Economics of Slavery

Just a very short question: Is slavery good or bad for the economy?
I don't mean the sexy kind of slavery, I mean straightforward unpaid labor. Like, if orcs and prisoners are made to work in the mines for all their days, and indentured servants can be perma-bought, is that an economic plus or minus?
It would seem to resolve the need for an unskilled workforce tasked with intensive labor (Hence, no need for immigrationl, without the risks of integrating them.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good for the wealthy, bad for the working class, so by most economists' definition of good economies it's good for the economy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. One of the things that fricked the Roman Empire

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Slavery is good for slave-owners, bad for non slave-owners.

      It's bad because feeding and housing them is more expensive than paying them and making them figure out how to feed and house themselves. Especially if there aren't strong regulations and you can own the homes they rent and the stores they buy their food from.

      These are both true. Wage-slavery is the most refined form of slavery. The ancient Babylonians would salivate at modern civilization.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Slavery enriches the slave owners at the expensive of the overall economy. The latter part if your statement is incorrect

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Money is political power said enrichment would be used to entrench themselves further. It is absolutely not good for the working class

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He wasn't talking about the "not good for the working class" statement, he was talking about the part where economists would say it's good for the economy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Slavery enriches the slave owners at the expensive of the overall economy.
        As long as the wealthy are doing well, it's a healthy economy, and any other metrics will be twisted around until they look good.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nah the Southern slave owners did well for themsleves but the region was way behind the North in the pre 1900s USA.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he's agreeing with you anon. He's joking that if its good for rich people even if its bad for the rest of the population economist will claim its good for the economy because they only care about rich people because that who pays economist or at least thats my interpretation of his post.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >so by most economists' definition of good economies it's good for the economy
      And who said this?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Look at any description of "how the economy's doing" (wealthy are getting wealthier while everyone else is struggling to afford food and shelter - great economy!) or what things are "good for the economy" (inflation that steals buying power out of the workers' pockets = good for the economy, free trade that impoverishes local workers = good for the economy, tariffs that keep jobs at home = bad for the economy, deflation that increases workers' buying power = bad for the economy).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >implying that's what deflation does

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Keynesians

        Socialists always need their slave class.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's bad because feeding and housing them is more expensive than paying them and making them figure out how to feed and house themselves. Especially if there aren't strong regulations and you can own the homes they rent and the stores they buy their food from.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean I thought the point is that you don't pay them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but you pay to feed and house them. You have to provide food and water and clothing and a place to sleep and maybe medical attention and they might have been expensive to buy up front.
        Weigh that against pinging a couple of pennies off of their heads and telling them to be off your property within five minutes of their shift ending and the economic scale tips far away from slavery being efficient.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The math there doesn't add up at all.
          Average yearly food expenses for US households: $9343.
          Transportation: $12295
          Utilities: $6888
          Housing: $24298
          Median household earnings: $94003.
          Total expenditures are $52824.
          Even after paying all income taxes in New York your final earnings are still $66070
          Putting aside how direct slavery would easily reduce total expenses by half or more, there's still a $13246 surplus that would be gained even if you had to pay the same amount of taxes. $41179 if you don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The value added by an unskilled forced labor slave in a pre-industrial society doesn't even come remotely close to the modern median. The yearly income of a lot of historical kings doesn't even come close to the modern median adjusted for inflation and purchasing power of wealth. Also food is subsidized to hell in the modern system. None of these numbers work.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This statement is essentially irrelevant given they had slavery everywhere in the pre-industrial era. There is no evidence to suggest people liked to lose money before the steam engine was popularized.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, you've just been laboring under a false premise.
                Something being uneconomical doesn't necessarily mean you lose money on it. If I say I'll give you $1000 today or $100 a week for the next year, you haven't literally lost money for taking the $1000, but you have still made a poor economic choice. Slave owning societies made and indeed still make less money over time than non-slave societies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                False equivalency. Also I ran the numbers and the data doesn't support your claims at all, sorry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not, actually. Slaves cost more and make less than workers. You reading that as slaves not making any money at all is your problem.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Looks like

                The average price for a slave in 1850 was $400. And the average yearly income for unskilled male laborers was $346.
                You would need to own a slave for maybe a year or less before recouping your costs from productivity if you had terrible profit margins and paid nearly 86% of your total productive earnings to the laborers.
                In reality, calculations instead show that slavers operated at way higher margins closer to 9-1 income-value to initial-cost. You wouldn't make back the cost of a slave in four years, you'd make it back in under a month and a half.
                The one economic downside/disincentive of slavery is that it's a harder start-up because the free laborer, offers immediate financial gains for the employer and has no immediate costs. The reality of slavery is that we didn't stop using it because it was inefficient, we stopped using it because we could now make do without it.
                Pic related.

                ran the numbers too, slaves cost less and make more than workers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The average price for a good slave in the mid 1800s American South was about $2000, which is closer to $75,000 today. That's up front, not including feeding or housing them. The average yearly wage of a skilled free laborer who you didn't have to pay up front and didn't have to continue to pay if he got sick or died or got fired or quit, was somewhere north of about $400, maybe veering towards $500. But you didn't pay out benefits back then either, those wages are the grand total. You'd need to own that slave for about 4 years just to make back the initial cost, much longer if you include the ongoing costs of keeping someone alive and in working conditions. It's not economically efficient.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Slaves make more slaves, dumbass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, then you pay to feed and house them for the years they take to become old enough to do anything productive. Also a bunch die in childbirth and as infants, but you still paid to maintain them up to that point.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The average price for a slave in 1850 was $400. And the average yearly income for unskilled male laborers was $346.
              You would need to own a slave for maybe a year or less before recouping your costs from productivity if you had terrible profit margins and paid nearly 86% of your total productive earnings to the laborers.
              In reality, calculations instead show that slavers operated at way higher margins closer to 9-1 income-value to initial-cost. You wouldn't make back the cost of a slave in four years, you'd make it back in under a month and a half.
              The one economic downside/disincentive of slavery is that it's a harder start-up because the free laborer, offers immediate financial gains for the employer and has no immediate costs. The reality of slavery is that we didn't stop using it because it was inefficient, we stopped using it because we could now make do without it.
              Pic related.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a slave in 1850 was $400
                That's an unskilled gimp cripple or rabid dog who will frick your wife and slit your throat. That's not a skilled slave who knows how to do work that will make you money.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What skills were you looking for? That they excel at getting whipped?

                Cotton picking isn't hard. It's just monotonous, particularly in the heat of the South.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Expected value tracks cost of ownership
                It's almost like slave owners were actually economically literate and just lacking in moral character.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If slaves were that inefficient, nobody would buy them for those prices.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most people didn't. Very few people in the South owned slaves because they were expensive and hard to get profitable. The successful slave owners were pretty much coasting on economy of scale by having a lot of slaves and getting them to do everything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                About 20% of Southern families owned slaves. Not most, but a pretty big number despite the expense.
                Slaves are just that profitable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so profitable that the non-slavery states ran laps around the slavery states

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Economy of scale
                Actually, no. About 99% of slave owners had less than 100 Slaves. 97% owned less than 50 Slaves. And approximately 50% of all Slave owners owned only 1-2 slaves.
                They were generally just a pretty decent investment at the time and practically guaranteed to make their money back if they were doing any kind of work.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Anon that is talking out of his ass

              The average price for a slave in 1850 was $400. And the average yearly income for unskilled male laborers was $346.
              You would need to own a slave for maybe a year or less before recouping your costs from productivity if you had terrible profit margins and paid nearly 86% of your total productive earnings to the laborers.
              In reality, calculations instead show that slavers operated at way higher margins closer to 9-1 income-value to initial-cost. You wouldn't make back the cost of a slave in four years, you'd make it back in under a month and a half.
              The one economic downside/disincentive of slavery is that it's a harder start-up because the free laborer, offers immediate financial gains for the employer and has no immediate costs. The reality of slavery is that we didn't stop using it because it was inefficient, we stopped using it because we could now make do without it.
              Pic related.

              >Anon that actually did his research

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Get fricked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                2/3rds of the slave GDP in this graph are children or women, while the Free are exclusively adult males.
                Child slaves are nearly equivalent in extracted productivity with free adult male workers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Almost like if you own women and children, you're upkeeping women and children. You don't pay a man's wife and children when you hire him.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, you do. If he can't earn enough to maintain the needs of his wife and children, he won't work for you in the first place.
                The entire cause of slavery is that you can maximize the extraction of wealth by completely removing the worker's bargaining power and consent from the matter, thereby increasing your profit margins.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                IF you can keep the costs down. Most slavery systems couldn't and imploded. The most successful have outside subsidies or else still paid slaves and just didn't give them the option to quit. Chattel slavery is barely even a blip on the timeline of slavery.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most slavery systems worked without interruption for several thousands of years, so no, not really. The costs would always be lower than the costs would be for employing laborers, too, and scaling an operation up makes it easy to afford people to keep slaves in line as needed. It's a pretty risk-free system, which is why practically every society has used it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How common is it today for one working adult to be able to provide for his family alone, though? Hell, how common has it ever been? Both men and women working has been the norm rather than the exception throughout history.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What's funny is that if you equalize the results, Free workers end up at half the productivity they had, so slaves are nearly twice as productive as free workers when all is equalized.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Usually bad, because feeding, housing, and clothing slaves is expensive; and they're a lot less fungible than wage workers. You can't just free them because of a down turn in the business, and then re-enslave them when you have a need.

        People just like having servants.

        Most slaves throughout history got allowances.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You move 16 tons and what do you get?
      >Another day older and deeper in debt.
      >Saint Peter don't you call me cause I can't go
      >I owe my soul to the company store

      Good until the inevitable slave revolt

      Slavery has existed for all of human history. How many successful slave revolts are you aware of?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A revolt doesn't have to succeed in order to kill you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Slave revolts are a lot like natural disasters, under normal conditions whether a slave revolt is no issue, but if other aspects of society are failing then a slave revolt can easily push a civ over the edge

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Wagecucking is absolutely the world's greatest form of slavery. Even the people that try to leave and head into the wilderness still end up getting fricked over.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's bad because feeding and housing them is more expensive than paying them and making them figure out how to feed and house themselves.
      >landlords, when given the choice, preferred slavery over wage labor for no fricking reason

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They had the choice for centuries and still went with feudal land renting over slavery.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is only true if a certain economic level has been reached and the population has been cowed with enough generations of centralized authority that they genuinely believe their rulers have the right to rule simply because they call themselves rulers. The switch from slavery to workers occured only because military power was centralized behind a single monarch, the power of religion was curtailed and eradicated, inventions that made labor rely less on a team of men and more on the machinery itself, the destruction of clan systems and isolation of the family unit, ability for actual foreign immigration, etc.

