Can anyone prove to me that it was a good idea to end slavery?

Also see: Soviet industrialization under Stalin
Soviet Union went from an agrarian society to a super power after the 50s

In what kind of universe do you live in?

Could I get the long version?
I keep trying to find the long version but all I find is "correlation = causation! DUH!"

Attached: phjyO50[1].gif (500x375, 506K)

Are you suggesting that did not happen during american industrialization?

Because I can go into plenty of examples if needed.
youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

Attached: F9PN30[1].png (704x517, 112K)

Every task is repetitive because it's your fucking job to do them

Show me one instance where an engineer in a manufactory or assembly line was denied their monetary pay by their employer.

>Every task is repetitive because it's your fucking job to do them
Wut?

Im asking why you wouldn't just use slaves instead of free civilians for the various tasks.

>Show me one instance where an engineer in a manufactory or assembly line was denied their monetary pay by their employer.

I mean, im sure some poor slob got scammed at one point in history. But it was not the well educated engineers working the machines. That's not how i'm talking about.

Attached: 6.3.jpg (1200x863, 116K)

>>Im asking why you wouldn't just use slaves
Because dumb labor was replaced by... you guessed it. Machines. Unless you're willing to pay for a slave's primary, secondary, and college education to operate your business effectively, the free civilian will always top it.

>Because dumb labor was replaced by... you guessed it. Machines. Unless you're willing to pay for a slave's primary, secondary, and college education to operate your business effectively, the free civilian will always top it.

Yea. That's the argument people always say.

And yet there are so many pictures of kids working in the factories. Child labor laws were specifically created during the industrial revolution because of all the kids losing limbs in the machines. How are these kids doing all these high skill jobs?

It does not add up.

Attached: crian%C3%A7as[1].jpg (1062x704, 227K)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you lived in the 1900s.

None of the people in this picture look like they have a secondary education.

Why could they not be replaced with slaves?

Attached: 41-TheCottonEmpire-1024x744[1].jpg (1024x744, 167K)

>I wasn't aware that you lived in the 1900s.
Thanks to recorded history and photographic evidence, one does not need to be alive to know what happened in the past.

Attached: 28191c[1].jpg (700x410, 126K)

sure, read this:
amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/019516895X

What the hell's your point? Go back to the past and make them use slaves again lol?

youtube.com/watch?v=axu_Qx9aRmc

I'l give it a look thanks.

Slavery ending meant, the people picking cotton on the fields had to now had money go into their hands and then use that to pay their own bills. It's mostly more money exchanging hands instead of whole sales for slave owners.
More money exchanging hands the more you can look at economy shit happening. The former slaves actually got shat on more because they were being given shit wages that gave them less then when they were slaves.
After a while though, the next industrial revolution happened, and low paid immigrants got lopped in the same bad hoop as the former slaves but less institutions to fuck them over.

>What the hell's your point?
My point, is that I suspect the current answers we automatically go to are just ancient war time propaganda.

I'm trying to unearth an actual solid economic argument for the abolition of slavery during the late 1800's and I can't seem to find one.

Attached: EG2hLsK[1].png (963x720, 602K)

Even niggers have rights.

This is what I thought to.

I'm not saying they don't.
I want to talk about the economics of it, not the morals.

Slave rebellions cost money and lives, slave rebellions can change politics and make reconquest of valuable territory very difficult (Haiti's a good example of this) Workers on the other hand consume more (the economically rational slavemaster will keep his slaves fed enough only to keep them alive and stave off rebellion), this increase in consumption increases aggregate demand, which would grow the economy.

Forced innovations in automation that otherwise would have taken a lot longer to have come about - if they came about at all. So long as people are cheaper than machines, people do the jobs of machines.

Also made slavery pretty much universally unacceptable in short order (not that America wasn't just about the last bastion of it at the time). Just cuz it isn't happening to you, doesn't mean it can't happen to you. This also lent American public support to any effort to expand its power when toppling a slave-like dictatorship was involved, making things like the Monroe doctrine easier to implement, ultimately securing hegemony over the region, and cementing "freedom" as an unsullied core American principle that it's people would willing lay their lives down for.

So yeah, all around, worked out pretty good. If there was no effort to put an end to that, agriculture in the US today might look a lot more like medieval Europe, and it would be an isolated backwards place of no consequence, perhaps absorbed by a more forward thinking power in need of vast untapped resources.

