- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:49 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:49 pm to Sleeping Tiger
It's been enlightening.
1
Posted on 2/1/14 at 6:55 pm to Tyrion Lannister
I wouldn't go that far, but have a good one.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:22 pm to Sleeping Tiger
First you say..
Then you say...
Which is it?
quote:
There is no way those natural resources in the south could have been materialized into wealth without free labor.
Then you say...
quote:
This isn't about whether or not paying slaves to pick cotton would have yielded better results. It likely would have, giving them an incentive beyond not getting whipped very well may have created more production.
Which is it?
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:25 pm to KissmyAxe
checkmate 
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:45 pm to KissmyAxe
If you read further you would have seen that I said while paying slaves likely would have increased production, wages must also be accounted for when talking about increasing profit. You may get some more cotton picked if you're paying slaves, but now you're paying for labor that was previously free. And this is especially important in the context of slave labor because it's rigorous and inefficient work, which is why machines now do what slaves did. If you have to pay a field of pickers a living wage it's no longer as profitable a venture.
This angle of the argument is really irrelevant, as I've explained. This isn't about whether or not slaves could have been more productive if they were wage laborers. It was simply a recognition that the US did benefit, in ways, from slave labor as a counterpoint to the notion that the US became the world power overnight because of capitalism. It's a debate on whether or not the US benefited, not if they could have benefited more.
This angle of the argument is really irrelevant, as I've explained. This isn't about whether or not slaves could have been more productive if they were wage laborers. It was simply a recognition that the US did benefit, in ways, from slave labor as a counterpoint to the notion that the US became the world power overnight because of capitalism. It's a debate on whether or not the US benefited, not if they could have benefited more.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:59 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Unions have been quite successful at making unions irrelevant over the past several decades.
FIFY
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:38 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
If you read further you would have seen that I said while paying slaves likely would have increased production, wages must also be accounted for when talking about increasing profit.
Your claim is self contradictory. Of coarse when one says that something is more productive you are factoring in wages.
quote:
It was simply a recognition that the US did benefit, in ways,
But you have not given us any examples of how it benefited other then to claim over and over again that it did. It's quite clear the north had a stronger economy and more vibrant cities and less poverty than the south yet you offer nothing to surmount this evidence contrary to your position that it was a net plus for the economy rather than a net negative.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 10:22 pm to KissmyAxe
quote:
But you have not given us any examples of how it benefited other then to claim over and over again that it did.
You have to be insane to think there was not a benefit from free labor. Is this a joke? There were not machines to do the labor, you'd have to pay a lot of people to materialize the resources into wealth, and by that time there wouldn't be as much profit. I shouldn't of even entertained this argument, someone immediately came to my defense that slave labor did benefit a rise of wealth. This is just nonsense to even talk about.
quote:
. It's quite clear the north had a stronger economy and more vibrant cities and less poverty than the south yet you offer nothing to surmount this evidence contrary to your position that it was a net plus for the economy rather than a net negative.
That is not the debate at all. I've said it a few times now and you keep ignoring it, this is not about what makes a better economy, slave or wage labor. It's not about who had a better economy, the north or south. It's only about a recognition that free labor was used to materialize wealth out of natural resources. Slave labor benefited the ruling class in the south, to say otherwise is wildly insane.
There was a point made that capitalism is the reason the US became the world power in just 250 years. I made a number of counterpoints on this notion, which even included the point that capitalism is designed to do what it did, create wealth quickly, but at a cost that should be in the narrative a long with relevant truths such as the fact that the rest of the world was in ruins most of the 20th century allowing the US to dominate economically. I injected that it didn't hurt that we were able to create a great amount of wealth by using free labor, which we essentially do now with sweat shops. And for whatever reason, amid all the things I've said in this thread you want argue about whether or not paying slaves would have created more benefit. It's absurd.
quote:
It's quite clear the north had a stronger economy and more vibrant cities and less poverty than the south yet you offer nothing to surmount this evidence contrary to your position that it was a net plus for the economy rather than a net negative.
Do you not understand that wealth was created by exporting the South's natural resources to the more urbanized North and Europe?
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 10:30 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
but at a cost that should be in the narrative a long with relevant truths such as the fact that the rest of the world was in ruins most of the 20th century allowing the US to dominate economically.
The United States was dominating and rising quickly during the 19th century when the rest of the world was not in "ruins". Why do you think we had boat loads of immigrants?
quote:
Slave labor benefited the ruling class in the south, to say otherwise is wildly insane.
