Educate me on the politics of slavery, /pol/.
I don't know a lot about it, but it's been on my mind lately. Wouldn't free and cheap labor like that be terrible for an economy?
What makes you think you wouldn't be a slave?
another very sad /pol/ posting
>>69692012
>Wouldn't free and cheap labor like that be terrible for an economy?
Free slave labor creates more value more value = better economy
>>69692281
I said no such thing.
>>69692405
I'm afraid I don't follow, Sven.
>>69692012
As long as there aren't workers rights laws a good slave owner would generally invest more in the wellbeing of his slaves than an employer of a Northern industrial wage slave. Of course you had abusive slave masters and the slave had no freedom but an employer had less inventive to make the work place sage for employees and they were easily replaceable. Now a days with minimum wage occupational safety etc is still probably cheaper to hire part time idiots and let them fend for themselves when it comes to food and housing, while they may be shitty workers you can only force so much productivity out of a slave anyway
>>69695872
Although I would like to see low danger prisoners being used for labor intensive low skill jobs, taxpayers fund them anyway so they may as well be contacted out to pick produce and other cost ineffective stuff
>>69693558
Slaves aren't cheap. To slavers back then a good slave would be the equivalent of todays sports car.
In a purely free market slaves will produce goods. With an added bonus of being a good themselves.
The exchange of goods is what stimulates an economy. Including Slaves.
>>69693558
Please don't search for the full set of this picture, it's horrible. Keep this one and live in ignorance.
>>69696569
Oh shoot I did forget that part, you could multiply your "stock" of slaves and generate revenue by contacting them out or selling them, and could train them as black smiths or other important trades back in the day for an even larger profit. In the USA importing slaves was banned earlier than slavery itself but the slave population continued to grow due to "breeding". OTOH after slavery was abolished they worked out sharecropping which wasn't much better for blacks but I don't know how the profitability of plantations was affected
slaves are the literal interpretation that humans are solely produced for the labor capacity.
they have to be maintained and investments in capital can increase value. similar to land and infrastructure; a commodity.
Also I can't remember the source but I think I read over time southern slavery would have moved away from chattel and the slaves would have been granted more freedom of employment and loving and marriage but would pay a percent of their earnings to the master, sort of a personal tax. Applied to modern times this makes a bit more sense than the "free forced labour" but in theory a factory owner could provide low cost hosting and a mess Hall and deduct that "service" from an already low workers pay and I guess health care too. The owner would still be inclined to keep the workers in top shape. But Ford realized the benefits to productivity of breaks and shorter working days without government interference so it would be interesting to see how they would compete head to head. Modern slavery vs best worker practices
>>69692012
But I guess to directly answer your question more simply the labor wouldn't be free or necessarily cheap as the owner would have to burden of providing food housing and medical care to an unwilling unsatisfied workforce. If however the labor was very profitable and you could work the slaves for cheaper than free labor (many cotton pickers were white hired hands depending on location) it would and did make economic sense
