Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

There is no such thing as zero cost labour :rolleyes:

To be a productive slave they have to be fed, clothed, housed and guarded. These things don't come free.
 
I'm sure a farmer would prefer to trade his combine harvester for 100's(?) of slaves (and associated costs) working with scythes...his productivity would skyrocket!

Part of the issue with slavery is also that the owners were not making decisions based solely on the economics.

They believed they were superior to blacks and that it was their given right to dominate them. With that extreme bias, does anyone really think they could exercise good judgement.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as zero cost labour :rolleyes:

To be a productive slave they have to be fed, clothed, housed and guarded. These things don't come free.

Let me get this straight. You two believe that people who were stolen from their homelands or bred into slavery, forced in to dwell huts outside of houses, who picked cotton and sewed clothing, who grew crops and reared animals, that were given scraps to live on... these people were a high costs centre?

You two could have a sketch on one of Rory Brmners shows.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that slave labour is superior to mechanisation and automation.

Who said that? And besides

Door 1: Machines require maintenance and the financial big-wigs will have thoroughly analysed the scenario to minimise irr so if they employ people then the writing is on the wall.

Door 2: Machines can't do everything.
 
Last edited:
No cost to owning slaves.

Alright then.


If there wasn't a profit to be made why would they transport them 000s of miles. They were given just enough to survive the journey and many perished on route.

So in a free market economy why did slavery play such a big part and role.

It is true what you say here Part of the issue with slavery is also that the owners were not making decisions based solely on the economics.

They believed they were superior to blacks and that it was their given right to dominate them. With that extreme bias, does anyone really think they were making the best decisions?
but that you can possibly believe this trash is
remarkable to think you can entertain the tought.


White man made irrational decision over importing slaves and made an economic loss or didn't maximise his potential profits. Amazing...

I'm stunned into shock. :(
 
Let me get this straight. You two believe that people who were stolen from their homelands or bred into slavery, forced in to dwell huts outside of houses, who picked cotton and sewed clothing, who grew crops and reared animals, that were given scraps to live on... these people were a high costs centre?

You two could have a sketch on one of Rory Brmners shows.


Tweedle dee and tweedle dum springs to mind...
 
By 1843, several hundred slaves a year were successfully escaping to the North, making slavery an unstable institution in the border states.The Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery, thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the institution's demise.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intention of enforcing Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.

There is a difference between slave labor being "efficient" for the slave owner and its effect on society as a whole. Of course slavery was profitable to slave owners. This government-supported system helped them confiscate the fruits of the slaves' labor. But since slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor, and since so many resources had to be devoted to enforcing the system — most of which were the result of government interventions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, mandatory slave patrol laws, and laws that prohibited manumission the system imposed huge burdens ("dead weight loss," in the language of economics) on the rest of society.

Free laborers and non-slave owners in the South (at least 80 percent of the adult population) were the primary victims of these government-imposed costs, and would have been a natural political constituency for their eventual abolition. In real terms, the entire southern economy, including both whites and blacks, was less prosperous" overall because of slavery.
 
free labourers? - but surely slavery by any other name name would smell as sweet?

I'm not in the mood to school anyone on the real situation surrounding the abolition of slavery (if you don't know it!) and the thread has taken another diversion into the land of fruitless musings.

Yawn thread again.
 
free labourers? - but surely slavery by any other name name would smell as sweet?

Free labourer means someone who is not a slave. I hope you don't keep your inside information about the real situation surrounding the abolition of slavery a secret for too long, the world needs to know.
 
free labourers? - but surely slavery by any other name name would smell as sweet?

I'm not in the mood to school anyone on the real situation surrounding the abolition of slavery (if you don't know it!) and the thread has taken another diversion into the land of fruitless musings.

Yawn thread again.


Agreed. When faced with any challenge to their daft arguements they recede away into the yonder...