      You could never just flip the switch and create the working class chattel in one generation. It takes generations of domestication and rigid social controls to change the slave class mentality into a working class one.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >picrel
        Holy shit, what an impossible bootlicking homosexual.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are at least partially true in my view.
        If a job makes you sign a piece of paper like that though it is 100% a terrible job.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A lot of those are partially true, but few of them are wholly true. Like, looking at 8, there are obviously people who complain too much and could do with just shutting up and putting in the work. In the context of that whole list it seems to me like not complaining is at least implied to include not pointing out any genuinely fricked up and wrong things at work, and not daring to demand reasonable working conditions or anything else from the employer. 7 is just untrue in my experience. From what I've seen it's not the people who work long day without complaining who distinguish themselves from the rest, it's people who speak up enough to be noticed but not in a way that'd make them annoying to their bosses. Aside from that, employment is basically selling specific services for a specific amount of time to the employer, and the idea that employees should feel obligated to do more than the agreed-upon work is pretty bad idea. I mean, employment could be something else than that, there could be a genuine sense of commitment to the employer and the job, but in my opinion such an attitude would only be possible, or at least it would only be healthy and beneficial, if it was mutual, with the employer also viewing employees as something more than a resource to be used. As long as employment is purely transactional from the employers perspective, it should be the same from the employee's perspective, and no one should have the nerve to even imply that employees should do above and beyond what's agreed on in their contract.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Man, it makes me so sad Mike Rowe of all people sold out so fricking hard to rich old fricks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Weird class warfare propaganda. The sort of shit spewed by slavers.
        > - You ought to be happy to be alive.
        > - You are entitled to work.
        > - "There is no such thing as a 'bad job.'"
        Wow. That's so blatently a middle-mangers having some sort of wet-dream.
        > - Frick your dreams, be passionate about the work I give you.
        > - Avoid rent.
        Hey now, that's a legit good stance. This one isn't class warfare propaganda, that's some good solid advice about how to get a leg-up in the world.
        > - All factory injuries are your fault.
        > - You will work overtime for free.
        (Note: anyone even farting in the direction of this thing will NEVER reward anyone, even if they are "distinguished", even in their eyes.)
        > - You will not complain.
        > - Learn. (But I'm not going to pay for it).
        Hey, this is another generally good one. The boss doesn't want to pay for it, sure, but it's absolutely solid advice to proactively go get an education.
        > - Tough individualism.
        These are the BEST people to subject to random vandelism. "hey man, that was the product of your choices. If you didn't want your car keyed or your tires slashed you should have made better life choices".
        > - You will not hate the boss for being lucky and rich.
        > - All people are equal, choices matter.
        Also a pretty good mindset. It's not a 100% true, but equality is good. The dude is showing his colors and presuming that poor people are choosing to be poor. But life choices DO matter. And it makes a lot of frickers poor.

        hehehe, and it has to be signed by the worker and the boss.

        I'm saving this as a prop for my grimdark dystopian corporate hellscape campaign. They're asteroid miner wage-slaves.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it has to be signed by the worker and the boss
          Mike Rowe was the host for the Discovery show Dirty Jobs, which highlighted often obscure or sort of 'hidden' jobs you wouldn't think about, all of which involved manual labour, getting dirty, and usually underpaid. This pledge is him promoting his image as the hard-working blue collar millionaire, but this is supposed to be a self regulation thing, not a company agreement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mike Rowe was the host for the Discovery show Dirty Jobs
            I feel compelled to mention existence of The Worst Jobs In History with Tony Robinson. That's some prime mudcore worldbuilding.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bad, slaves don't spend money.
    GDP go up = good economy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ask the Romans.
      By the late republic, the middle class was destroyed by the rich bringing in endless slaves to work mega-plantations which the average Roman farmer couldn't compete with. This directly led to the collapse of Roman politics and the republic.

      Not especially. The best way to phrase it would probably be that it causes stagnation. It's a brute force solution that causes you to become more reliant on a brute force solution, rather than innovating or figuring out how to do a task more safely or efficiently.

      That said, if you're trying to justify it within a fantasy game, just remember that ancient civilizations still practiced slavery despite the problems. Putting prisoners, especially prisoners of war, to work in dangerous conditions like a mine would be very easy for them to justify compared to simply executing them.

      My understanding is that if more people have money then more people spend money, which means more demand for a wider range of goods and services, so more jobs and more high skill jobs, so even more income and more spending.

      these guys Marx

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Now I realize that socialist don't like knowing things but you are aware that the pyramids were largely built by paid masons and farmers during the seasons when they couldn't farm right?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          True, but the scholarly opinion at the time of Marx was that they were built by slaves. Either way, the actual point he's making is about the unproductive expenditure of labour under a slave-owning system, the Pyramids are just an example, and not critical to the analysis.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not in the long-term, no. The end result of the inevitable revolt is a large, lump sum cost that critically damages most economic systems, and the net gain from slave labor is reinvested elsewhere and cannot be recouped or paid for at the time of the revolt.

    Usually best to have the labor force willingly buy into the economic system they're a part of, so they're less likely to be so detached from any gains from it that they're unwilling to continue suffering the losses of it.

    In terms of bad faith labor investments, Indentured Servitude or a Roman Slave-to-Citizen system is a far better means of stable labor force.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It depends on what your economic model is.

    It works on an agrarian model where you have cash-crops. This goes all the way back to antiquity. The farming is relatively simple work that you want to maximize your volume for. Using unskilled slaves and a lot of them helps increase your productivity, and thus profit.

    This is why they didn't use slaves to farm corn, or pumpkins, but stuff like sugar, tobacco, cotton. It also worked in very unpleasant and deadly production fields, such as rum or dye-making to a certain extent (slaves in the carribean often suffered terrible burns from rum-production).

    However this is offset by slaves becoming a majority since you want their numbers to increase labor. This was a problem for Sparta, who had to keep a portion of their army in Sparta at all time to stop constant revolts by the Helots. That said- while maybe not sociologically stable you can still turn a profit at this.

    Where it breaks down is with industrialized labor. Industrialized labor requires at least some education, and the production of finished goods means you are competing for quality. One batch of cotton is pretty much the same as any other, compared with say two different car models. This means you want your workers to WANT to make good products. And you do this by offering pay incentives. Sure- early industrial jobs sucked. But at least you could earn a promotion, and for most people what they earned at a factory was more than they could get elsewhere. This meant that workers were invested in the success of the company.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't really trust slaves to use a jackhammer responsibly now can you? Slaves also have zero investment in how much money the owner is making. There's the age-old stereotype that slaves are lazy. Because what the frick do they get form a hard work effort? Do they get a pay-raise if they pick cotton real good? Of course not. If anything the incentive is to frick over the owner. This happened with slave-labor in the concentration camps which was uniformly under-standard and faulty, and usually a complete waste of resources.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If anything the incentive is to frick over the owner
        This actually happened in the Caribbean. Slaves would fake incompetence to make an overseer look bad.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not just the Carribean, the American South too. I have to assume Brazil as well, but when you look at descriptions of slaves at the time they were frequently lambasted as 'the laziest people in the world', and it was assumed to be either genetic, or a mental illness. Though in turn, it was turned into a justification of slavery- they're so lazy that if they weren't enslaved they'd never work, so it was said.

          Funnily enough during reconstruction, Freedmen were described as some of the busiest people on the planet, contemporary accounts said they were doing everything they could to educate themselves, or learn new skills so they could take advantage of their freedom. One account I read was of a cab (horse and buggy) driver that was taking a guy around town in the South, and every time he stopped to go into a building for business the driver took out a notebook so he could practice reading and writing.

          Turns out if people GET something for working they have a REASON to work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Sparta wither when its Helots organized a mass-migration out and the military by then was too small to stop them from leaving?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That was the hilarious thing. The Spartans were more than capable of(and often would) culling Helot rebellions. But them just picking up their stuff and fricking off? They weren't prepared for that.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like the problem of integration doesn't go away if you replace immigrants with slaves, they're "the others" as well.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Horrific for the working class. You're competing with free.
    At the same time, you're still much more disposable.
    And you probably get the blame for what your oppressors did to other, both making you a target and completely undermining your own grievances.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In raw economic terms, forced labor solves coordination problems. That is, getting a given number of people in one place at one time to do a large-scale task. The catch is that doing this with full-time slaves means you're necessarily relying on quantity over quality due to motivational problems and all such people are not engaging with whatever minor opportunities the position would normally allow for.

    Consequently, you need an outright population sink, the society's members being unwilling to do what the society needs, or an opportunity that the workforce otherwise does not exist to fulfil. The first is commonplace in mines, the second is iconic of "palace economies" when people were still figuring out the basics of civilization, and the third crops up most frequently during rapid conquest as a society outpaces its population growth.

    Overuse of full-time forced labor results in social problems, with the most important of them being cutting the free lower classes out of major economic sectors. This leaves them uninvested in the society, leaving one with nothing but bad options for military matters.

    Note the "full time" qualifier. Serfdom, Copyhold, Corvee, there's a lot of systems that entail part-time forced labor as social obligations at various levels, which gets you the coordination without the problems of dividing the lower classes against themselves and the society or wasting man-hours.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The reason slavery became less common, I do not say stopped because there are still millions of slaves in the world today in less developed countries, is because we advanced technologically to the point that it ceased to be beneficial.

    The reason that slavery existed as an institution in the past on every single continent on earth, was because there were tasks which were frankly horrible. Things that were dangerous, or back breakingly hard. People didn't want to do these tasks, in some cases they were literal death sentences, so they would take slaves and compel them to do them. From their perspective the labor of keeping the slaves in line and the risk of revolt was superior to the cost of doing the task itself. With the advance of technology a lot of these tasks were no longer necessary, or became much safer or less physically intensive, and thus slaves became a less desirable option.

