Huffpo: Slavery is astonishingly an advanced economic system

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/americas-slave-worth_n_3618653.html

How to be a leftard? Start by believing slavery is good for the economy and, a country must sacrifice certain degree of economic resilience or even growth to honor human rights.

This is very, very peculiar kind of mentality as Brazil did not enjoy any kind of prosperity when they had slaves; USSR collapsed, Chile once, under Pinochet, enjoyed both the most economic freedom and growth in the entire Latin America.

There is a basic economic principle understood by MS economic academia: a slave always try to do as little a possible to escape lashes; a free man always try to do as much as possible to make money. Much doubt can be cast upon the second claim of course, since there exist a special crowd called leftwing liberals, who can not under the languages of modern humans, but loud, to them almost melodious crack of whips.

 

.....Pinochet is a very very bad man and probably a very very bad example of prosperity. Like a capitalist Joseph Stalin.

 

Except Chileans did enjoy the improvement in the standard of living and growth of material wealth.

 

Slave economy helped build the US. If it wasn't a profitable system why did we buy so many slaves? Basic free market logic would stipulate that it worked because consumers always act out of self interest (as does everyone).

The only problem was pesky religious nuts and republicans.

 

If they weren't disappeared and murdered...

 

While slavery would never have disappeared if the US Government had not banned that practice here, slavery should have greatly diminished once, after the industrial revolution, industry became more efficient and cost effective at using machines than using people for a job.

It's all agriculture's fault for being a low profit industry and so difficult to replace the human touch with industrial automation.That's where most of the slaves were historically. In today's money each person supposedly makes $1 million dollars over their working lifetime, and if someone ruins someone else's day by stealing all that potential money for themselves, and you calculate back to yesteryears money, it's still easy to see how someone could build up their wealth even in a low profit industry, especially if you multiply that potential over a dozen times or so for the groups of slaves they had on the southern plantations without pay. But even now, have we ever truly been freed of the slave economy model? Once the slaves were free they turned to children, and then to illegal aliens, or the third world nations for human tools.

Even with today's advanced computer technology we are just barely starting to scratch the surface of making machines more productive than humans on the farm. And it's all about agriculture because the other parts of the economy: industry, retail, and financials have less need of slavery. Either because they just sell money (banks/wall street) or current machines are good enough not to need human tools anymore.

 

slaves are a necessity to work arge farms right up until the time someone developes the internal combustion engine. That developement has as much t do with the end of slavery in the west as the Civil War.

 

Did Pino protect his cronies against competition during the liberalisation?

 

The fastest years of growth in the South were after the end of slavery. The South became much richer once it ended. Turns out that people produce more when they are in jobs that suit them, instead of only picking cotton. Slavery did not build this country, a lack of building is why the South lead by the Democrats lost the Civil War to the Republican Union, and what they did have that was worth mentioning was burned and destroyed. Slavery is a horrible economic system, the HuffPo people are known for their general lack of understanding of economics. They are about as left wing as you would want to go.

 

Yes, he wasnt a real free marketer, but he brought Chile closer. Once he was gone, the freedoms that follow every free market started flowing back in, and Chile continued to take steps to become a more open and capitalist society. All for the better too, they have real promise for growth and success.

 

The article doesn't express approval of slavery. It cites research that explains why the South really wanted to continue with a slave economy.

 

How the bleep did you get from the link to your thread title? What is the connection?

 

That all Democrats are weak in the head when it comes to economics. Also, they fought tooth and nail to protect slavery and are horrible people.

 

Those who did, largely capitalist pigs, did not deserve it.

 

That was a bit over 150 years ago. These days, they are fighting against republicon fools who want to install serfdom, first overseas, then here.

 

Put down the bong and read what we have been saying. We do not generally believe that concentrated wealth is a good thing. Slavery concentrates wealth into the hands of people who have no right to it. Why you would think that a collectivist would want an elite to own the workers is really a puzzle to rational people. The title of this thread is 100% bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Friedmanite twaddle. He impeded economic development by being a murderous worthless sack of crap who belonged to an age before gunpowder was in general use.

 

Yeah they are the one of the best performing economies in South America for sure. Will catch up with European nations in my lifetime. Considering all the poverty and hyperinflation and famine under the socialists I think they will continue to move away from it.

Botswana is doing good too. Might have to keep up its move towards economic liberalization. The real kind, which means freer markets, not this socialist "liberal to get involved in every business" stuff

 

So basically, one overused overgeneralizing stereotype, and a reference to almost 150 years ago back before the political parties essentially switched sides on most issues. Do you have anything useful to say, or should I just block you and have one less person wasting space in threads I visit?

 

What switch? One senator?

You still harp on race today, practice divide and conquer, and write laws that are racially biased. No change in principles, just tactics.

If I am wrong about the republican switch please cite the year the platform called for something more racist then the democrats. Just one year where the democrats had less racial divide on the plate then the republicans. If you can't, just put me on block I challenge all deeply held lefty beliefs with the "name just one example of what you are talking about" knockout punch.

 

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/ed...-an-extent-why-did-the-parties-switch-places/

...etc, just google it and you'll find plenty more.

 

The first one is utterly rediculous stagnant there is no comparison to what the Republicans did in the 1860's and what the Democrats did in the 1930's in fact the realiroad companies paid Washington for those right of ways they used. One could argue that the rpices the charge for those right of ways was rediculusly low but to equate that with funding the Transcontinental railroad and railroading in general is disenguous at best.

Again in the second one the comparisons don't work. first one has to realize that there were more Democrats in the north than there were in the South and always had been. And almost all Northern Democrats were more than happy to fund this expansion. though there was precious little in the way of funding simply because there was no income tax in the 19th century. And the funding existed primarily in selling or more often leasing land to private concerns at rock bottom prices.

 

Shall we bring it back now? The US economy sure needs whatever it can get.

How many? Only a bit over 1% of caucasians owned slaves. That helped building America? Why are you so vicious when it comes to speculating who built America and what was America built on? For what reason do you lefties resent your own native land so much?

And by that you meant...?

 

Which is an extremely unlikely case comparing to many other nations that does not have chicago boys or their equivalent run the show — who are those that got 'disappeared'? Honest, hardworking people who wanted to build a future using their own strength and talent, not those who attribute all their personal failures and frustration on the society, I suppose?
*Cough* *Sarcasm* *Cough*

 

If you are still mad at me for tearing every piece of your argument into pieces and made you say the economy under Hitler was doing really well which made you look like a neo-nazi — something that european lefties factually are but scared of admitting, please vent your anger by presenting a sound, solid, fact-based argument.

Post reported.