I'm absolutely stunned how anyone could present such a daft supposition and call it a study to have reached these conclusions. I really am.
:eek:
 
The employment situation is so bad in many countries around the world that many people find the wages from 1 job aren't enough and so they have to have 2 jobs i.e. wage slaves.
The millions without any job or prospects of one accept slavery conditions as preferable to starving.
Most of the do-gooders are western liberals living comfortably on social handouts and Daddy's money.
Not that I am supporting slavery but the realities of life should also be considered.
If the world's financial system collapses, which looks likely, a new Dark Age is certain. Slavery etc. will then be a commonplace reality.
:eek:
 
The employment situation is so bad in many countries around the world that many people find the wages from 1 job aren't enough and so they have to have 2 jobs i.e. wage slaves.
The millions without any job or prospects of one accept slavery conditions as preferable to starving.
Most of the do-gooders are western liberals living comfortably on social handouts and Daddy's money.
Not that I am supporting slavery but the realities of life should also be considered.
If the world's financial system collapses, which looks likely, a new Dark Age is certain. Slavery etc. will then be a commonplace reality.
:eek:

Money doesn't makes people rich. There are millions of people starving because they don't have fresh water to grow their own crops or keep livestock. In other words, they cant even have a subsistence economy. This has zero to do with slavery or greed or the financial system.

If you have lots of money but nothing to buy then you are just as poor as someone with lots to buy and no money. The question is, what is the best way to get lots of production with lots of choice and high quality? Is it slavery or is it freedom?
 
What amazes me is that a country like Pakistan suffers regular floods since time began. Over thousands of years you would think the locals might have twigged it that there will be more floods. But no it just goes on and on. They can fight a useless war against civilised countries but can't even put up adequate flood defences.
If ALL the people affected put in for free 1 day a week minimum to raise levees it would be a start. They should get their priorities right, get off their backsides and get on with it, even if it takes 100 years it would be worthwhile.
 
The world need to know? Probably not as it doesn't care. A black family living in Liverpool? Probably, yes.
You ever seen a slave keepers ledger? I've seen a few but you stick to scanning the internet for articles and videos and writing condescending posts if you want.
 
What amazes me is that a country like Pakistan suffers regular floods since time began. Over thousands of years you would think the locals might have twigged it that there will be more floods. But no it just goes on and on. They can fight a useless war against civilised countries but can't even put up adequate flood defences.
If ALL the people affected put in for free 1 day a week minimum to raise levees it would be a start. They should get their priorities right, get off their backsides and get on with it, even if it takes 100 years it would be worthwhile.


Pat old beam - you've lost the plot again. Instead of looking far away places look at home inside your heart even.

In the UK we have far more than Pakistan has in terms of pretty much Land / Labour and Capital yet instead of building and making things better our generation of people chooses to **** all over it by vandelising and destroying what the old generation have built.

I think you could put some grey efforts into thinking what 1m youngsters can do with the resources at their fingertips and bundles of help and money thrown at them.

Not to mention stealing copper wire and vandellising infrastructure that effectively brings London to a standstill when trains effup.


As for working for free that is not slavery its called voluntary work and there our vacations available for such work.

But we do need a minimum wage. I notice that even with the big fat cats salaries when they are calculating they are using average salaries to compare rather than lowest and highest differential.

I'm willing to bet a Lithuanian cleaner could make better economic decision and run a company better than some of our fat chief execs who are more interested in biscuits and lining their pockets on the golf course. To think these people are irreplacable is plain daft.

A statistic was released which said only one of these chief exec fat cats was head hunted in the last year. So to think they are all much in demand is a lot of bollox.

Compared to nurses or Polish builders. Also - one British company with heavy duty work assembling various metal works said not one English applicant applied for the job but only foreigners did.

So I'm a little confused where all this slavery BS talk and just working for food has crept into this Keynes v Hakek arguement.


Problem is still capitalism which has little or no clue on how to approach a slow down as the whole system is based on mass consumption and production.

The system has no heart and moreover is skewed to screwing your fellow mate. Look at Nestle take of cadburies or the cheese producer. Free market my ass.


The solution is to give more of the money to people who don't have not more to those who already have more than they need.

People are very creative and in the sub-underclass there are many gems who are not likely to ever come to fruitition because capitalism is a soulless, heartless son of a bitch.


I'm also really dissapointed with the elite of this country who can't see this. People work their bollox off to the deprivation of their families and wonder why the family brakes down and our kids grow like wilder beast.

Capitalism needs serious transformation into a mixed economy with a little more heart and tough love. Big corporations need a social conscience.

Increasingly I'm thinking a 4 day week sounds like a good start instead of the 50 hours ****.
 
Pat old beam - you've lost the plot again. Instead of looking far away places look at home inside your heart even.

***.

I'm looking I'm looking
I can hear a ticking noise
You don't there is a time bomb implanted there by aliens do you ?

:)
 
Top