So what exactly was the economic argument to abolish slavery other than muh feels?

shit working conditions =/= slavery.

Because if you actually spend that little on keeping your slaves alive, they die. Then you have to buy more, and they were pretty expensive. Sure, you could just not buy more, but then they all die, and you fail to make a profit. Slavery was primarily profitable in areas that made for good cash crops, since the profit from the sale of cotton, indigo, or sugar en masse handily covered the expenses of feeding, clothing, and housing a bunch of slaves.

Also, the burgeoning capitalist system of the late 18th-19th centuries favored free men, as they make for better consumers, which in turn makes for better sales.

or to put it another way, if you get paid the same no matter how hard you work, why would you work harder than you have to rather than avoiding as much excess exertion as possible?

A man who works for a wage is his own overseer.

Have you looked into how much the slaves in the US worked? They produced less per person than a freeman working on his farm/land. They worked less hours as well.

High cost, higher production > less production and less cost

>implying the slaves don't breed like rabbits so less capex and depreciation is spent on maintaining them
>implying fear alone and group think will not keep the slaves in line

You're talking about 16-17 years or so between pregnancy and to the point that they'd be physically able for full tasks

>16-17 years

Nigga humans can start breeding when they're like 11 or 12

Are you trying to create healthy workers or experiment with the limits of the human reproductive system?

>create healthy workers

kek. they'll work till they drop dead. if they were lucky enough to be liked by their master, they may survive till old age. thats how it used to be and still is in some degenerate parts of the world.

t. slave owner found castrated and dead in his home

Serfdom was very much agrarian. Slavery not as much. That's probably because serfs were basically "attached" to the land and whomever owned that land, owned all who dwelled on it. Serfs did not require direct maintenance from their feudal lord/owner. They were expected to live off that land and keep working on it - serfs practiced self-subsistence and had a certain degree of autonomy.

Slavery is directly making someone your property. They could be made to perform the same labour as serf but they are not intrically the same. Also the owner was being directly responsible for the well-being of his slave and more often than not, owners would seek to keep their property well-maintained, not out of humane altruism but out economic self-interest. Slaves, due to their status as "walking, talking investments" were granted very little freedom in return. You wouldn't let your expensive car drive itself.

With slavery, you have to pay for food and housing for slaves. With capitalism you don't.

Something, something wagecucks.

>implying
You are literally paying your workers to be fed, housed, clothed, and whatever they have left over. What a dumb statement.

Because wage slaves are a better long time investement.

can someone please post the version of this thats about music and ends with yugoslavian civil war propaganda songs?

Look at Sparta, it was a state that is thought to have made generations of obedient supersoldiers for the purpose of keeping their slaves from enslaving them. Their slaves did all the work, but at a price.
Fear and group think did not keep the helots inline. Most of the time it did, but there were revolts. More serious revolts than in the case of American or British slavery.

>economic
> argument
Wtf lol, why would we base our morality off of the value system we created to trade goats more efficiently?
That's just fucking absurd, what does a virtual system based on utility have to do with the overall health and quality of life.
Reasoning with "economic arguments" would to a shallow and unempathetic societal value system.
So that's a bad idea. I'm glad no one else has tried to reason with economic arguments, that would be a real pooping disaster.

did you make this pic yourself user, it's pretty good and i like it

>They worked less hours as well.

gonna have to provide a source on claims like these

This.

>Voluntary labor is more effective
No, it isn't. Slave farms outproduced free farms by nearly 30% on average. If slavery was still legal today (and it pretty well is in some parts of the world) I can assure you that they would outproduce voluntary labor.

That slavery is less efficient is not some sort of universal law. Efficiency is in the first place a strawman. It has only meaning if you actually define what efficiency you measure. Anyway, the reason why slavery in the 19th century became impractical is not so much because of motivation but because of innovation. Without slaves there is always incentive for further industrialization and optimization of production via machines, education, design and anything else that will maximize the hourly output of the (paid) workers. With slaves, not so much.

