|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 23, 2007, 6:08 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Edgar"> wrote
>>>>>> "Don"> wrote
>>>>>>> "Edgar"> wrote
>>>>>>>> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Edgar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Can you honestly say if we left things to "market forces" that
>>>>>>>>>>slavery would have worked itself out over time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see how that is even possible,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you don't understand the market or even the currency in
>>>>>>> your own pocket.
>>>>>>> Money is colorblind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, market forces would see that slaves are cheaper than paying
>>>>>> for workers so therefore what reason would a slaveowner have to
>>>>>> free their slaves?
>>>>>
>>>>> The market is not only about making products or services less
>>>>> expensive but *accessible* too.
>>>>> Eli Whitney's cotton gin made it unprofitable for slaves to do
>>>>> what a machine could do faster and cheaper, for one example.
>>>>
>>>> The Cotton Gin separated the seeds from the fiber. It did not
>>>> plant, tend,
>>>> or harvest the crop...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It was first invented in the 1920's, but was not made practiccal
>>>> until the
>>>> 1950's, and even then, it was not implemented on most farms..."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker
>>>
>>> Waddaya want, an entire history timeline? =-)
>>
>> Er.....I want a reasonable level of accuracy...I already have a good
>> idea of the timeline. IF I wrote *everything* down, tho', it'd turn
>> into a book... =;-o And *nobody* wants *that* =8-O
>>
>>
>>> I used the cotton gin as an off the top of my head example.
>>> Steam tractors pulled the cotton extractors, which was then
>>> processed and loaded by other steam powered machines.
>>
>> *Not at that period (pre-Civil War) of time.*
>>
>>> ALL the farmers did not have ALL of this equipment but it was
>>> certainly moving in that direction to the point where it is today
>>> where virtually no human being touches cotton at any step along the
>>> way.
>>
>> In the US. Not necessarily so in other countries which are cash-poor
>> but labor/population-rich.
>>
>> There is the economic crux. Machinery has a high up-front cost, and
>> has maintenence and fuel costs; human labor is proportionally far
>> less efficient, but in many countries, is immensely cheaper.
>>
>>
>>> So yes, to re-answer Edgars question, the free market did
>>> eventually make slavery unprofitable.
>>
>> *Eventually*. And, again, that also depends upon whcih geographical
>> location is being described. More to the point, most humans don't
>> tolerate slavery, but vast numbers do tolerate wages that aren't much
>> higher than what provides a minimal level of shelter, clothing, and
>> food.
>
> I believe Edgar meant the US.
THe problem *as I see it*, however, is that, if businesses and/or
consumers in the US profit from another country's economic disparities,
then the US remains patrt of the economic web, and is not isolated from
it all (and therefore, also not entirely innocent).
> Other countries weren't part of this and as far as I can tell
> slavery/slave labor is still *common in some places*.
Sadly, yes, in various forms...
> From what I've read the *overall* costs associated with
> industrializing the agri-businesses in the first half of the 19th
> century were increasingly less than those of maintaining a comparable
> amount of slaves. A machine doesn't require supervision 24/7, it ain't
> going anywhere, but a slave does.
> If a machine doesn't work it doesn't need fuel, a slave does.
> And on and on.
During that time-frame, what also happened was that large amounts of
cheap labor entered the US - so many desperate immigrants came that
companies were able to get away with paying laborers *less* than what it
would cost to maintain slaves, less than "living wages".
IOW, in the late 1800's and through the early 1900's, the availability of
machinery occurred in tandem with a burgeoning population of potential
workers who were also quite desperate. Without large numbers of barely-
paid workers, and government policies that were pro-industry and anti-
labor, the insdustrial revolution would have been hindered - not halted,
btu eitehr ti would have occurred more slowly, or ther might have been a
greater push towards efficiency, or I dunno what else - but it would have
been different.
> **I've read that the US gov't gives millions of dollars to various
> *poor* countries under the guise that raising the economic floor will
> lessen the amount of slavery/slave labor, which is a good intention.
> But invariably what occurs is the money isn't funneled down to the
> bottom and is wasted at the top, thus the economic benefit for the
> bottom half is never realized and slavery/slave labor continues. But,
> private sector methods get through the political shroud (below the
> radar screen) and directly to the people at the bottom.
All of the above is true. THe gov.t deals with gov.ts, and it seems tha
tthe poorer a nation is, the more corrupt its governemnt - which is one
major reason that the countries *are* so poor. In more than one
instance, famine has occurred, not because of crop shortfalls ro food
shortage, but because of direct gov.t or military interference with
distribution of goods to people they didn't like.
What burns me is that my tax dollars end up going, not to all those
starving mothers and children that Americans are admonished to help/feed,
but often, the the guns used to slaughter their people...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap