User Controls
Yeah, and I don't like talkin' to strangers...
-
2017-07-22 at 11:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice A bunch of niggers picking cotton by hand, who still needed to be housed, fed, and overlooked, did not build the United States. To claim that something so insubstantial was a pivotal factor in what led to the development of the nation to the status of the most powerful and economically advanced on earth is incredibly simplistic and an absolute insult to the factors and people, almost entirely white men, that were the genuine drivers behind this.
Tesla, not Sambo! *pounds fist on desk*
Shut the fuck up, moron.
About half of the US's overall export earnings came from slave-picked cotton pre-war. You are retarded if you think slavery was not the US's economic engine.
And keeping slaves in a shed and feeding them gruel thrice a day was nowhere near as expensive as actually hiring labour. -
2017-07-23 at 12:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Shut the fuck up, moron.
About half of the US's overall export earnings came from slave-picked cotton pre-war. You are retarded if you think slavery was not the US's economic engine.
And keeping slaves in a shed and feeding them gruel thrice a day was nowhere near as expensive as actually hiring labour.
actually it is. using slaves doesn't mean just feeding gruel. you got to buy the slaves in the first place, which is fairly expensive for good ones. they have to be fed, clothed, there could be medical bills if you don't want your expensive new asset to die before you've made enough value from it. then there is all that security to stop them escaping, and recovering any that escaped. and rich people who can afford slaves are posing fuckers. they wouldn't be seen dead wandering around with tatty looking slaves. that would look in rich society like you couldn't afford to dress your property properly. the bills soon stack up.
at some point somebody realized that if you just hire the slaves to work, not only does it not cost much more, but a slave that believes he is free is way more productive. so your profit increases more than enough to make that business model more lucrative. and they are still slaves because their 'employment' contract states they have to be at work everyday at such an such a time to do what ever the boss wants from them. which is exactly what they did as slaves. the only difference, now they pay their own rent, food, medical bills, clothes etc etc. having a mortgage and family just enslaves them even more coz if they don't dance to your tune then they risk the family being homeless and destitute. slavery never ended, it just evolved.
. -
2017-07-23 at 12:26 AM UTCThe southern economy was destroyed and had to be rebuilt after the civil war. As I stated, slavery and blacks had no considerable lasting impact. We would have been far better off if this foolishness had never occurred, particularly as we would not be currently plagued by the descendents of those slaves, the modern vile negro and the white man's burden.
Edit: Narc is absolutely correct in his analysis, slavery is simply economically inefficient. -
2017-07-23 at 12:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist actually it is. using slaves doesn't mean just feeding gruel. you got to buy the slaves in the first place, which is fairly expensive for good ones. they have to be fed, clothed, there could be medical bills if you don't want your expensive new asset to die before you've made enough value from it. then there is all that security to stop them escaping, and recovering any that escaped. and rich people who can afford slaves are posing fuckers. they wouldn't be seen dead wandering around with tatty looking slaves. that would look in rich society like you couldn't afford to dress your property properly. the bills soon stack up.
at some point somebody realized that if you just hire the slaves to work, not only does it not cost much more, but a slave that believes he is free is way more productive. so your profit increases more than enough to make that business model more lucrative. and they are still slaves because their 'employment' contract states they have to be at work everyday at such an such a time to do what ever the boss wants from them. which is exactly what they did as slaves. the only difference, now they pay their own rent, food, medical bills, clothes etc etc. having a mortgage and family just enslaves them even more coz if they don't dance to your tune then they risk the family being homeless and destitute. slavery never ended, it just evolved.
You are mentally retarded.
Question: What costs more in total:
- Cost of 5 houses for 5 men
- Cost of 1 house for 5 men
? -
2017-07-23 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Slavery did not build the US. Or, rather, it certainly wasn't anywhere close to being a primary or pivotal factor. This is a complete myth that has been perpetuated because it aligns with the leftist narrative and it goes unchallenged due to the association and presumption of racism.