In an iron age context however, slavery would be arguably better than non-slavery. Take for example the Spartans, a caste of aristocratic warriors can only work when there is someone else producing the food for them. Slavery also allows for much bigger farms, where economics of scale come into play (although that is what in the end, was a big factor in the end of rome)

So, slavery is not necessarily less "efficient" it all depends upon the context.

Why is it that only the dumbest bottom feeders post this specific meme?

slavery we have several issues:
a) Use of slaves displaces wage-labourers and may cause unemployment. Unless the use of slaves displaces wage-labourers to then do more exciting and better work then you have a problem. On the flip side, if you have the need for a whole of bunch of really crappy menial labour then the addition of slaves solves your labour shortage.

Example: Rome and Greece tended to use a lot of slaves. However, their incessant conquering of new land constantly necessitated more and more labour to put the land back into use (especially since the standard way of defeating enemies was to kill everyone and enslave the remainder).

But, if you look at China, the amount of slavery was pretty small. It was difficult to conquer land beyond China proper (whatever was China proper at any given time) so there was hardly ever any labour shortage, there was instead, massive employment issues. The introduction of slavery would have caused so much labour displacement as to cause rebellion and riot.

b) Productivity wise, long-term productivity increases only with non-residential investment (as modern economists would call it). Generally speaking, a high supply of slaves tended to blunt the development of industrialism because cheap labour can easily replace cheap machinery. However, there seems to be a tendency toward the development of machinery and the development of superior machinery whereas the use of cheap labour (slave or low-wage is similar) appears to slow down research.
Example: We see slave-rich Greece discarding the use of all the fancy machines they invented. The Romans were similar. But if we look at, for instance, China, during the Roman Republic was the Han Dynasty which apparently had technology all the way up to bore-drills and natural gas use.
Later on, we see that population-rich China started to lean more and more heavily on using lots of people while the Arabs became the focus of technology and science.

I am only focusing on the slavery-factor here and not on the myriad of other factors.

c) Productivity of slave labour in various industries varied. Obviously, the more menial the task then the more well suited it is to slave labour. These included large expansive public works such as wall-making, monument building, quarrying or more mundane tasks such as milling flour. One of the largest tasks was farming but farms were the source of income. The more people who were slaves working on a farm meant less landholders in your society and a concentration of wealth at the top.
Productivity of slaves in securing new farm land seems to be good at first and then problematic later (likely because someone is hoarding the land thus preventing others from using it more wisely). And in many industries, such as if you wanted an extensive irrigation network in your country then like (for instance) Song Dynasty then you needed to employ a vast national network of skilled labour (such as wheelwrights and civil engineers) and that required a large free-man base to get a good selection of people going into Imperial Academies and training properly. Slaves would never be allowed to do such a thing (hence the term liberal arts degree). And so the higher proportion of your population that is enslaved the larger the drag on your ability to source skilled labour.

Imagine it is 11th century and 20% of your population is slaves. That's 1/5 of your skill pool wiped out right there. You don't live in a vacuum. In a place like say a divided China, one provincial warlord figuring out, hey I can get more skilled labourers by wiping out slavery. That guy takes over all of China. Then he bans slavery throughout. Which is basically what happened.

c
d) Wealth imbalance is one of the leading causes of social fragmentation which leads to corruption (bribery of officials), production of luxury goods crafted to the rich (which may potentially become inefficient because the wealth tend to be far more irrational about spending versus utility than middle and lower classes) and poverty issues (the slaves, low-wage workers and unemployed suffer malnutrition, disease and crime). What is worse is that corruption and poverty can cause a downward spiral in society where plague outbreaks, crime and lowered bureaucratic morale due to corruption can then lead to a worsening of society due to poorer government and eventually to rebellion. The examples are basically every single empire that no longer exists today.

e) Related to wealth imbalance is taxation. Governments survive on tax revenue and slaves, once sold to the public (if captured in war like the Romans), only provide the one-time cash income. The Roman Republic and the later Empire began to rely heavily on slave-sale income (as well as war loot and land captured) to keep their economy afloat. But that only lasts in the short-term. In the long-term, slaves provide absolutely nothing to the government and historically speaking, it's always difficult to tax the rich and powerful. Loss of government revenue and loss of land (especially to agrarian economy societies, which is basically everyone before today) leads to government collapse

I'm disregarding everything you've posted due to having anime pics

>take for example the Spartans, a caste of aristocratic warriors can only work when there is someone else producing the food for them
Mycenean helot detected

...

