about 2007 or 1820? What is a "servitude structure."? I googled the term "servitude structure", and this thread is one of the top results. It seems that you just made that term up
Quote:
My theory, is the south would be drastically different today, if they looked at the human capital aspect of slavery, in a completely different manner. What would have happend if they allowed competitive forces, to dictate market outcomes, in labor, wages, and investment in human capital.
As far as I know, the south did allow competitive forces to dictate labor, wages, and human capital investment. Slaves were traded on a market, at whatever price the market would bear at the time. To my knowledge there was a limited amount of human capital investment - slaves could be carpenters, cooks, planters, etc.
I've seen several different structures that were built by slaves in the early 1800's that are still standing today. I don't know how common it was.
Quote:
[*]Government subsidies, and tax laws in depreciation of slaves, would have still made paying wages very easy to do and would have increased the value of most slave plantations. Not to mention, a large increase in overall GDP.[/list][list]
Why would a planting firm care about the GDP of its parent nation? What subsidies and tax laws are you referring to?
Quote:
In closing the worse thing the south did to stymie growth, in its region, and foster anti-competitiveness, was not paying slaves competitive wages and not investing in their human capital. I can almost bet, the South would be much different, as well as America in general, had this taken place. I would bet, we would be a much wealthier nation, than we are today.
Of course, but the slaveowners were not interested in the future wealth of America, or the education of the general populace. They were worried about bringing the biggest possible cotton crop to market, and making sure that slaves didn't revolt.
I think most of your questions fail to address the issue of revolt. In some parts of the south, slaves outnumbered whites by a wide margin. Particularly in those areas, whites (slaveowners or not) were very concerned with the possibility that the entire white population would be killed in a slave revolt. Slaveowners didn't invest in human capital (i.e. education) for the same reasons that today's islamofascists and yesterday's communists didn't: they feared that their cheap source of labor would begin to think for themselves.
Here’s pretty controversial question. What if the Slave Industry of the Anti-Bellum South operated as publicly traded companies? Would you invest? Or the bigger question is would they survive?
Not sure what path this argument will take, after my original post, but I’ll highlight my thoughts and let her rip.
I think as investments in there high day, they would have been like technology growth stocks of the 90’s, and would have offered investors superior returns. However, due to competitive market forces, under their current servitude structure, they would not be able to survive, without heavy government subsidies, such as high tariffs on imports(state wide), and significant tax brackets.
My theory, is the south would be drastically different today, if they looked at the human capital aspect of slavery, in a completely different manner. What would have happend if they allowed competitive forces, to dictate market outcomes, in labor, wages, and investment in human capital.
Here are my reasons why the south would have been much more successful today than it currently is.
The lack of training and educational invest in human capital in today’s society would leave any major corporation at significant disadvantage, when competing efficiently with companies, in its current idustry. If those other companies, due to competitive forces, spent large amounts of money investing in their human capital, the outcomes would be disasterous for those they did not.
Slave plantations, would have operated more efficiently, and been extremely more valuable, with educated and well trained slaves, learning task such as, irrigation, planting, and carpentry techniques. If training was implemented, during their younger years and applied during their working years, plantations would have operated much more efficently. However, receiving additional training in other skills, in their later working years, would have helped plantations retain value on individual slaves and they could be sold for a higher profit.
Wages and competitive pay based on work ethic, would be crucial to maintaining high productivity, and retaining slave talent. Most slaves would still chose to work within the profession, given the bleak job and pay prospects outside of slavery.
Government subsidies, and tax laws in depreciation of slaves, would have still made paying wages very easy to do and would have increased the value of most slave plantations. Not to mention, a large increase in overall GDP.
Allowing Slave Plantations, to compete globally, or in other states, with other slave plantations that produced corn, wheat, cotton, and gin, would have lead to innovation and faster advances in technology, due to remaining extremely competitive.
Those Plantations that went out of business, with educated slaves would go into other fields, that they had more of an advantage, such as carpentry, and may be home building.
In closing the worse thing the south did to stymie growth, in its region, and foster anti-competitiveness, was not paying slaves competitive wages and not investing in their human capital. I can almost bet, the South would be much different, as well as America in general, had this taken place. I would bet, we would be a much wealthier nation, than we are today.
Thoughts?