Only a small percentage of the population owned slaves, they weren't particularly productive, slavery is very economically inefficient, particularly in that era when labor in general was far less efficient due to the state of technological economic advancement, it produced almost nothing of lasting value, the innovation that truly generates economic advancement/growth, afterwards blacks did a great amount of harm and are currently a large net drain on society, and there are many countries with negligible amounts of historical slavery that did just as well, relative to their circumstances, as those with far larger amounts.
Blacks contributed almost nothing to the current state of America.
This is such a bad argument lol -
2017-07-23 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice The southern economy was destroyed and had to be rebuilt after the civil war. As I stated, slavery and blacks had no considerable lasting impact. We would have been far better off if this foolishness had never occurred, particularly as we would not be currently plagued by the descendents of those slaves, the modern vile negro and the white man's burden.
Edit: Narc is absolutely correct in his analysis, slavery is simply economically inefficient.
Lol, more proof that you're intellectually subnormal.
Restructuring the economy of the south = all the wealth and capital generated by it, both for the south and the US at large, just evaporates right? -
2017-07-23 at 1:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice The southern economy was destroyed and had to be rebuilt after the civil war.
The enduring poverty of the south in the post-civil-war era is a testament to the country's dependence on slave labor for economic success. Yes, recovery did eventually happen. It's conceivable that if we ran out of oil, over many generations, our economy might restabilize too. That doesn't mean oil is irrelevant to the US's economic fortunes.As I stated, slavery and blacks had no considerable lasting impact.
Oh, so we're backpedaling now. Alright, salvage your pride and scurry along now. -
2017-07-23 at 1:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You are mentally retarded.
Question: What costs more in total:
- Cost of 5 houses for 5 men
- Cost of 1 house for 5 men
?
answer: who cares? you're not buying any houses because your pal at the bank is mortgaging them, ensuring the majority will stay in loyal servitude for life. but the biggest game changer is the fact that a slave who thinks he's free is more productive. offer them bonuses and benefits for working harder and they are even more productive than that. more production = moar profits. loads more fucking profits, for which all you gotta do is pay out minimum wages to them all. keeping slaves may have cost less in overheads, but the low production rate from forced labor means profits are minimum.
. -
2017-07-23 at 1:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist answer: who cares? you're not buying any houses because your pal at the bank is mortgaging them, ensuring the majority will stay in loyal servitude for life. but the biggest game changer is the fact that a slave who thinks he's free is more productive. offer them bonuses and benefits for working harder and they are even more productive than that. more production = moar profits. loads more fucking profits, for which all you gotta do is pay out minimum wages to them all. keeping slaves may have cost less in overheads, but the low production rate from forced labor means profits are minimum.
So you agree then, with the thesis that the US's economy is founded upon slavery? -
2017-07-23 at 1:16 AM UTC
-
2017-07-23 at 1:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist answer: who cares? you're not buying any houses because your pal at the bank is mortgaging them, ensuring the majority will stay in loyal servitude for life. but the biggest game changer is the fact that a slave who thinks he's free is more productive. offer them bonuses and benefits for working harder and they are even more productive than that. more production = moar profits. loads more fucking profits, for which all you gotta do is pay out minimum wages to them all. keeping slaves may have cost less in overheads, but the low production rate from forced labor means profits are minimum.
.
This is neither how slavery was carried out in the US nor the point. Slaves were cheaper than not-slaves. That's why people used slaves. -
2017-07-23 at 1:31 AM UTCswitching the way slaves are employed from the ownership model to the leasing model doesn't change much that the worker is still a slave. slavery =/= working for no value, as the slave owner needs to upkeep the slave out of his own pocket. any food, drink, clothing, property given to the slave is value, which is therefore wages, even if they are low. being owned is what makes you a slave. if somebody dictates a significant part of your day and schedule to their own benifit, at the inconvenience of your benefit, then you are owned by that person. just using debt instead of chains to keep you trapped into that situation changes nothing.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-23 at 1:35 AM UTCYou are babbling. Is slavery cheaper than employing free workers?