Attached: e9f255f2d2e2ac6553f1183972003941--big-tractors-john-deere.jpg (510x287, 38K)

Slavery at a first glance seems like an economic ideal, but who is exactly going to be buying the products you manufacture? A big reason why slavery is an ineffective economic model is because it relies on denying the freed class economic opportunity, and how can the freed class buy your products if there is no monetary flow to the freed class? You'd simply be choking your economy and preventing another class of people from purchasing your capital.

African men were superior than wh*Toids because of BBC but wh*Toids had asian gunpowder weaponry so they enslaved them. Thankfully later Africans killed all slavers and established blacked.com website to display their superiority worldwide

Attached: kara boga aktion 2.webm (600x338, 1.04M)

Slave rebellions were never really a threat in the US outside of a handful of specific cases because they treated them like animals, breeding the best and keeping the rest content.

Haiti's slave system had a work to death and replace philosophy that ultimately ended in revolution.

>Workers on the other hand consume more (the economically rational slavemaster will keep his slaves fed enough only to keep them alive and stave off rebellion), this increase in consumption increases aggregate demand, which would grow the economy.
This would not even start to materialize until the 1900's.
I'm not saying your wrong.

>this would not start ot materialize until the 1900's
Elaborate? Southern former slaves could move to the industrial north in order to get wages that weren't as low as their "wage" of living standards as a slave surely? (Honestly not too sure about how reconstruction went down, i'm an economist by education)

KARA BOGA!!!

Attached: 800px-African_Pigmies_CNE-v1-p58-B.jpg (800x1223, 238K)

>but who is exactly going to be buying the products you manufacture?
Other nations.
Mercantilism was the global economic model at the time. The more you export the more wealth you import.
It makes even more sense to exploit a slave class for manufacturing so you can export it and have the government relocate the wealth into projects benefiting the freed classes.

>Southern former slaves could move to the industrial north in order to get wages that weren't as low as their "wage" of living standards as a slave surely?
If that was the case the south today would be majority white and most Africans would be living in newyork, but this is not the case.

I'm not saying it did not happen entirely, but it would seem that the north just brought in immigrants from Europe to act as sudo-slaves in the factories while the freed slaves just remained in poverty in the south.

Attached: 2000px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg[1].png (2000x1483, 1.2M)

>He literally thinks everything manufactured is exported.
Holy fucking shit.

The US was created on the concept that all men were created equal. Jefferson stuck it right up front. It's that whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.

A nation that ignores its basic founding principles will eventually destroy itself.

Tl;dr Either mean what you say, or stfu.

>Mercantilism was the global economic model at the time. The more you export the more wealth you import.
But who exactly gets to partake in that imported wealth? Lower classes in the South suffered from poorer wages than those in the North.
>It makes even more sense to exploit a slave class for manufacturing so you can export it and have the government relocate the wealth into projects benefiting the freed classes.
Again, the southern economy was almost completely exporting their goods to other nations, but they were still significantly poorer than the free North who did the same.
The only people who truly benefited from slavery were the slave owners, not the free peoples. By removing free labor more people enjoyed wages and more partook in the economy at the micro-level.

>why couldn't they be replaced with slaves

look at henry ford's attitude towards his product, he wanted to produce a car that could be owned by the worker that produced it, it's genius because if he pays his workers a liveable rate then they can go out and buy more products, including the car they just got paid to build, stimulating the economy. If those people are slaves the only money they are putting, indirectly i might add, into the economy is the cost of housing, clothing, and feeding them which will not nearly produce as much capital for business compared to a free worker. Wage labour helps grow an economy much more effectively than slave labour as it creates a an entire class of consumer that previous didn't exist

Niggers and women are not men tho.

Daily reminder that strike-breaking is a wholesome American activity and anyone who disagrees deserves an Illinois National Guard bullet in the neck.

Attached: Carnegie.png (1000x2000, 2.74M)

>>> /pol/

That's a strange way to interpret what I said.
We are talking about economic models from the 18th century, not personal beliefs.

>But who exactly gets to partake in that imported wealth?

The farmer/miner uses Slaves harvest resources, the farm/mine owner sells the resources to the manufacturer, the manufacturer uses Slaves(immigrants) make the product, the factory owners exports the product for gold/silver.
Free, non-slave owners make up the merchant and service classes.

>Again, the southern economy was almost completely exporting their goods to other nations, but they were still significantly poorer than the free North who did the same.