What a strange thread. I think the point you're trying to make is that slavery was actually unprofitable. To be truthful, there was a growing belief in the South before the Civil War that slavery was that. Eminences such as Robert E. Lee had already begun making efforts to free their slaves before hostilities broke out. The irony of it all is that, had there not been a war between the states, it is highly likely that slaves would have ultimately been emancipated in the South, and would not have been the scapegoat of so much resentment as they were in actual history.
One other unstated aspect of the scenario you lay forth is that the Civil War economically devastated the South for over a century. A huge proportion of hits most capable men were killed or crippled, its economy destroyed, its nascent industry obliterated, its wealth squandered, and its entire society turned upside down.
I'm trying really hard to follow you here, but I just don't understand you. What competitive market forces? The ones today or back then?
What "current servitude structure" ? Are we talking about 2007 or 1820? What is a "servitude structure."? I googled the term "servitude structure", and this thread is one of the top results. It seems that you just made that term up
As far as I know, the south did allow competitive forces to dictate labor, wages, and human capital investment. Slaves were traded on a market, at whatever price the market would bear at the time.
Why would a planting firm care about the GDP of its parent nation? What subsidies and tax laws are you referring to?
Of course, but the slaveowners were not interested in the future wealth of America, or the education of the general populace. They were worried about bringing the biggest possible cotton crop to market, and making sure that slaves didn't revolt.
I think most of your questions fail to address the issue of revolt. In some parts of the south, slaves outnumbered whites by a wide margin. Particularly in those areas, whites (slaveowners or not) were very concerned with the possibility that the entire white population would be killed in a slave revolt. Slaveowners didn't invest in human capital (i.e. education) for the same reasons that today's islamofascists and yesterday's communists didn't: they feared that their cheap source of labor would begin to think for themselves.
I didn’t make the term up, I simply coined to two different terms and combined them. Perhaps, it would be better if I said structure of servitude? It is simply an organization in which one lacks liberty in determining one’s course of action or way of life. (The combined definitions)
Well, clearly, the state government would have wanted to help facilitate early growth, within its own state; I assumed most states would have been staunchly against interstate commerce, in the beginning this would have helped to protect and subsidize their own large Plantations. Under such subsidies, Plantations would not be open to any other competition outside of the state. Eventually, that would prove too inefficient for Plantations, and states would have made the decision to open interstate commerce as well as compete in global trade (which all took place in the south).
The South was the number one producer of tobacco and cotton in the world. All of this production helped to expand and increase the United States gross domestic product (GDP), as well as its gross national product (GNP), I’m not going to explain how all of this affected the country you should consider reviewing civics material on the subject.
In your third paragraph you’re obviously unknowingly falling into my argument, what if this was handled more efficiently through competitive wages? 1. Slaves would obviously be less likely to revolt, because they are being paid for their services 2. Why would a slave want to leave a plantation when the job opportunities offered to him outside of the Plantation are not nearly as certain and lucrative?
My theory helps to solidify why slaves would have been less likely to revolt if Southern plantations provided competitive wages. Who would revolt if you’re being paid a wage for work and you’re given benefits, in the form of housing, food, and education? Your white fear logic of a slave revolt under competitive wages would be extremely less likely to take place. Perhaps, you could argue what Carl Marx (proletariat rising up and taking over) argued in this system, but I’d highly doubt either would have a likely taken place just based on what we see now with competitive wages in capitalism.
In terms of education, that is the single best way to control the masses. You teach them what you want them to know not what they need to know. The Kremlin did a very effective job of allowing its subjects to believe communism was the most beneficial way of life.
In a Slave Industry who would be controlling this education? The Slave Master (CEO) what kind of education do you think he would teach? Obviously, an education that is beneficial to the efficiency of The Plantation (aka company). This would help pacify the slave into believing this life style is his best place for success. Most of the education would center on training how to effectively till a field and work within the confines of The Plantation. This would be no different than today’s companies, which tend to only train employees on company specific skills, which are usually not easily transferable over to other companies and new lines of work (ie. Ford doesn’t teach skills that are easily transferable to Microsoft)
What a strange thread. I think the point you're trying to make is that slavery was actually unprofitable. To be truthful, there was a growing belief in the South before the Civil War that slavery was that. Eminences such as Robert E. Lee had already begun making efforts to free their slaves before hostilities broke out. The irony of it all is that, had there not been a war between the states, it is highly likely that slaves would have ultimately been emancipated in the South, and would not have been the scapegoat of so much resentment as they were in actual history.