Sorry I don't speak weaboo go back to /a/

This user answered your question

>reducing morality itself to "muh feels"

>communism
>money

>year of our lord 2016
>ledditors still butthurt about seeing anime on an anime themed website

You have to go back.

>implying I've ever even been on reddit
you said it yourself, it's (past) 2016, stop living in 2007 when Veeky Forums was actually an anime themed website, it's been 10 years. We out here grew up

Substitute leddit with twitter, ifunny, facebook or whatever normalfag shithole you crawled out from.

>stop living in 2007 when Veeky Forums was actually an anime themed website

Back in 2003-2007 it was an actual anime website as anime and other Japanese related things were the main focus of it. Now it's more varied, but it still has an anime theme to it as it's current logo that I posted is an anime girl holding a present.

as if I'd need an infograph on what Veeky Forums is fucking christ this is almost insulting
prior to Veeky Forums I was only dwelling on flash game websites really, and I disagree greatly with weaboo stuff being the main focus of Veeky Forums, just compare the number of weaboo to non weaboo boards. Or the activity. Pretty sure /pol/ /b/ /v/ and Veeky Forums have more traffic than all weeb boards

>reading comprehension: zero

It's not the main focus anymore, but the anime theme has still been kept. Go on the fucking front page and look at the logo. They added it around January I think.

You're the worst type of newfag, You don't have any respect for the website's culture. You're no different than a Muslim immigrant in Europe who doesn't want to integrate.

Slavery means the workers can't buy shit, which means that as production expands, and slaves become more of the population, there's less people to sell to lowering aggregate demand, the cheapest costs in the world aren't going to help you if you have to lower your profit margins to compensate for the lowered population.

>he fell for the aggregate demand maymay
Keynes raus

normies ruined everything

you have no respect for individual board culture
a more fitting analogy would be me being a nationalist and you being a globalist
/a/ is your containment board

>hurr durr nothing bad will happen
The slave's gonna be out of work for at least sometimes or else you're going to jeopardize the work done for pregnancy and may possibly end up with a dead mother, meaning less people meaning less production, healthy workers have a higher level of labour productivity (also good luck keeping high levels of motivation from unpaid people who can clearly see your gains) in order to compensate for this you might start having a higher number of slaves, at which point they zerg your ass and steal your administrators/your shit.

>money exists and is a drug
>no free shit
>"hurr, free of charge is stealing"
>people are lazy to be moral
>people are lazy to work for free

The main helot revolt was literally triggered by an earthquake which killed thousands upon thousands and almost caused a syatem collapse. They were all put down after the mt ithome siege anyway.

wtf is this drivel

That's not how it works, ledditor. It's something that was always part of the universal culture of the site in general. It didn't get introduced out of nowhere like globalism.

If you have a problem with people using anime images in other boards you need to go back to your shithole. Isn't the fact that the logo of the frontpage is an anime girl holding a present enough to act as a repellent to your faggotry?

I exclusively browse Veeky Forums and youtube, this is my home as much as yours

Yes, and you are the globalist one ironically since you refuse to integrate and want Veeky Forums to be just another normalfag shithole with no aspects of it's original culture.

>if you aren't a full blown otaku weaboo farting out anime pictures left and right you are nothing but a normie
you don't belong on Veeky Forums

i hope you know japanese hate people like you

Not him but maybe just don't sperg out when you see an anime posted on a website made for discussing anime in the first place. Nobody's saying you have to be a weeb.

You are acting exactly according to the "normalfag" definition, normalfag.

I hope you know you can like anime and other Japanese things without being completely obsessed about Japan in general.

slaves can't consume

literally no connection with what's in the pic and me

...