    But you best believe that if the navy still needed to have oarsmen propelling their warships to flanking speed there would still be fricking slaves in the belly of that ship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Provide a reasoned argument as to why I am wrong or concede the point.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I concede the point

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Slaves are still in literally every country in the world, but the monied ones think it's gauche to call them that. You can emulate this pretty well in worldbuilding for games by leaning on euphemisms and having some countries be snobby about other regions because they're doing the same thing but the propaganda is worse. Forcing prisoners to do things is the typical grift, and the powerful get to decide who gets sent to prison and who gets passed through unscathed by the courts or allowed to save face with a fine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The reason that slavery existed as an institution in the past on every single continent on earth, was because there were tasks which were frankly horrible. Things that were dangerous, or back breakingly hard. People didn't want to do these tasks, in some cases they were literal death sentences, so they would take slaves and compel them to do them. From their perspective the labor of keeping the slaves in line and the risk of revolt was superior to the cost of doing the task itself. With the advance of technology a lot of these tasks were no longer necessary, or became much safer or less physically intensive, and thus slaves became a less desirable option.
      We should keep using slaves for these sorts of jobs as a way to occupy the surplus population.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have a vague recollection of reading that rowers in oar-propelled warships of antiquity were more likely to be free men than slaves, as achieving speed and agility with such a ship required a skilled and motivated crew. I could be wrong and don't really have the time to to check my facts right now, though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In Antiquity, yes. Ottomans were the ones to use slaves/prisoners. They didn't rely on ramming, which requires a very good crew to pull off, but boarding (through the spur that replaced the ram) and eventually cannons. Don't remember other cases like Eastern Romans though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're correct- there was a couple decades in the 1600's when Galley Slaves were popular, taken from Christian or Muslim coastlines. The idea is stupid though, because their incentive is to kill the guy in charge when war breaks out, and join the other side- particularly if the other side is their religion which it frequently was.

        In Antiquity, yes. Ottomans were the ones to use slaves/prisoners. They didn't rely on ramming, which requires a very good crew to pull off, but boarding (through the spur that replaced the ram) and eventually cannons. Don't remember other cases like Eastern Romans though.

        The Knights Hospitalier too, alongside the Barbary nations like Tunis and Morrocco.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We had both freeman miners and oarsmen.

      It's also important to understand slavery was not a static institution.

      During the Roman Era, slaves were mostly used for mines thanks to how intensive mining back then, usually working them to death. Though what were particularly prized were greek slaves to use as tutors for families. There were many different gradiations of slave, and most anyone could end up as one depending on who Rome was conquering that week.

      African Slaves were used simply because they were cheap and there was a lot of them. Many colonizers tried enslaving native-americans but they died of disease too easy. However, Spain was able to use the Encomienda system since the regions they conquered had a large population of Indians, and prohibitions on women settlers meant you had a LOT of mixed-race couples creating a complex racial hierarchy. Then you also had white indentured servants thrown into the mix.

      But as generations passed, you ended up with ONLY black people being slaves at least in the North American colonies, which in turn lead to a hardening of slavery laws. Jefferson and Washington both freed their slaves on their death, while southern states would later outlaw Manumission.

      >Many colonizers tried enslaving native-americans but they died of disease too easy.
      I understand that the main problem with Americans was that they tended to walk off and most American communities were happy to take them in, as their polities were still recovering from the population dip brought about by breathing the same air as the English.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      lol. have you looked at the american prison system?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are right, but antiquity ships used free men for their rowers. Its the only the Barbary coast city-states who used slave rowers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine a world where we had invented the cotton gin 50 years earlier, technology can be all sorts of disruptive in a good way.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ask the Romans.
    By the late republic, the middle class was destroyed by the rich bringing in endless slaves to work mega-plantations which the average Roman farmer couldn't compete with. This directly led to the collapse of Roman politics and the republic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's important to look at the knock on effects of this. Huge campaigns in the Mediterranean brought back loads of slaves, and also kept soldiers in the field for long periods of time. It's important to remember that in order to be a soldier, you *had* to own land. So, soldiers gone for many years, their land goes fallow and their family goes into debt, they come back and are forced to sell the land to rich patricians, who then consolidated the land and worked it with slave labor.

      What this meant was that Rome was literally running out of soldiers, because fewer and fewer people owned land. This led, in part, to the Marian reforms, which created a professional soldier class, which REALLY fricked things over in the next generation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >their land goes fallow and their family goes into debt, they come back and are forced to sell the land
        Even when they did come back and the land was fine, it turns out career soldiers are shit farmers and it goes bad anyway

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the type of economic behavior. If your economy is based on jobs that are both low skill and easy to objectively measure (e.g. resource extraction, many kinds of agriculture) then slavery is a strong economic booster. If your economy is based on jobs that either require specialized skills or are difficult to quantify into quotas, then slavery is probably not going to be very useful.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good for agrarian economies, bad for industrialized economies.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Mhm, that's why it continues in those economies that are based on such things. More industrialized economies shift away from using slaves to avoid having to maintain the infrastructure supporting the slave system (instead going to migratory impoverished but technically paid workers, generally, for those low skill + quantifiable jobs that remain).

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not especially. The best way to phrase it would probably be that it causes stagnation. It's a brute force solution that causes you to become more reliant on a brute force solution, rather than innovating or figuring out how to do a task more safely or efficiently.

    That said, if you're trying to justify it within a fantasy game, just remember that ancient civilizations still practiced slavery despite the problems. Putting prisoners, especially prisoners of war, to work in dangerous conditions like a mine would be very easy for them to justify compared to simply executing them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's also important to understand slavery was not a static institution.

      During the Roman Era, slaves were mostly used for mines thanks to how intensive mining back then, usually working them to death. Though what were particularly prized were greek slaves to use as tutors for families. There were many different gradiations of slave, and most anyone could end up as one depending on who Rome was conquering that week.

      African Slaves were used simply because they were cheap and there was a lot of them. Many colonizers tried enslaving native-americans but they died of disease too easy. However, Spain was able to use the Encomienda system since the regions they conquered had a large population of Indians, and prohibitions on women settlers meant you had a LOT of mixed-race couples creating a complex racial hierarchy. Then you also had white indentured servants thrown into the mix.

      But as generations passed, you ended up with ONLY black people being slaves at least in the North American colonies, which in turn lead to a hardening of slavery laws. Jefferson and Washington both freed their slaves on their death, while southern states would later outlaw Manumission.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Jefferson was kind of an oddball case. He owned slaves but then also openly made it as easy as possible for them to escape, and reportedly once openly laughed at someone who asked him if he wanted help retrieving a runaway.
        Washington was more of the straightforward "year of jubilee" manumission on death types, popular among certain christian sects at the time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, but it shows that slavery, while still an awful institution, wasn't so built on the concept of racial hierarchy in the US. It wasn't seen as an existential threat to have free blacks moving around, whereas later the South would make laws to automatically enslave any black man who was in the South for more than three weeks.

          I think a part of it was the phasing out of white and native american slaves, but the Haitian Revolution was also a big factor as it scared the piss out of White Southerners that their slaves might all kill them in their sleep.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Moreover, slave economies discourage capital investment outside of acquiring more slaves, so the society develops much more slowly than it would without slavery. And if those slaves revolt, escape, or are emancipated, all that capital investment just poofs away in an instant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Putting prisoners, especially prisoners of war, to work in dangerous conditions like a mine would be very easy for them to justify compared to simply executing them.
      Fantasy games exist in this weird anachronistic crossroads of justice. On the one hand, you have roving bands of pirates and brigands as a staple part of the genre. But you also tend to have a fairly modern conception of justice/legal systems, like organized town guards and armies instead of vigilantes and mobs. Our depictions of crime are usually genre-centric, but our depictions of justice and government tend to be firmly rooted in our reality.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Prisoners doing forced labor as part of their punishment isn't exactly dethatched from our reality, even within the modern day.
        More importantly though, just because there are many fantasy games that are anachronistic doesn't mean it can't still be done. Doubly so because it's not even clear what sort of context OP is considering implementing this. That faction of slavers doesn't need to be seen as a good thing after all. The fact that the question was in terms of economic viability would only further make it seem like the morality/legality of the act wasn't as big of an issue.

        I'm merely pointing out that it's not hard to justify people in a fantasy setting doing slavery on a large scale despite it not being efficient or causing their society to stagnate, mostly because there are plenty of historical examples of people not being perfectly efficient.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Prisoners doing forced labor as part of their punishment isn't exactly dethatched from our reality, even within the modern day.
          Yeah, but the sentence for the kinds of criminals that most adventurers run into in the course of a campaign is death, usually by hanging. Mutilation is a classical alternative; ye olde "cut off the hand used for thievery" type stuff. People want to roleplay the just Paladin who nonlethally subdues the bandits and turns them into the local constabulary, but it never crosses their mind that the local constabulary's first plan is to march them to the nearest crossroads and gibbet, and that's not even a remotely "evil" act in the context of history.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, but the sentence for the kinds of criminals that most adventurers run into in the course of a campaign is death, usually by hanging
            It certainly can be, but we're not necessarily talking about the context of what the players do with their prisoners. OP's question is about how it would work in a broader society.
            As you said, the players probably don't mind much either way. If anything, the Paladin who nonlethally subdues the bandits might be less happy to hear that they're being summarily executed compared to if the local authorities instead stated that they'd be sentenced to time in the mines.

            Of course, that also assumes that this slave-owning culture is meant to be one that the PCs are meant to be from, rather than an external nation which could be ally or adversary. Or that the setting is a typical medieval pastiche rather than being closer to the bronze age. There's a lot of room here in terms of worldbuilding without simply needing to default to D&D-isms.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, its awesome for production, which is awesome when you are trying to dominate the international market, but unless you codify property rights for certain groups you wont see external investments into your territory or voluntary migration of high quality individuals.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My understanding is that if more people have money then more people spend money, which means more demand for a wider range of goods and services, so more jobs and more high skill jobs, so even more income and more spending.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That only works in industrialized wage economies where people have spare income to spend on goods in the first place.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I dont believe thats true, we see a huge shift around the fall of the roman empire from villas using slaves to grow cash crops to baronies and fiefs subsistance farming and while they were less strictly profitable for the lords, i imagine their economies were far more rhobust and more wealth was circulated

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not at all. Even feudal economies had that economic incentive, and most of the population was debtors doing barter.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The catch is that in pre-industrial society it's a minority "pull" force rather than the bedrock of economic activity. Hence it taking so long for people to realize economics didn't NEED to be zero-sum.