One other unstated aspect of the scenario you lay forth is that the Civil War economically devastated the South for over a century. A huge proportion of hits most capable men were killed or crippled, its economy destroyed, its nascent industry obliterated, its wealth squandered, and its entire society turned upside down.
Yea, but it could have been argued under a more properous South, that respected the slaves with competitive wages would there been any reason for the civil war to occure? Would the South have had a much stronger position in stating the benefits of Slavery?
Clearly if you read observation by Alexis De Tocqueville in "Democracy In America" he points out the inefficency of the southern style of free labor.
While the agriculture system was doomed to fail the south would have faired much better during the industrial revolution had it paid competitive wages, trained, and educated its largest population (slaves) and its second largest population non propertied white males. Clearly the South would have been much better equipped to make that transition under a competitive wage structure as opposed to free-labor structure. I highly doubt the north would have become the bastion of American Civilization had the Southerners relied upon free-labor.
Yea, but it could have been argued under a more properous South, that respected the slaves with competitive wages would there been any reason for the civil war to occure? Would the South have had a much stronger position in stating the benefits of Slavery?
Clearly if you read observation by Alexis De Tocqueville in "Democracy In America" he points out the inefficency of the southern style of free labor.
While the agriculture system was doomed to fail the south would have faired much better during the industrial revolution had it paid competitive wages, trained, and educated its largest population (slaves) and its second largest population non propertied white males. Clearly the South would have been much better equipped to make that transition under a competitive wage structure as opposed to free-labor structure. I highly doubt the north would have become the bastion of American Civilization had the Southerners relied upon free-labor.
You and I are arguing the same point. Namely that had the slaves been freed and treated as paid laborers, the South would have had much less tragic history. Had the Southerners not been such hotheads and attempted to secede, it would not have suffered so much.
Idiotic drivel -- and insulting to any enlightened person.
Care to expound as to why? If not you clearly either 1. cannot comprehend or grasp the logic of the agrument or 2. are so lost in understanding the argument you feel threatned, thus you lash out with insults for no good reason. Come on Yeledaf you're better than that.
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-04-2008 at 04:23 PM..
You and I are arguing the same point. Namely that had the slaves been freed and treated as paid laborers, the South would have had much less tragic history. Had the Southerners not been such hotheads and attempted to secede, it would not have suffered so much.
Thanks CPG, finally someone sees the logic of the argument. Competitively paid wages are an intrical part in expanding an economy. It eliminates inefficencies, that otherwsie would presist due to lack of economic incentives. These inefficencies can cripple an entire economy. The South had all of its eggs in one not very competitive basket, thus not training slaves, not paying slaves, was an extremely dangerous game in a society, that utilized captialism as the best means of production. You could make the argument slavery was akin to the only sort of communism we've had in this country. Obviously none of which was the slaves fault.
What would make a slave want to go out everyday and work any harder than he or she did the day before? Where was the incentive? They still got the same amount of food and the same amount of water. Where would the drive come into be more efficient? Sure innovation occured, but at a much slower rates than it would have had there been competitive forces that induced incentives to advance efficency.
Clearly Plantation Owners hold most of the repsonbility and if these were publicly traded companies the shareholders would fire them for massive amounts of inefficency. Not to mention the burden this would have placed on southern society attempting to get their hands on these items that were produced. The ultimate fall of sothern society was their weakly formed business enterprise.
If you broke it down as if it were a company traded on todays market the company under my scenario that paid competitive wages would be much more efficent, much more technologically advanced, wealthier, and would enjoy much higher margins then the system the south employed. Thus EPS and return on investment would be much higher in a pay for work society than in a free-labor society.
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-04-2008 at 04:22 PM..
I'm not sure of the type of mind that goes to lengthy and minute detail to attempt to assert their self righteous opinion on an item such as this. Perhaps some of our African Am. leaders could give some comments, some had relatives directly involved. Myself, I haven't any comments what so ever.
Perhaps the OP is drawing some parallels between slavery and today's corporations? Lots of similarities...child labor and slave labor are alive and well in many countries in the world, are they not?
And Soviet Gulags were not "slavery"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Diatribe of a different color
