Re:How the self-esteem craze took over America (2017)
by rayiner on Sunday November 29, 2020 @08:43AM
(#25245060)
You’re not reducing operating costs to zero. Enslaved people are still people, they must be fed, housed, etc. And while reducing the operating cost of say cotton production can make that business bigger, taking those enslaved people out of the market for consumption makes those other businesses smaller.
Re:How the self-esteem craze took over America (2017)
by xyzzyz on Sunday November 29, 2020 @08:35PM
(#25249894)
> In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity?
Sure, but imagine the alternative where the slaves are paid workers instead: then the same money that you use to invest into your business in slave scenario is instead spent by your workers on other businesses, which then use it to produce other things or invest in their businesses. Again, slavery, instead of increasing total wealth, just redistributes it in favor of slaveholders.
I don't really understand this argument. Surely reducing one of the operating costs of doing business to zero leads to economic growth right? In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the business owner just invest some of that profit into growing the business, thereby increasing productivity?
Alternatively, they can lower their prices in order to beat competitors. If they're producing a commodity, this can have the knock-on effect of lowering the price of finished goods using that commodity.
Another point of comparison is, in places where they discover "free resources" like petrochemicals, like Norway, that does lead to prosperity, doesn't it?