          You *are* using dialectical materialism to explain the socioeconomic development of your setting, right /tg/?

          No, because my setting has a non-zero number of nosy gods who get smite-happy when materialists take off. They're not necessarily wrong, but the gods are deeply invested in people sticking to spiritual explanations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Would you perhaps say that your gods have an interest in what happens on the material plane? I wonder what I would call that.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From a Marxian perspective, the Slave Economy was the second stage of economic development, after "Primitive Communism" but before Feudalism and later Capitalism.

    As far as the minutiae of it: It allows for an aristocratic elite and the construction of bigger and more fortified cities, the utilization of more resources, so on. At the other end of the spectrum, it also limits certain economic possibilities and sets the dominoes up for slave society's inevitable decline. The Roman Republic devolved into an Empire in part because the smallholding Roman peasants were squeezed out by wealthier Roman estates that could develop more land thanks to slave labor; so at once while it was certainly producing more than what a small family run farm could, the slave economy also forced a great deal of Romans into destitution. Caesar became popular in part because he proposed social welfare measures while most of the rich slave owning senators sneered that the people should just suck up being forced out of work.

    It's also important to understand what "good/bad for the economy" means in this context. Like you can say "line go up mean economy good" but if most people can barely afford to live, chances are they'd think the economy is shit. It really matters when discussing the state of the economy to figure out not if it's good, but good "for who"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The stock market is fake and gay.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good until the inevitable slave revolt

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is like automation.
    Makes the average worker less necessary for physical labor and therefore demands more specialization from him.
    It could be good for the economy If productivity is increased and If the unemployed workers manage to specialize and find new jobs.
    In other words, enslaved orcs can be good because for the economy because they are stronger and more productive and, when enslaved, they arent raiding villages and towns any longer. Going further, If the country provides decent education, workers can specialize better and find new jobs in industries created as a result of this new productivity growth, which makes for an even more positive outcome.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You *are* using dialectical materialism to explain the socioeconomic development of your setting, right /tg/?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't read things written by pedos.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong website to be on, then.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is bad for the economy in the long term. Since it undermines the idea of property rights. Why invent something new if you can just brute force production with inefficient manual labor?

    You also need to have an extremely robust internal security force. The threat of a slave revolt will always be a huge concern. This costs a lot of money.

    I read a book about this: Why Nations Fail. Super interesting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Funny you say that, when Thomas Jefferson specifically replaced 'right to property' to 'right to happiness' because he didn't want to permanently enshrine slavery into the constitution.

      Sounds to me like your book might have had a certain economic slant that it was revising some things to show. My guess being they wanted to distance capitalist economics from slavery.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Sounds to me like your book might have had a certain economic slant that it was revising some things to show. My guess being they wanted to distance capitalist economics from slavery.
        I'd have to read the book again to see if I see any bias. It was mostly about Extractive verses Inclusive economies. The former wouldn't have strong property rights, thus under cutting the incentive for invention and innovation. Slavery comes up as Extractive for the reasons I've already stated.

        The big take away, from what I remember, is that Inclusive Economies are better in the long run because they reward innovation. Extractive Economies will eventually fail because there's not enough reward to progress. The US South with its slavery didn't progress as fast as the North, the USSR fell behind the US during the Cold War, and even China was predicted to slow down and find itself in an economic crisis.

        Really good read. I should read it again.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well I hear 'extractive' and think 'resource extraction' but I'm not sure if that's the case.

          If so- you're right. The South had an economy based primarily on the extraction of raw resources, namely Cotton after the invention of the Cotton-gin, as well as Tobacco, and earlier other cash-crops. Notably this lead to a 'crowding out' effect you often see, where the extraction industry is developed at the expense of all others. Plantation Owners amassed extreme wealth, and with it political power. And not soft-power like Elon Musk has, political office in southern states. And they used that power to crowd out other industries- not just industrialization (which lead to Virgnia being the most industrialized state of the South while all others lagged behind) but small businesses (leading to lagging urbanization in the south) and even other cash-crops (dyes had a large niche in the Carolina's that were pushed out, and tabacco mostly only remained strong in Virginia). This was one of the reasons the Civil War was so bad because once the cash-crop plantations were decimated there was no other sector of the economy to lean back on.

          You see the same thing in petrol-states today- notably Russia which has developed it's oil industry and little else. The oil running out in Venezuela had obvious disastrous consequences as the countries economy collapsed. SOME Arab states are trying to develop tech and service industries to help get around this inevitability we'll have to see if it pays off.

          China though has typically been resource poor, and what's fueled their economic boom is industrialization, alongside making inroads in the tech industry.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And not soft-power like Elon Musk has
            Elon Musk controls part of Ukraine's military infrastructure through Starlink. That's a small step beyond him spamming vids of himself singing Michael Jackson songs on Twitter.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              True- but he still doesn't hold political office and is directly forwarding legislation that'd benefit Twitter or Tesla directly is my point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Does it count if he's lobbied to directly forward legislation that'd benefit tesla? I'm pretty sure thats how he got some of his government contracts

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tom's attitudes towards slavery, slaves, equality and black people can be charitably described as "conflicted" or less charitably as "hypocritical."

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One very important thing to keep in mind in such discussions is that just because an institution (such as slavery) lasted for eons, doesn't mean it's good, even in its own time. Human sacrifice also lasted for eons, as did many utterly moronic practices like ritual scarification, skull deformations, foot binding, and so on.

    It's "Eat shit - billions of flies can't be wrong!" all over again.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In general, the troubles of managing slaves never stop and their use in value-added branches of production is thus limited. It's apparently among the reasons why the Romans switched to a softer patronage model that legally still guaranteed a fixed usufructuary rate on whatever your dependants were earning.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's purely beneficial for the economy in all cases. It's free labor, no shit it's good. There's even nothing stopping you from training your slaves to do something more advanced than menial labor if you want, they don't exactly have the option to refuse.

    Slavery is only opposed out of ethical concerns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's not free labor when you have to clothe and feed your slaves. While they don't have the option to refuse, you can't force genuine motivation, and slaves are always going to require more oversight than paid workers both to mske sure they're doing their jobs and to make sure they don't escape.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's not free labor when you have to clothe and feed your slaves
        And this is going to cost magnitudes less than even the smallest of wages.
        >genuine motivation
        If not being homeless counts as "genuine motivation" in the free world, then so does not getting beaten or starved as punishment for fricking up.
        >and slaves are always going to require more oversight than paid workers both to mske sure they're doing their jobs and to make sure they don't escape
        So no different from non-slaves then.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If not being homeless counts as "genuine motivation" in the free world, then so does not getting beaten or starved as punishment for fricking up.
          That's sufficient as long as its sufficient that the work gets done, with the quality of the work not mattering so much.

          >So no different from non-slaves then.
          No, slaves requiring more oversight than paid workers is pretty much definitionally a difference between slaves and paid workers.

          How do you feel about the numerous arguments made for the economic disadvantages of slavery in this thread, anon? If you disagree with these arguments, how would you go about disproving them?

          In Antiquity, yes. Ottomans were the ones to use slaves/prisoners. They didn't rely on ramming, which requires a very good crew to pull off, but boarding (through the spur that replaced the ram) and eventually cannons. Don't remember other cases like Eastern Romans though.

          You're correct- there was a couple decades in the 1600's when Galley Slaves were popular, taken from Christian or Muslim coastlines. The idea is stupid though, because their incentive is to kill the guy in charge when war breaks out, and join the other side- particularly if the other side is their religion which it frequently was.
          [...]
          The Knights Hospitalier too, alongside the Barbary nations like Tunis and Morrocco.

          Alright, thanks for confirming that vague recollection and giving me some new information in the process.

          Fun fact!
          Whisky isn't just made from corn.
          It can be made from barley, rye or wheat too.

          Barley rather than corn is the first thing that comes to my mind when whiskey is mentioned. I guess it depends on where you're from, or which country's whiskeys you prefer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's whiskey vs whisky, with the latter basically being a type of wodka with smoke aroma infusions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's sufficient as long as its sufficient that the work gets done, with the quality of the work not mattering so much.
            Free men don't work any harder than they need to either. Motivation is not a substantional economic factor. People work or they die, slave or not. The miraculous slave who loves his job and goes above and beyond to do it would be no less rare than the wagie who feels the same way.
            >No, slaves requiring more oversight than paid workers is pretty much definitionally a difference between slaves and paid workers.
            Not really. You need to watch over wagies like a hawk or else they won't do shit. The same goes for slaves. Also, a runaway slave in a society of legal slavery has nowhere to really go and faces criminal status, so them running away is not a big concern. But a wagie dipping on you because he found a better job is a very real possibility.
            >How do you feel about the numerous arguments made for the economic disadvantages of slavery in this thread, anon?
            They're wholly unsubstantiated. The simple fact of the matter is, in economics, the cheaper the labor the better, and it doesn't get any cheaper than slavery. Anti-slavery is an ethical standpoint, but there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Free men don't work any harder than they need to either
              Who would work harder?
              A free men that grown among pears and freely choose his future and undertook years of study to do his job?
              Or a slave whose only choice is work or the stick?
              >You need to watch over wagies like a hawk or else they won't do shit
              Outside of administration not really and it's understandable, I would kill myself too If I where to do spreadsheets and report for the rest of my life.
              >in economics, the cheaper the labor the better
              Wouldn't it be nice if a society had, for a few years, both did regular wage work and slavery based manufacturing for its war effort?
              I wounder what kind of result it would give?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Problem with arguing what's 'best for economics' is a value judgement.

                I think capitalism is a nonsense word, because people use WILDLY different definitions for it.

                Typically when someone is arguing we should do something 'capitalist' they are arguing for constant growth, and maximum profit for the owners. In which case- slavery is wonderful for capitalism. In that view of capitalism, if stabbing your secretary in the throat gets you a nickel, you should do it.