Increasing risk of.bond default, interest rates of 100% @ absolute indenturement dont work the second there is more than one faction

Because it's better for capitalists to have swathes of potential customers around, rather than poor slaves

The Brits employed their classic strategy of establishing the moral high ground. Since they were so industrialized the loss of slavery hurt them less than other countries
>Implying working conditions in 19th century Britain weren't worse than slave conditions

Alright, prove to me that slavery is ethically wrong.

It depends on how hard they worked them. In Haiti I think the lifespan was like 3 years average for a slave, while it was much longer in North America or even in the Ottoman Empire. When the risk of work is lower and infants have a high chance of survival then it is entirely sustainable. The US hit a balance after 60 years of no imports.

It is

>So why are the Chinese making sneakers for ten cents an hour

Because they aren't.

>too triggered by anime pictures to read someones argument
Kill yourself you brainlet. Everything he said was fairly well thought out.

>he thinks /pol/, /b/, or /v/ aren't full of weebs
Not only are you a dick whose derailing an okay thread, you're absolutely retarded too. Posting smug anime girls and playing weeb games is popular on all of those places (except maybe /b/ which I've refused to glance at since it became just a dumping ground for trap porn, but /b/ has never been a place to imitate). /k/ loves their moe rifle girls, /pol/ will recommend you watch legend of galactic heroes and isn't retarded enough to shit on someone for using anime reaction images (half their twitter accounts are weebshit and they've made more edits with trump hats added than an reasonable community should have), /v/ talks about weeb games regularly and Veeky Forums is absolutely always filled with them, Veeky Forums has plenty of relevant manga and anime posting but tends to prefer a little grit when it's more fitting. Just because weebs talk about other things doesn't mean the boards are magically non-weeb. Go back to your flash games and reddit or go to cripple chan where there's no weeb precedent dipshit.

>You wouldn't let your expensive car drive itself
Google btfo

Why are You disregarding answers to the question? What he said was correct

Eyes up here fella.

>so what exactly was the economic argument to abolish slavery other than muh feels?
Your mistake is thinking that muh feels aren't a legitimate driving force of humanity.
Humanity wouldn't be where it is today if we weren't social animals. Feels taking precedent over logic evolved for a reason.

Not that I disagree but this needs to be said to those who keep saying modern buildings in Gulf countries are built by slaves.

>You're no different than a Muslim immigrant in Europe who doesn't want to integrate.
Likewise to weeb bullshit, modern Western is dogshit and no one should have to integrate.

if your economy has a propensity to rise up and kill you you're not doing it right

Depends on whether the profits in between those rebellions offset the costs of them.

Fuck off and never come back

>Kill yourself you brainlet. Everything he said was fairly well thought out.
Everything he said was wrong. He should study instead of watching anime

Not him, but get the fuck out and kill yourself.

When you have a system of slavery there is less money circulating because slaves don't spend anything. This reduces the overall capital pool and there are less people spending money overall.

Wew lad. Thank the lord you are not a slave owner

Slavery is immoral. The moral cost to society outweighs the economic benefit.

>other than muh feels

Well Cletus maybe if your great uncle McCarran's plantation had produced enough guns and steel you might actually have won the civil war. As it happens, slavery is shit for industrialisation, which is why you rebel scum got your shit pushed in 140 years ago

Because it's easier to employ people than enslave them now. Sure you didn't have to pay them but you still had to cover for their expenses, provide shelter and food. You also have to enforce loyalty and guarantee servitude which costs time and money as well. You also had to buy the slaves, so they were an investment as well.

Enter the wage slaves of post-industrial society, they will pay for their costs themselves and be happy to work for you while their shelter, food and security is their own problem. It's just more effective and efficient. There is more supply than demand as well so you can handpick the best ones.

You can't compare paying them nothing and expecting them to cover for themselves to slavery. Sure if you pay an employee no wages then it will be cheaper but that's not slavery, that's not sustainable at all.

Not a argument

an*

you must give me and my family money because it'll make the moral positivity of society better