Because they were primary agrarian while the north was mostly industrialized. The people producing the resources will always be making less then the people manufacturing them in this scenario because they get wealth from selling to the manufacturers.

This does not mean that they are poor, simply put a plantation owner will never make as much as a factory owner, but the factory owner can't exist without what the plantation owner provides.

>Either mean what you say, or stfu.
Iv been upfront about what I think this entire conversation.
I want to talk about the economics of slavery, not the morals.

The only reason Ford could afford to pay is workers a livable wage was because he was more or less the Bill Gates of the Industrial Revolution. He was selling a hot new revolutionary product that everybody wanted and would pay out the nose for.
I doubt the average textile plant could afford to match fords wages, hence why mechanisms like the company store and child labor existed.

Attached: child-labor[1].jpg (567x401, 81K)

Adam Smith was the first economist to really examine slavery and after running a cost benefit analysis he found it to be an inefficient economic system. He talks about it in the wealth of nations, published in the 1770s.

Basically it comes down to the fact that while slave labor is free, but you pay in other ways. Mainly that slaves have extremely low morale which drives their efficiency to rock bottom. A slave will only work just hard enough to not get a beating for loafing.

Meanwhile you also have to pay for people to watch them, people to hunt them down when they run away, their food, clothing, and shelters. And the fact that it was apparently common for slaves to intentionally mishandle and break tools out of spite.

>He talks about it in the wealth of nations
Do you know what part specifically?
I tried to read it but it's a slog.

>Mainly that slaves have extremely low morale which drives their efficiency to rock bottom. A slave will only work just hard enough to not get a beating for loafing.
I would argue this is still true for """""freed""""" people.
One generation might be happier working a factory then a farm but after that I would expect the same low morale.

>Meanwhile you also have to pay for people to watch them,
Managers
>people to hunt them down when they run away,
Police
>their food, clothing, and shelters.
Somehow its cheaper to pay a person enough for all of this + extras then to just have the factory provide it all.
>And the fact that it was apparently common for slaves to intentionally mishandle and break tools out of spite.
This very thing still happens in the modern world.
I was listening to an old NPR podcast about fords assembly lines and it was full of the workers saying things like "I dropped a screw in the door so it rattles around because my manager yelled at me for coming to work drunk".

Attached: working-in-mill[1].jpg (1000x789, 139K)

A slave would intentionally damage expensive equipment, there were more slaves than police and this is just a pointless amount of micromanagement payed workers are a lot better at self organization. They are also working towards something so they are easier to control than a nihilistic slave when they become disgruntled.
It's like the introduction of weekends to increase labor productivity, sure the effects aren't immediate but the trade off was worth it.

Production and factory owners are not the sole drivers of economic growth you stupid fucker, freed men had higher relative wages, which increased demand for goods, which grw the economy.

>Mercantilism was the global economic model at the time. The more you export the more wealth you import.
>It makes even more sense to exploit a slave class for manufacturing so you can export it and have the government relocate the wealth into projects benefiting the freed classes.
Retard, mercantislism also ensured that other nations would deliberatley seek not toimport from you, Britain's cotton growth being jumpstarted in Egypt is one of the reasons the south ost the war, you need domestic demand in order to grow an economy even more so in a mercantilist world.

Yes this has all been proven true over time, but I think that as the wealth of the nation increased the nihilistic slaves would be weeded out, productive ones would be rewarded and reproduce (this was the american slavery method) and eventually you would end up with the same labor class.

>Production and factory owners are not the sole drivers of economic growth you stupid fucker
I never said they were.

> freed men had higher relative wages, which increased demand for goods, which grw the economy.
Yes we know all this happened in the 19th century. We are talking 18th.

>Retard, mercantislism also ensured that other nations would deliberatley seek not toimport from you
Yes. and?

>Britain's cotton growth being jumpstarted in Egypt is one of the reasons the south ost the war,
Yes basic laws of supply/demand dictating price.

>you need domestic demand in order to grow an economy even more so in a mercantilist world.
I'm not arguing against any of this.

I'm saying all of this would have happened on it's own, with or without the civil war.

this but unironically, all men are born equal /=/ all of mankind is born equal. Men does not refer to women in the first place, and it also doesn't refer to slaves in practical use. Just because the document says men doesn't mean they meant for all of mankind to be equal, that's just being stupid.