                However- if we want to talk about 'the public good' which is why Adam Smith argued we should use capitalism- IE producing the best products for the cheapest prices, slavery is bad, because selling your labor comes with the opposite goal when it comes to promoting public good. We should pay the most amount of people the most amount of money, the more money more people have, the more it circulates in the economy. I sell you a toy boat, and I use that money to buy new shoes, which the shoemaker uses to pay for a new dress for his daughter, and so on.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Free men don't work any harder than they need to either.
              The generation of my parents, the ones who were at their prime during the fall of communism, developed a perverse pride in working hard, avoiding paid leave, coming to work despite being sick etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There was no shortage of crab in a bucket mentality among slaves either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Crab on a bucket mentality isn't bout working hard but about ragging others down, so what does it have to do with what anon said? That aside, I know for a fact that I don't slack off whenever my boss isn't watching. Most of the time my boss isn't, in fact, watching, and I think I could get away with doing very little if I went so inclined. As I'm not a slave I was able to choose my profession, though, and I went with something I actually find at least somewhat interesting and meaningful, something I prefer doing well rather than passingly. I don't work myself to the limit and I value my free time, but I do put in effort at work without anyone having to force me.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is bad for an economy. The only forms of labour you can do with slavery are so simple that you’ll be kneecapping your long-term economic health. Basically agriculture and resource-extraction. When you get to a complex enough labour-form, a labourer needs, you know, things to be able to do their job. When they don’t have those things they become capable of withholding their labour, either implicitly by doing poorly or explicitly through labour action. The biggest problem is complex labour requires education, which you don’t really want to give to slaves for obvious reasons.

    A slave economy is literally incapable of long-term economic health because cash-crops and resources are a shitty basis for an economy not the least because of their instability. An economy based around these industries has no incentive to grow or advance. The only reason it kept going for so long in the new world is because there was more land to expand to, so you could grow your economy horizontally instead of vertically, but that ran headfirst into the countries that WERE growing their economies vertically (and the Union which had been doing both).

    There are places slave economies would work, such as being sponsored and upheld by a more complex economy for basic resource extraction. That runs into problems though because the educated in the more complex economy probably don’t like slavery, and more importantly, they want to inflict a more complex labour-form onto the simpler economy because complex labour is inherently more valuable. The only countries that make slave-economies work have to make a literal suicide pact where it’s just more trouble to emancipate them than just keep accepting their goods. But these countries are always on borrowed time before they either collapse or simply move through social strife to a more complex labour form.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Just a very short question: Is slavery good or bad for the economy?
    Generally bad. Turns out it was more of a hassle to institute slavery than it was to just hire them on as willing workers for shit wages.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if Rome's progress hadn't been arrested by the black hole of slavery they would have invented steam engines and conquered all of eurasia
    vgh.... vvhat covld have been..............................................

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately the Romans had too many opportunities to expand outward instead of deal with societal change and by the time they didn’t, the ruling class could afford their own protection.

      It sucks but in Rome there’s perhaps a lesson, which is to not let individual families get the chance to plan past your country’s demise.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It depends on the economic system. A slave harvesting crops or mining by hand or with simple tools is fine since even if they get oissy they can’t frick shit up too much in ways that aren’t easily detectable. With complex manufacturing however you don’t want slaves simply because the ways something can be half-assed or fricked up without east detection are countless.
    >Make a sword too brittls, feels fine, swings fine, doesn’t fold like a wet piece of paper, start using it and after one sparring session the edge is so chipped that it can’t even be fixed. This doesn’t even get into shit like complex vehicles or electronics.

    Plus you’re oftentimes better off just paying people a shitty wages and not having to deal with the extra difficulty of caring for their food, housing, and medicine, as they take care of that themselves. No need to have slaves when you can pay someone $1 a day for menial work.

    In general terms
    >Pre-1800s
    Slavery is fine for 70-99% of the economy
    >1800s-present
    Slavery is generally inefficient outside of a few niches
    >Robots fricking everywhere future
    No point in having slaves unless you’re a sadist or it’s a status symbol, even sex slaves don’t make sense when you can have customized sex bots

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Just a very short question: Is slavery good or bad for the economy?
    If it was bad then it wouldn't have been so consistently featured in the massive successful empires for so long.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well yeah, when the most complex form of work is banging rocks together it’s easy to enslave people to do that. There’s a reason why those empires fell and it’s because that system is unsustainable.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    depends on the economy
    and dark elves and drow too
    make all their money and slaves through raids
    they're more like sparta, busy with plotting, backstabbing and doing all the raiding, meaning they have very little time to do all the construction/farming and stuff they'd need to keep their society going, relying on slaves instead to do all the work

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's good at getting rid of people you don't like

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is out-competed by cheap immigration. Because you can export the costs of food and housing on the immigrants, but having a lot of them keeps wages down.
    But if you don't have that, it wins.

    However, the most industrialized an economy the less effective slavery is, because you require more and more training to properly perform a job.
    Slaves become expensive for the master to train, and they're inherently less motivated to attain that training and heightened levels of competency.
    So the more complex your setting's economy, the worse slavery is for it and the less competitive it will be.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For societies that fear robotics and AI, it's the best option to get free labor

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends.
    If you want to be a complete dehumanizing piece of shit that barely feeds them or keeps tabs on their health, putting them in hard labor, and have a cheap source of slaves that can make them being sold for pennies with a massive quantitiy for them, then maybe but you will be facing eventually uprisings that will try to circumvent any meassures that keep the slaves in line as often as possible.
    If you treat them as a valuable commodity thats expensive as hell and want to upkeep them as either a sign of status and wealth, or as forced labor that you do not want to lose under any circumstances for ny reason, then its expensive as hell and not economic.
    All in all, slaves are a shitty commodity thats either to expensive or will become an expensive mistake like a chinese substitude product for of poor quality.
    Don't use slaves: Use poorly paid desperate workers instead. They are way more cheaper, can withstand worse conditions, will have to upkeep themselves (thou trying to give them a hand with a few programs might make them more effective, although upkeep should raise), any issues can be argue in a court of law (which would discourage anyone to poor to afford a lawyer), and if the workers unionise as much of an annoyence that would be you can pretty much negotiate shit so any demands stay at a minimun to almost nothing.
    Wageslaves are definetly more affordable.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In general no. Look at rome, much of the farming was done by slaves to the point where regular farmers usually couldn't compete and were forced into the cities and slums. It also stifles innovation because why invent something to make X easier or better when you have all this freely available labor

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    slavery, originally is more about war then it is about the economy.
    You conquer a people but you dont hate them enough to exterminate/genocide them, they are far too hostile to assimilate and keeping a garrison in their land is unfeasible. So you imprison all of them.
    You hand them over to your subordinates/governors because keeping so many prisoners is expensive and you make them pay you for the cost of transfer (The concepts of governor, feudal vassal, business CEO and tribal chief are all kind of blurry)
    Then these guys put their prisoners to work to recoup the losses
    And now you have a slave population

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is also true when some group raids another to capture them and sell them into slavery. It can be exceedingly profitable to sell your captives as enslaved laborers if there's a market for it -- Indian tribes in the Americas did this all the time, and they continued to do so well into colonialism, selling raid captives as slaves to white plantation owners.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        People make fun of Australias, but the British halted the trans-atlantic slave trade.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr: if it continues to happen, it probably makes good economic sense but it depends.

    All of human progress is driven by a disposable class of laborers. Labor is a type of capital, and slavery is a system that ensures this type of labor is not subject to market forces. This is a fact that holds true to today: it's not always explicit slavery, but rare earth metals are mined by slaves and cheap goods are produced in asian sweatshops. All of the wealth that this produces is taken away from the laborers themselves amd ends up being profitable. The moment it's cheaper to not use slavery, there are economic incentives to stop using slaves.

    How effective it is depends on how profitable it is. If the slave labor produces more than it costs, it's an economic net positive. This doesn't mean that your society can't end up in a kind of Malthusian trap where everyone's collectively reasonable and efficient choices end up with a deeply systemically inefficient or broken society as a whole. So you can end up with institutionalized inefficient labor markets based on slavery that exist only because of non-market cultural or societal pressure too.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery was more of a means to boost productivity and get shit done than it being profitable.

    The Spanish had a shitload of Black slaves in the Caribbean primarily because they needed them for the production of rum and liquor. To make rum and liquor you need to boil sugar in horrendous and highly sealed fricking conditions and some Africans would scream in terror when it would get boiling sugar onto their skin. I'm talking about results where the flesh gets peeled off. Nobody other than those being forced to do it would work those kinds of jobs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This sounds like 1619 Project mythology. I don't know so much about what happens in South America but making rum (or whiskey) was a common way for American smallholders to make cash on the side. So common that there was violent resistance to a tax on it in 1791 to pay off debts from the revolutionary war. It doesn't seem like that would be the case if it was so dangerous only disposable slaves would be allowed to do it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Whiskey is made from corn. Rum is made by boiling sugar you dumbass.

        I don't even drink, and I know that different alcohols have wildly different brewing processes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Fun fact!
          Whisky isn't just made from corn.
          It can be made from barley, rye or wheat too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Those are corns.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Those are cereals (like corn), not corn

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You mean maize.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's saying the dangerous part is the distillation, and rum and whiskey are distilled at similar temperatures.

          The Whiskey Rebellion was about Rum now?

          The tax was on liquor, it's just remembered that way since whiskey was the largest product. People were making rum and even growing sugar in the USA at that time, and there were also commercial distilleries making rum from Caribbean molasses.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Whiskey Rebellion was about Rum now?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        dawg the plantations in the carribean were some of the harshest conditions slaves experienced in the new world. I understand being skeptical about this sort of thing but shit like the hatian sugar plantations were well documented

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's also important to note how slavery differed in the 13 colonies. The US was settled relatively late, and as the slave-trade was starting to wind down. Particularly the southern states, which weren't established under England until like the 1720's and 30's.

          Older colonies like in the Carribean and Brazil would tend to just work their slaves to death and buy new slaves. In the US, it was cheaper to let your slaves just have kids (or barring that rape the female slaves yourself) to have more free slaves. This allowed the US enslaved population to grow naturally through interbreeding, while typically in colonies they grew only through importation until the Slave Trade was officially abolished. Only a small minority of slaves were sent to the US (english colonies and others) compared to the Carribean or Brazil

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I understand that historians still marvel and wonder about the fact that African abductees in North America lived long enough to breed.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is good for slave owners, and bad for the economy.
    It runs into a situation where the rich get richer, and have more capital to spend, but there is a limit to what they can spend, or are willing to spend.