-
2017-07-23 at 1:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This is neither how slavery was carried out in the US nor the point. Slaves were cheaper than not-slaves. That's why people used slaves.
no people used slaves because they figured that to pay the smallest amount possible would mean way more profit. but low production from forced labor meant profits weren't significantly different. add to that the increased time to get jobs done and low quality workmanship, which can cost dearly in loss of trade, contracts etc, it really doesn't make for an efficient business model. workers who infinitely despise you for the way you treat them will not give you their best effort, its that simple. 'abolishing slavery' wasn't about compassion and humanity, it was about money, like everything else. it was a fucking scam, all smoke and mirrors, propaganda to instil an idea into the minds of the masses.
. -
2017-07-23 at 1:48 AM UTC
-
2017-07-23 at 1:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist no people used slaves because they figured that to pay the smallest amount possible would mean way more profit. but low production from forced labor meant profits weren't significantly different. add to that the increased time to get jobs done and low quality workmanship, which can cost dearly in loss of trade, contracts etc, it really doesn't make for an efficient business model. workers who infinitely despise you for the way you treat them will not give you their best effort, its that simple. 'abolishing slavery' wasn't about compassion and humanity, it was about money, like everything else. it was a fucking scam, all smoke and mirrors, propaganda to instil an idea into the minds of the masses.
.
You're literally making shit up lol.
- 60 percent of the United States' export income came from salve picked cotton
- Cotton picking is not a skilled job that requires groundbreaking workmanship.
Is the cost of living for a slave cheaper than the cost of living for a free man? -
2017-07-23 at 1:54 AM UTC
-
2017-07-23 at 1:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Slavery did not build the US. Or, rather, it certainly wasn't anywhere close to being a primary or pivotal factor. This is a complete myth that has been perpetuated because it aligns with the leftist narrative and it goes unchallenged due to the association and presumption of racism.
Only a small percentage of the population owned slaves, they weren't particularly productive, slavery is very economically inefficient, particularly in that era when labor in general was far less efficient due to the state of technological economic advancement, it produced almost nothing of lasting value, the innovation that truly generates economic advancement/growth, afterwards blacks did a great amount of harm and are currently a large net drain on society, and there are many countries with negligible amounts of historical slavery that did just as well, relative to their circumstances, as those with far larger amounts.
Blacks contributed almost nothing to the current state of America.
well in the 18th and 19th centuries blacks were best in slot farming equipment, there were no john deere tractors, only jerome davises -
2017-07-23 at 3:25 AM UTCOP talks to me for 10 years
-
2017-07-23 at 6:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This is such a bad argument lol
Leftist.cognitive.biases.
Originally posted by Lanny The enduring poverty of the south in the post-civil-war era is a testament to the country's dependence on slave labor for economic success.
Just to be clear, are stating that the current poverty in the south due to this? Because if so, you are the one that is postulating utterly moronic and parochial arguments. There are a vast array of other factors, mainly assortative social dynamics, brain drain, levels of urbanization, and the very high percentage of the population that is black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_(U.S._region)
Along with the profound and numerous detrimental effects this has on society, creating a low trust society that skews towards crude Republican statism: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/Oh, so we're backpedaling now. Alright, salvage your pride and scurry along now.
Oh, alright, now we're back to your idiosyncratic habit of misinterpreting, presuming, and fixating over semantics. What exactly does it mean for the US economy to have been "founded" on slavery? At what point in time? How much does it need to have contributed to be considered a foundational factor? By the same definition could that, let's say, the industry of creating wooden tops was a foundational factor?
*spits on floor* Vile leftist hypocrite. Your kind never changes. That's hyperbolic, so hopefully one day you'll grow up and return to your roots, the true predisposition you attempt to suppress. You were not drawn to the financial sector, which you have literally referred to as Satan, by chance. Mark my works, my boy.
I am blatantly stating it: If the US had had no slavery at all the nation would have fared far better. Slaves do not deserve an iota of attention with regard to the analysis of US economic supremacy.
