Huffpo: Slavery is astonishingly an advanced economic system

What I read from the paper was that the use of slaves created a pool of wealth (in the capital of human beings held as slaves) that allowed the creation of a small slave-owning elite (the plantation class) that basically ran the Southern states. It was economically very successful for that class (although soil maintenance problems crept in - cotton is very hard on soil quality) but it did very little for the large majority of Southerners.

So if Libhater is arguing that was a very successful economy, that means he approves of a system where a small minority get rich while the rest of the free population muddle along (having problems like depressed wages due to the existence of slavery), and a proportion of the population is treated and used as property. No wonder LH admires the Nazis; they used quite a few slave laborers during WW2 as well.

 

No... That is just another article written about "the switch". I mean, show the party platform, (what the party stand for and tries to get into law), and show me threat a switch happened.

I live how democrats insist their MUST be a racist party. It isn't enough that republicans have wanted equal treatment under the law. They are racist now, because they don't like reversed racism or gender discrimination pushed by democrats.

How about this instead. Find a law/prpgram pushed by republicans that is racist and I will find one from the same time by the democrats that is more racist.

 

For a leftie, you are quite intellectually honest. Of course that article does not approve slavery, what article would? The thing is, main stream economics has it conclusive that slavery is bad for the economy, whereas huffpo tried to cite a study done by some historians to prove how slavery had helped America, more specifically, how slaves had contributed to America, for the sole purpose of inciting as much white guilt as possible, and resonating with the Zimmerman verdict unrest.

Look, let's be reasonable just for a while, of course I know I look like I'm making a big fuss out of this small patch of article, but my point isn't that. My point is merely this: could the liberals from all corners of the world, look at themselves in the mirror and say:"Whoa, when I am pointing finger at others, I'm not any less ridiculous than them, I'm using the same desperate, asinine tactic to achieve my goals".

I know it's hard to believe, but when I started to care politics, I did not assume my final destination. Would I become a liberal? A con? A nutty libertarian? I dunno. And I'm glad I'm not any of them in anyway. All I did, was to look at statistics and evidences, then be true to myself.

I do not know about you, an Aussie though, things are entirely different there.

 

There is no point arguing economics with lefties. They think war, slavery and preparations for alien invasions help build economies. This is the thought process. There is also no way a person can become rich unless through exploitation.

 

Which of the following implication was not in the article?
A. America became a superpower because it was partially built on the skulls and bones of black people
B. America became economically exuberant owning largely to slavery
C. America was built by black salves, now you shot a black kid dead, you ungrateful MFs!

Of course, you would say none, just like almost all conservatives would say they do not care what skin color the newly moved in neighbor is.

- - - Updated - - -

Please provide evidence to back up your claim.

 

Serfdom where you and your likings leech on the more productive members of a society?

 

Oh look, even more (*)(*)(*)(*) you made up.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/277487-hitlers-handouts.html

Tell me how is that choking you in your throat.

 

In case you missed it, here's the part you were making up:

Notice how, in that post, I state very clearly that Hitler's economic policy was good but that we should take our lessons from that, not any other part of the Nazi party:

I'm actually rather astounded that you don't get this.

Oh wait, no I'm not, because you have no intention of being honest.

 

Hard to see the difference in hitler and Obama's speeches on economics. No difference really at all, same tactics.

 

Lets be real, slavery as an institution is a great thing for any economy, no labor cost only room and board cost... Now that is an antiquated concept, but every great empire that rose before did it, they thrived on it... From cotton to tea or whatever the products are, it worked in the past and will work again, the next step will be debtors, just wait and see, it will happen again...

 

Not excessively he picked favorites in denationalization of markets, but he also had a lot of people killed and tortured and thats what i was talking about.

 

You seriously need to research Pinochet's regime.

 

Hard to see the difference between your posts and Mac-7's.

 

The percentage of slave owners seems a moot point.

What percentage of US citizens own a business that employs more than 50 workers? Businesses like that play a major role in the economy anyway right?

Between 1791 and 1840 slave grown cotton provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840 southern US grew 60% of the worlds cotton. This provided the US a lot of money to do things with including industrialization and expansionism.

Religious zealots and republicans used the slavery issue to put political pressure on the south. This pressure, along with the facts that the democratic party was becoming fragmented and ineffectual and the final straw of Lincolns election apparently made secession unavoidable. The south apparently believed that Lincoln and the other republicans were going to get rid of slavery and the south felt it was so important to their economy that losing it would take away their livelihood.

Which tends to make me think they felt it was a profitable system.