    Slaves don't spend money, obviously.
    In the end, wealth disappears from the system, as people that get a lot of money and power very, very rarely want to get rid of it at a decent pace.
    For a modern example, we can see China, and many African nations, where barely paid labor and sweatshops end up with a nation that is starving and on the edge of revolt near-constantly.
    While it's not exactly slavery. all the time (though it routinely is). the systems don't support the nation and the nation and economy start to spiral downward exponentially.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know what I find funny about modern economic discussions is for all the talk about 'trickle down economics' (which is bunk if you know anything about the consumption function- ie you spend more the less you have, you save more the more you have) nobody talks about it's opposite, what's called 'supply-side' economics. IE socialism where you shove cash into the hands of the poor so they can spend it and that cash can circulate in the economy.

      It's why raises are good for the economy, and pay cuts aren't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Giving poor people money stimulates demand, not supply. In fact, subsidizing the demand on anything raises the price artificially. It's like how USA higher education keeps getting more and more expensive because federal grant programs and limitless un-bankruptable credit raise the money that most people have access to for this specific service, which raises demand, while keeping supply the same. Therefore, the seller of the service raises the price, because they can afford to without hurting their bottom line.

        So, it turns out like this:
        >give people money to buy X so that they can have X because X is good
        >people go out and buy X
        >demand has increased but supply hasn't
        >prices increase
        >people still can't buy X because the subsidies have caused the price to grow
        >seller of X ends up being the recipient of the money instead of the people who got the money
        >any excess X created is still sold at the higher price, so consumers haven't really benefitted

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not why student loans are so bad. What's happened is since the 80's they halved funding to colleges and universities from the government, which causes them to double tuition to make up the difference. Then as you note, demand has increased as college degrees become mandatory for jobs, and people have to take out loans to pay for them.

          Anyway there's no problem with increased demand so long as you can increase supply (IE that the demand isn't of a very finite good) since that's what capitalism is built upon. Constant growth.

          The only reason you'd refuse to increase supply to meet demand and instead raise prices (IE scalping) would be if you have monopolistic control on the market, and you don't have competitors that'll undersell you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're both kind of right. Tuition rises by the maximum amount allowed by law every year, and has done since then. They can do this because demand, at least until very recently, has been almost completely price insensitive. Student aid being so easy to get and disconnecting it from market discipline is the main reason for that, although there are other factors. Why wouldn't they increase prices as much as they can in that situation?

            Universities also aren't making up for costs at this point. Student:teacher ratios have been steadily increasing and most universities have been making cuts to the education part of their operation in favor of bloating their administrations and funneling money into patronage networks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        money becomes worthless if you give it away freely

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          All economies inflate their money around 2%. Why? Well it's not a really complex question when you get down to it.

          Money becoming worth less over time incentivizes you to spend rather than save, and the more you spend, the more money circulates through the economy. In addition- increasing the quantity of the money in the system gives access to more money to the lower classes (at least in the short/immediete run).

          Better question in fact: How come no country ever deflates their money supply? IE they make money worth more rather than less by decreasing the amount of money in the system? Well the answer is obvious. Deflation only benefits the rich. And in addition it tells people to STOP spending. If money becomes worth more over time, why would you get rid of your money by spending it, when you could instead sit on your money and become wealthier by doing nothing? And the more money you have, the more money you make by sitting on it (hence it helps out the rich way more than the lower classes).

          Anyone who starts complaining about inflation instantly outs themselves as not having the first clue about what inflation is. Inflation is never the problem, because money is inherently worthless and has no meaning. What people should be complaining about is wage-stagnation and their salaries not keeping up with the supply of money. Which they should solve by forcing their employers to pay them more by gunpoint.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And in addition it tells people to STOP spending. If money becomes worth more over time, why would you get rid of your money by spending it, when you could instead sit on your money and become wealthier by doing nothing?

            The Gold Currency Problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And in addition it tells people to STOP spending. If money becomes worth more over time, why would you get rid of your money by spending it, when you could instead sit on your money and become wealthier by doing nothing?

            The Gold Currency Problem.

            Isnt that why Blackrock and all those other companies are buying up every piece of property they can?

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Changing technologies can make different kinds of capital (machines, fertilizers, magic spells, etc) more economical, but for some types of work like those Brazilian plantations, slavery was simply the cheapest way to get labor.

    If the economics of the fruits of that labor stop making sense, like CSA territories failing to industrialize, that type of slave labor stops being good for the economy.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The problem there is that they aren't really communist anymore. Their authoritarian options can help them by letting them freeze markets and force buyouts or even take direct control of both sides of a financial clusterfrick without having to care about the financial health of either side, but a key difference is that they've been letting regular people invest into this system, and worse, they've made it so the most sensible investment for regular people is real estate. When all the regular factory workers have their retirement plans sucked away into a government enforced financial black hole after a shadow bank's failed scheme to rob peter to pay paul finally collapses, they're going to lose everything, not just their jobs.
    Also, those factory towns are more like factory cities, if those things go away, the people living there are fricked beyond belief. They're living in company housing and eating at company cafeterias. The nearest non-company facility (of any kind) is hours away at least. In some cases, they've got tens of thousands of workers who are all going to suddenly have nowhere to go and nothing to do. Everything around them is the company.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, those factory towns are more like factory cities, if those things go away, the people living there are fricked beyond belief.
      On the upside, in case of real trouble, they can just cut transportation and let everybody there starve or die as they try to get to anywhere else.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the slaves

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They haven't been communists for a while now. The fundamental difference between Chinks and Yankees is that, in the first, the corps take it up the ass from the government, while in the latter, the government simp obscene amounts of money for the corps. The end result is that Chinks distribute wealth better at the expense of concentrating political power within the Party.

    And the rockets aren't literally filled with water, it's an expression that means using something of inferior quality. West making a big deal out of it, but I think the 2014 report on operation and maintenance of US nuclear warheads was way worse.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good for the nation. Slavery allows the nation to exist somewhat outside of a capitalist/market economy because free labor allows you to expend labor on non-economic endeavors for little drawback.
    It works wonderfully up until the point you lose the slaves, then you have a deficient workforce to maintain your production.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's a story I only half remember which was likely apocryphal propaganda in the first place, but I'm going to choose to believe as 1,000% fact because it demonstrates the point I want to make. As I recall it, China was facing famine. They had nationalized their farms, which just weren't meeting production quotas. One manager/supervisor/overseer guy decided on a risky, ballsy move. He told the farmers in his district that he was going to go against his superiors and the government in general and let them keep 10% of their crops. See, under the system they currently had, the government took all their rice and gave them back what the government thought they needed. But, by letting the farmers keep just 10% of their crop, production skyrocketed. Where previously there was no personal difference to the farmer how much rice they produced, under the new system the farmers had skin in the game. They stood to gain by doing a good job. So they worked harder. So hard that the higher ups noticed, and, once they got the full story, this supposedly lead to some softening of some of the government's stances.

    Slaves do not work as hard as wageslaves, generally, because there is no benefit. I mean, sure, you can pay someone to whip slaves that don't work, but that kinda defeats the purpose of not paying people. If you punish them too harshly, they get injured or die, and then you have to pay to replace them. On the other hand, if you dangle promotions and raises in front of the wageslave, they'll work harder. Even if the promotions only come with a raise half the time or the raises aren't enough to keep up with inflation. The more people believe in socio-economic mobility, the harder they're willing to work and the less they question why they start at the bottom. It doesn't even have to be for an individual. You can oppress a group of people all you want, but, if their kids have a shot at something better, the parents will kill themselves working to see it happen.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's feudalism thoughbeit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >upward mobility
        >thats feudalism
        no

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery works until you become industrial and workers require greater expertise and assembly line systems eliminate the need for mass labor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I always wanted to have a slaver orc society that captured mages and elves and dwarves to do all the "heavy mental lifting" required to run a nation that was just beyond them. It could even possibly work if they had all the accounting books done in duplicate or triplicate and they whipped everyone when there were discrepancies.
      Or a society run by mages with a conscription service forcing peasants to peer review academic papers. The 1000 yard stare of the blacksmith's son who was forced to read through and review "Coordination of cohesin and Rune replication observed with purified reagents".

      >it has to be signed by the worker and the boss
      Mike Rowe was the host for the Discovery show Dirty Jobs, which highlighted often obscure or sort of 'hidden' jobs you wouldn't think about, all of which involved manual labour, getting dirty, and usually underpaid. This pledge is him promoting his image as the hard-working blue collar millionaire, but this is supposed to be a self regulation thing, not a company agreement.

      Pft, well frick that noise. Half of these are straight up instructions from a boss to his wage-slaves.

      ITT: OP's poorly disguised slave gril fetish

      oh, lemme help you out there.

      Chattel slavery inevitably ends in revolution once the slaves outnumber the slaveowners enough.
      Wage slavery is very profitable, and can last essentially indefinitely.

      The ideal slave society is one in which one person, group, or corporation controls all the stores, housing, and means of production which is carefully rationed out to the proles in a self-sustaining cycle that gives them only little more than is necessary for their survival, with the rest taken off as profit and used to grow the organization.

      >Chattel slavery inevitably ends in revolution once the slaves outnumber the slaveowners enough.
      Except for all the cases in history where that didn't happen... sure.
      Actual successful slave rebellions are limited to... Haiti? Spartecus, sorta. That's all that comes to mind. You're just talking out of your ass here.
      >Wage slavery is very profitable, and can last essentially indefinitely.
      Except for those wage-slave uprisings like the USA circa 1890's, sure. Know your history, fool!

      Hurts GDP, because it crowds out wage labor. Wage laborers buy more things and seek out better-paying jobs which tend to be the jobs that generate the most value for the employers also.

      Slave labor introduces more of the kind of problems you run into with central planning.

      >Hurts GDP, because it crowds out wage labor. Wage laborers buy more things
      Naw, you're thinking about this like everywhere is a consumer-driven economy. Which is just silly.