Where did I argue that the slave owners didn't benefit? We're (at least I thought) were talking about the economy.
Perhaps you think that the two are the same? I can rob my neighbor or a bank and benefit me yet this does nothing for the economy. In fact it can be argued that it hurts the economy.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:19 pm to KissmyAxe
And I brought up the paid workers more productive than slaves issue as a rebuttal to your absurd claim that it would not have been profitable for the agriculture industry to have paid labor claim that you so quietly and smartly dropped from your argument.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:24 pm to KissmyAxe
It was my fault for getting in a conversation with you. Have a good night, man.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 8:45 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Capitalists have been pretty good at convincing white, middle to working-class Americans who make between 25,000 to 75,000 a year that Capitalism is working so well for them when in fact it's not. Capitalism only works for the top 1 percent at the expense of the the 99 percent. In fact in the top 1 percent it only really works for the top half of the top 1 percent.
Who are you to say who it "works" for? I came from a broken home, father is a felon who spent much of my youth in prison. I grew up in the hood, dropped out of high school after completing the 9th grade.
But the story doesn't end there...
In a Marxist system I would have been relegated to sweeping streets or shoveling human waste.
In a Capitalist system where I am free to enter into contracts and own capital. I own land, don't have a boss, and create enough wealth to allow my wife to stay home and teach school to our 5 kids. In a couple years, once the full effect of Obama care is known, I will look at hiring. It works for my family and we are nowhere near the top 1%.
quote:
You middle to working-class folks who think capitalism is so great have been lied to by the wealthy and misled by the wealthy by using race, religion, and the so called cultural wars in believing that the wealthy have the same values as you.
Poor, dumb me. I sure wish someone smart would step in and fix this. Would you do it, kind sir?
To Sleeping Tiger:
quote:
It likely would have, giving them an incentive beyond not getting whipped very well may have created more production. But that is not the point. This isn't a debate on whether or not slave labor or wage labor creates more benefit. The point was that the US was able to benefit from slave labor and it should be recognized as a part of the narrative when talking about Americas quick rise to world dominance, not that there couldn't have been more benefit.
The question is not "was slavery beneficial to the US in some ways", it is "was is a net positive" relative to the US rising to world power status. I would argue that while slavery certainly created wealth for the few wealthy enough to own slaves, ultimately it was the driving force that led to the Civil War. I don't need to remind you of the resulting massive loss of life and destruction. When you factor in the Civil War, I would argue that slavery set America back quite a bit on the road to world dominance.
This post was edited on 2/4/14 at 9:26 am
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:02 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
The question is not "was slavery beneficial to the US in some ways", it is "was is a net positive" relative to the US rising to world power status. I would argue that while slavery certainly created wealth for the few wealthy enough to own slaves, ultimately it was the driving force that led to the Civil War. I don't need to remind you of the resulting massive loss of life and destruction. When you factor in the Civil War, I would argue that slavery set America back quite a bit on the road to world dominance.
And THAT bottom-line assessment, pretty much lays the 'slavery built America' narrative to rest. We got Oak Alley and Houmas House from slavery...and a stain on our National honor. All part of the learning process, and the education of Humanity.
ok...I have oft contemplated how I would have turned out if I were born into your 'shoes', without the loving and stable (but poor and hard working) family that reared me. I'd like to think I'd have did as well as you...but...I'm inclined toward impatience, and am somewhat aggressive when challenged by negative/evil forces and scenarios. But I'm getting better.
I'm a fan!
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:20 am to DeltaDoc
"Today, in a world of both unheard-of wealth and abject poverty, where the richest 85 people have more wealth than the poorest 3 billion ..."
It is trrue that this is a world of un-heard of wealth in comparison to Marx's world, but it is NOT a world of abject poverty compared to Marx's time. Far from it. Poverty absolutely still exists, but for most, their conditions are nearly as bleak as in the 1800's, and the percentage of those living in poverty's most grinding forms, has decreased over time. The author is purposefully poverty with income inequality (or what some might call "envy").
It is trrue that this is a world of un-heard of wealth in comparison to Marx's world, but it is NOT a world of abject poverty compared to Marx's time. Far from it. Poverty absolutely still exists, but for most, their conditions are nearly as bleak as in the 1800's, and the percentage of those living in poverty's most grinding forms, has decreased over time. The author is purposefully poverty with income inequality (or what some might call "envy").
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:49 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
The author is purposefully poverty with income inequality
Purposefully confusing..?
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News