      Look at any description of "how the economy's doing" (wealthy are getting wealthier while everyone else is struggling to afford food and shelter - great economy!) or what things are "good for the economy" (inflation that steals buying power out of the workers' pockets = good for the economy, free trade that impoverishes local workers = good for the economy, tariffs that keep jobs at home = bad for the economy, deflation that increases workers' buying power = bad for the economy).

      Your concept of inflation and deflation is fricked up, but the rest is pretty spot on class warfare commentary.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >implying that's what deflation does

        That is literally how deflation works. It sucks for people who bought into MMT "just debtmaxx lmao" bullshit because now their debt's harder to pay off, but fixing your nation's currency ( = deflation) has always been a core requirement of getting an economy back into a shape where people aren't starving.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No it's not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but fixing your nation's currency ( = deflation)
            Sweet jesus.
            Bro. Your laughable bullshit here is subtracting from the believeability of the rest of your ideas. And the rest of your ideas about the ongoing class warfare are legit. Free trade (and immigration, and automation, and outsourcing) are good for the economy, but a kick square in the pants to the working class which is bigger and bigger and poorer and poorer as the gini coefficient of our nation rises.
            So that shit needs to be said, but get your fricking shit together about currency, inflation, and deflation.

            >utterly mindbroken by the endless INFLATION GOOD DEFLATION BAD propaganda from the same people who insist that offshoring all the jobs and bringing in mass scab labour will make everyone better off

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Inflation isn't good. It's not what the problem is. Inflation is a symptom.

              What's bad is the price of wages not keeping up with the price of basic goods.

              Japan is a good example: It costs 400 Yen to buy a Big Mac in Japan. Does this mean that Japan is horrendously poor and nobody can afford Big Macs? No, it just means that their currency, the Yen, is highly inflated next to the dollar. But so are their wages- so through conversion, a Big Mac largely costs the same in Japan as in the US (and this is an actual metric people use called the Big Mac Index to eyeball purchasing power across countries).

              If it cost $400 to buy a Big Mac in the US, it doesn't really matter so long as you are being paid $2000 an hour, cause you can still buy five Big Macs for one hour of work.

              Again- anyone who opens their mouth to complain about inflation has no idea how the concept works, because most people assume that currency has some intrinsic value to it when it doesn't. It's subject to the same laws of supply and demand as everything else, it's pretty simple to grasp but people don't give a shit learning about ACTUAL economics.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's literally common sense you moron. If your economy's strength is based on how often your money is used and growth, why the frick would you incentivize hoarding money and not using it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >but fixing your nation's currency ( = deflation)
          Sweet jesus.
          Bro. Your laughable bullshit here is subtracting from the believeability of the rest of your ideas. And the rest of your ideas about the ongoing class warfare are legit. Free trade (and immigration, and automation, and outsourcing) are good for the economy, but a kick square in the pants to the working class which is bigger and bigger and poorer and poorer as the gini coefficient of our nation rises.
          So that shit needs to be said, but get your fricking shit together about currency, inflation, and deflation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Naw, you're thinking about this like everywhere is a consumer-driven economy. Which is just silly.
        All economies are ultimately consumer-driven. US slave plantations wouldn't have existed without demand for cotton. Haiti slave plantations wouldn't have existed without demand for sugar. If anything, industrialized, free labor market economies are *less* directly based on consumption because there is much more saving and investing than in previous modes of production - more capital formation, more deferred consumption.

        The conclusion "all else being equal, wage labor adds more to GDP than slave labor" is trivial because wages and the consumption of laborers are counted for GDP. But the more interesing point is the one of free labor markets allocating labor more productively.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >because there is much more saving and investing than in previous modes of production
          Anon, the economy of the early Middle Ages were massivley investment-driven. Land improvement and colonization were the name of the game back then. Everybody who didn't have enough money personally teamed up with their community to get something off the ground.
          Likewise, we know that the ancient temple economies of the Euphrat-Tigris valley used small loans to grease their economy on a scale that would make credit card company execs' dicks explode. Literally every adult citizen had at least one loan to their name every single year.

          >But the more interesing point is the one of free labor markets allocating labor more productively.
          Unless the State manages the inflexible factors of housing, security and food supply, you'll just end up with homelessness, intendure servitude and child labour again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The middle ages were barely a cash economy. The overwhelming majority of people did not invest much because they owned no significant capital or land. Subsistence farmers then and now have negligible savings rate. Capital formation was curbed by rentseeking landowners who protected their monopolies (tolls on bridges, rolls, ports, mills, communal ovens, etc), protectionist guilds and prohibitions on lending with interest. Lords closed woods from productive use for the sake of game. The open-field system's inefficiencies have been much studied. The notion that the middle age economies were particularly investment-driven, specially compared to our time of bewildering financial instruments, is unsupported.

            The only inflexible factor of production is land and the other can either exist or not, with or without a state; I don't see the relation to the theme.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I think economics is the field that has the largest ammount of shit-takes built on nothing.

              You'd think it'd be politics, but in my political studies it's basically just a pretty objective look at how parties form, how they perform in elections and what different laws imply about governance.

              However 9 times out of 10 I see someone describe themselves as an economist they haven't the furthest fricking clue what they're talking about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Principles of politics have been more or less the same since ancient Rome, it's easy to find stable patterns in two millennia of research material.
                Economy develops turbulently, so it's far more difficult to explain, not to mention predict.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no, and you should understand that the institution of slavery existed is very complex, it must not be understood in simple terms.

    The easiest place to start is how it originated. Slavery was invented as an alternative to genocide. When you defeated a rival tribe the normal practice is to simply kill them all. At some point however regularly killing large groups of people becomes distasteful and someone is going to propose an alternative: "What if we let them live and made them do stuff for us?"

    Slaves are obviously second-class citizens, but then, so are women. Slavery is essentially being a normal bronze age peasant except instead of starving to death if you refuse to work, they beat the shit out of you the first few times and then kill you if you don't get with the program. Why this is important is that on some level slavery was a -moral responsibility- of the conqueror, and as soon as it gained any legitimacy at all, you could never get away with simply releasing prisoners because that's like pouring money into the ocean in front of your entire army.

    So the question isn't "is it good for the economy," it's "Are we genocidal enough to just kill all of our enemies OR humanitarian enough to not kill them but also not enslave them," and barring religious forces like Zoroastrianism, the answer simply put was "No" until relatively recently, and only in some parts of the world. Slavery is already back in Libya, where you can buy a Black for $20 and work him to death in a salt mine, and that will probably end as soon as someone sells them mining equipment that requires an IQ over 70 to operate.

    For a while you could literally buy slaves in Africa who would be worked in cobalt mines in North Africa, and collect a portion of their earnings in Crypto on the darkweb, you probably still can.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In extraction and agrarian based economies slaves produced at least 6 times more than any paid immigrant.
    If thats "good" for the economy is up to you.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >communism managed to insulate the USSR from the Great Depression
    I'd argue that has more to do with the USSR being disconnected form the global market, which is an aspect of communism, but not unique to it. uncontacted tribes in the Amazon were also insulated from the great depression, and though I don't know any examples, I'd wager subsistence farmers in Africa weren't affected.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sentinelese were insulated, as an example following your train of thought.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Might work out if you absolutely don't care for the slaves. Need a project done? Raid someone, enslave the population, throw at project with abandon, discard the dead.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Need a project done?
      I want a space fleet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        throw the slaves into the mines (for precious metals, gems, or just plain old asbestos) and pay qualified labor with the proceeds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        throw the slaves into the mines (for precious metals, gems, or just plain old asbestos) and pay qualified labor with the proceeds

        Peasant railgun.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good point. Anybody feels like doing the math of how you'd need to scale it to actually reach escape velocity?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bad. Slaves displace freeman workers which in turn kills the lower and middle class. Skilled labor suddenly isn't getting work from the lower class which means that the pool of skilled artisans shrinks. The upper class will also import goods so the local economy will all but collapse.

    The upper class is the only force left with the power to chance anything but they also have no reason to. Thus technology stagnates and the nation is slowly overcome by more liberal states.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery only works if they're for entertainment. Femboys, women, and gladiators

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I guess it should be a fetish term, rather than an economic one?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Femboys, women, and gladiators
      A strange mix of a slave harem but I respect your tastes

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slaves do not consooom nor do they pay taxes so they are worthless from a business and state perspective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Neither do tractors, but businesses still buy tractors.

      >Slaves displace freeman workers which in turn kills the lower and middle class.
      That's only a thing where there's limited work. Where there's excessive amount of shit needing to be done, bringing in more workers by whatever means gets more shit done. Or, looking at it another way, importing workers undercuts the tyrannical lower classes that were abusing the poor rich elite by demanding to get paid. Without that bargening chip, the business class is able to be far more productive. You know, and other bullshit spewed by slave-mongers.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NO.

    Slavery is a net loss wherever it has been practiced. It is an inefficient waste of resources. It only benefits a small number of owners at the expense of the masses where they live, including men who aren't slaves.

    Consider the American North vs South as 1 example. The biggest plantation owners were atleast as wealthy as northern industrialists but, the south was much less populous and developed than the north.

    Like a city eats the farming countryside, slavery concentrates wealth in the hands of a few powerful owners, but destroys more wealth than it transfers or generates.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is slavery good or bad for the economy?
    Generally no. It's one group destroying far more than than they gain. Overall GDP goes down.

    Now, if the enslaved were doing frick-all or actively fricking shit up, then enslaving them and putting them towards productive work could be a net gain. But just offing the fricking bandits would likewise be a net gain. The whole concept of "we can better manager their labor" is a real shit-show delusion that slavers would have.

    Remember that if you have a slave economy, that also means slavers going out and getting people.

    >Hence, no need for immigrationl, without the risks of integrating them.

    Sorry man, if you forcefully kidknap people and bring them back home to work, that'll still be immigration. They live here now. The social effects of enslaving them would still frick shit up like integrating them into a society.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. Slavery is useless. It turns out that free people, paid fairly for their labour, are far far more productove than slaves.

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you people are fricking crazy and moronic. Slavery was very good for pre-modern societies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Please check further upthread for its effect on the Roman Republic and whether that could be classed as "good".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >one of the most successful and longest lasting empires in history
        Really not the best example you could have gone with.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I didn’t realize a country’s economic situation was a binary

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like my slaves like I like my coffee;
    Overpriced, but still bought en masse by fools.

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How many time are you gonna make this thread?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      56 times

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    whether a slave is good for you, the slave owner, is totally different from whether slavery is good for the economy. the value of the economy is the total productive labor of all laborers. it may be more valuable for YOU to have a hundred unskilled slave laborers working for you (whereupon you receive all of their wage-equivalent) but it would be more valuable for society at large if those hundred unskilled laborers were instead a mixture of skilled and unskilled laborers.

    slavery is actually sort of irrelevant here since there's nothing technically stopping you from having a hundred slave nuclear technicians and precision machinists, but in general, practically it all ends up unskilled laborer.

  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Great for the slaveholders. Not so great for anyone who isn't them.

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: OP's poorly disguised slave gril fetish

  63. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the level of technological development the society has and what their main revenue stream is. Like if you have a pre industrial agrarian society then yes it can make you a shit load. If it’s say an industrialized state where most unskilled labor rolls have been automated or can be done by less people then it’s not. You also have to take into account that slaves are expensive, you have to balance food, shelter, and other necessities for at least the bare minimum of sustaining human life. But you also want to make sure they’re being productive so bare minimum may not cut it. They’re more an investment than anything but it also depends on the scarcity of slaves. Like if you can just go get another one by raiding and capturing them they’ll tend to be much cheaper. But this style could create other issues such as labor shortages for the common folk or inflation due to all the unpaid labor and what is effectively free manufacturing (again depending on the price of slaves and the the cost of upkeep) causing lots of new currency to enter circulation to keep up with the increased commerce and as well as the fact that a good percentage of wealth is in the hands of the small percentage that can afford to buy and take care of their slaves.

  64. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Chattel slavery inevitably ends in revolution once the slaves outnumber the slaveowners enough.
    Wage slavery is very profitable, and can last essentially indefinitely.

    The ideal slave society is one in which one person, group, or corporation controls all the stores, housing, and means of production which is carefully rationed out to the proles in a self-sustaining cycle that gives them only little more than is necessary for their survival, with the rest taken off as profit and used to grow the organization.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Chattel slavery inevitably ends in revolution once the slaves outnumber the slaveowners enough
      No it doesn't.

  65. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wouldn it be more accurate to call slavery an economic crutch? I believe one of the causes for the Civil War was that the North switched from slaves(that still need to eat sleep and be cared for) to machines that did more work for far less
    That in turn caused resentment with the North flexing their wealth into political power against the agricultural south, whose greatest fortune was the lucrative, but still comparatively inefficient plantation slavery.

  66. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hurts GDP, because it crowds out wage labor. Wage laborers buy more things and seek out better-paying jobs which tend to be the jobs that generate the most value for the employers also.

    Slave labor introduces more of the kind of problems you run into with central planning.

  67. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You could have saved us all time and told us you failed econ 101 miserably.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The onus is on you to prove that GDP is in any way beneficial to society

  68. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends, do you value 100 years of free labor more valuable than the destruction wrought when you eventually free them? If you're playing as a rootless cosmopolitan parasite then maybe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the destruction wrought when you eventually free them?
      Don't be so pessimistic. You could also work them to death or simply purge the lot once you're done.

  69. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its bad on a macroeconomical level, but for that to matter you need to have a highly developed society.

  70. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problems with slavery is that you either have to invest a lot into making slaves educated, or else they have to do manual labour. If they have to do manual labour, you need to spend more to care for them or you'll have a high turn over rate. You'll have to invest time, effort and money into keeping them repressed and either restocking or keeping them alive and functional. It also tends to inhibit innovation, as there isn't much need to increase efficiency via invention if you can just throw increasingly large amount of slaves at it.

    It's also not good for the reason of squeezing out the roles and positions of the poor and working class, while causing your upper class to become decadent. And you'll also have to deal with slavery, eventually, spilling into sex slavery. Which means you'll be getting slaves pregnant with some of their masters children, so you have to approach that social issue. And, unless you're capturing slaves constantly, you'll have to have your slaves produce more slaves, which will come with additional costs and a greater likelihood to rebel. And to go with all of this, slavery helps facilitate decadence.

    I don't think there's any form of slavery that didn't eventually implode on itself, besides wage slavery.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't think there's any form of slavery that didn't eventually implode on itself, besides wage slavery.
      Nah, wage slavery's imploding as we speak thanks to zero-sum competition with increasingly capable robots.

  71. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stunts technological development. No need to innovate with free labor.

  72. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's good in the short term but long term you realize how expensive cheap cotton really was.

  73. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Overall bad. And it causes technology to stagnate

  74. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not going to read this thread. What I am going to say is that the answer is no. I can understand that, if you don't count slaves as people, you might be able to be tricked into thinking that the answer could be yes, but this is the same logic of killing all of the unhappy people in your society and then saying that all of your people are happy. Anyone at all would call this stance totally reprehensible and terminally-dependent on a sequence of lies and wordplays, but it's true in a purely mathematical sense.

    Likewise, slaves are people, and the slaves living in a given society are people in that society, and a large portion of a society's workforce not having any money or property and being unable to participate financially in that society is bad. It's economic stagnation. It is a situation wherein the only way to get money is to already have it. Individuals within this society may or may not be wealthy, but the society as a whole is not economically viable. In the long term, they would see slower, but overall more and better-sustainable, growth from just paying their workers instead holding them as property.

    Someone else is probably going to b***h about this. but they're wrong. Nothing they will say in response to this makes any sense under any degree of examination or scrutiny because there is poison in their brain.

  75. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    are robots just sci-fi slaves?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, they are tools.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The word "robot" comes from the Czech word for "slave." But if they have no self-awareness, they're just tools. If they have self-awareness, then yes, they're slaves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >When you lose self-awareness you become a tool
        Nice.

  76. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: /tg/ has better economic discussion than /misc/
    Bravo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and better scientific discussion than Ganker, better historical discussion than Ganker, better movie discussion than Ganker, better book recommendations than Ganker...
      only problems are the no-fun-allowed-morons and the gate keeping morons

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the gate keeping morons
        the morons that think gatekeeping an entire hobby is possible and argue back and forth about it endlessly? honestly that particular problem is not as bad here as it is on social media where homosexuals use out group sentiment to drive engagement

  77. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's always been more efficient and effective to take slaves in a pre-capitalist economy than to hire workers so long as there's an abundant source of them like a neighboring land.

  78. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I guess every country is 100% israeli, cause I just described what every country on the planet does.

    Hey- what's the opposite of inflation? Is it deflation? Or a word you want to use for stupid political reasons?

    [...]

    Really that's just a overly complicated way for you to insist that the israelites actually control the world, rather than describing anything about the banking sector.

    But you know- I'm sure that you have a reasonable solution to this that's not something insane like 'kill all israelites and liberals'.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As to slavery, as the Oera Linda teaches, it's bad.
      You stagnate the development of your own people while importing and babysitting a foreign population which benefits more from your increase of their number and development in the longterm than a few rich landowners gain from having them work for cheap in the short-term.

      It is an abuse not only of the enslaved but of freemen too as it allows the wealthy to escape the need to negotiate with their peers for labor and trade. This crime gives them an unfair comparative advantage going forward versus freemen who don't own slaves.

      >I am upset you called me out on not knowing the word contraction
      >can we pretend my headcanon is just as heckin valid as real economic theory?
      no.

      There are multiple viable alternatives. The common factor across them is NOT having a central bank which controls the finances of your populace. Existing in this state is known as freedom.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The US was founded with a central bank. It was dismantled by Andrew Jackson, but we had several decades there where the US wasn't some 'israelite-run' dictatorship.

        You don't have an economic theory, you have a political theory you want to pretend is economics.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You stagnate the development of your own people
        To be honest, the Romans had a genetic issue with their head. Slavery was a neutral factor in them being a liberal arts society that left nothing but a desert where greek science used to be.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ah yes. The Romans. A people who famously contributed nothing to society.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They definitely made contributions to the Roman society.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The sciences within their Empire were greek the way people imagine banking to be israeli.

            All the Roman achievements left to us are in the fine arts, in law and in life counseling.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >As to slavery, as the Oera Linda teaches, it's bad.
        >You stagnate the development of your own people while importing and babysitting a foreign population which benefits more from your increase of their number and development in the longterm than a few rich landowners gain from having them work for cheap in the short-term.

        >It is an abuse not only of the enslaved but of freemen too as it allows the wealthy to escape the need to negotiate with their peers for labor and trade. This crime gives them an unfair comparative advantage going forward versus freemen who don't own slaves.
        This is the best post in the entire thread.

        >There are multiple viable alternatives. The common factor across them is NOT having a central bank which controls the finances of your populace. Existing in this state is known as freedom.
        Yet this is the worst. A central bank is what makes the state sovereign.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not supported by anything whatsoever.

  79. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So slavery is an appalling moral crime. With that out of the way, here's the analysis:
    * Slavery is good for the wealthy, and bad for the poor and middle class, which is why wealthy people have historically fought to keep it in place.
    * Slavery is great for expanding empires who want cheap labor to create their infrastructure.
    * Slavery is amazing for resource-extraction regimes.
    * All "good" outcomes of slavery presume you can rapidly create new slave populations by enslaving your own people or outside populations, because captive slave breeding populations are a drain on the economy for everyone but the owners.
    * Slavery is, on a long enough timeline, *always* a net negative for an economy, because it destroys wealth mobility and creates the long-term possibility of slave revolts, wage riots, and other violence.

  80. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. It's good if your society has an extensive amount of manual labor (most pre-modern societies fall under this). If your society has a lower class of free men, they may be put out of a job by slaves though.
    2. It's good for the economy in that it creates the slavery industry, which are good for both tariffs and sales taxes.
    3. It's good for jobs that people otherwise would just refuse to do. Historically, salt mining was almost always slave-exclusive because of how much inhalimg salt dust shortens your life, but your universe may have some similarly "death sentence"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are actually moronic if you think a tax on the movement or sale of a slave, an infrequent one-time event, compares even remotely to the amount of money that tax on the economic interactions of those slaves would be if they were free agents making their own decisions and having to bear the burden individually. Your fetish is showing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *