Was Karl Marx Right?

[noah way]

Human Labors whether skilled or not are resources RESOURCES

Labor is a resource.

In economics, factors of production (or productive inputs or resources) are any commodities or services used to produce goods and services. 'Factors of production' may also refer specifically to the primary factors, which are stocks including land, labor (the ability to work), and capital goods applied to production.

Therefore, it is simply beneficial to mankind in long run to produce much as possible with little resources possible.

It is not beneficial to mankind, it is beneficial to corporations.

With that caveat, production with as "little resources possible" is exactly the same as

Companies, Roubini said, are motivated to minimize costs, to save and stockpile cash, but this leads to less money in the hands of employees, which means they have less money to spend and flow back to companies.

 

[BringItSon]

Then in your view slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and other coerced persons are compatible with a capitalist economy as they can provide resources at the lowest cost in some instances ?

Not effective resources since that their productivity is very very low. Set them free and pay them wages, productivity goes way up. Many historians will tell you US moved towards emancipation because of many reasons. North supported it most specifically because slavery was not economic up there.

So no. it is not the cheapest way to obtain resources.

 

[BringItSon]

Labor is a resource.

Yes, I believed i said that. i said Labor is resource whether you are skilled or not skilled worker.

It is not beneficial to mankind, it is beneficial to corporations.

Yes, it is... It is also the core principal of Capitalism that forces firm to produce things effectively as possible...Any one in minor in economics should tell you the same...

Believe it or not, corporations that hogs tons of profit is due to many factors. One of them being US having imperfect free market. and some corporation trying to exploit the system and using dirty business practice.

having said that, it is kinda silly painting corporations as some evil entity. No... thats not how it works. Some douche-like entities happens to be corporations. Not the other way around.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You gotta be kidding me... right??

I am afraid not.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Not effective resources since that their productivity is very very low. Set them free and pay them wages, productivity goes way up. Many historians will tell you US moved towards emancipation because of many reasons. North supported it most specifically because slavery was not economic up there.

So no. it is not the cheapest way to obtain resources.

I question your assumption that coerced labor is not as productive as non-coerce labor in any instance. One of the main reasons slavery was introduced to the US was the shortage of labor for the production on tobacco, grown mostly in the South. Slavery was resisted in the North due to public opposition. Both sides used military conscription.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I do think Marx had some things right, but I

 

[noah way]

Yes, I believed i said that. i said Labor is resource whether you are skilled or not skilled worker.

Sorry, misread.

Yes, it is... It is also the core principal of Capitalism that forces firm to produce things effectively as possible...Any one in minor in economics should tell you the same...

Believe it or not, corporations that hogs tons of profit is due to many factors. One of them being US having imperfect free market. and some corporation trying to exploit the system and using dirty business practice.

Capitalism is not about free markets, unless of course you mean the ability of corporations to freely control markets. "Capitalism" and "free" are antithetical. Also, it is not "force", it is simply the result of profit at any cost. Capitalism does not have to destroy to be profitable, only to be maximally profitable, and that is without regard for the eventual consequences (which goes back to Marx).

 

[BringItSon]

I question your assumption that coerced labor is not as productive as non-coerce labor in any instance. One of the main reasons slavery was introduced to the US was the shortage of labor for the production on tobacco, grown mostly in the South. Slavery was resisted in the North due to public opposition. Both sides used military conscription.

you could find it in many readings that slavery was simply not economical especially in north.

Instead of paying huge sum of money for slave and feed, shelter them for very unproductive amount of work. People found out that it simply is cheaper and profitable to pay wages for more productive amount of work.

 

[OutofDate1980]

you could find it in many readings that slavery was simply not economical especially in north.

You made the claim, but do not appear to be able to support.

This is an article, under the section Slavery in America. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548305/slavery/24157/Slave-societies#ref=ref388217

"Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States."

 

[ElasticNinja]

I believe that slave labour actually had less productivity over cost then paid labour, at least in the North

 

[OutofDate1980]

I believe that slave labour actually had less productivity over cost then paid labour, at least in the North

I would like to believe this also, but it may not be factual in all instances.

"Time on the Cross directly challenged the long-held conclusions that American slavery was unprofitable, a moribund institution, inefficient, and extremely harsh for typical slave. Instead, the authors propose that slavery before the Civil War was economically efficient, especially in the case of the South, which grew crops such as cotton, sugar, and coffee."

Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[noah way]

Instead, the authors propose that slavery before the Civil War was economically efficient, especially in the case of the South, which grew crops such as cotton, sugar, and coffee."

If slavery wasn't economically efficient, it would not have been practiced.

 

[OutofDate1980]

If slavery wasn't economically efficient, it would not have been practiced.

I've heard the term wage slave; The view that wage work has substantial similarities with chattel slavery was actively put forward in the late 18th and 19th centuries by defenders of chattel slavery (most notably in the Southern states of the US), and by opponents of capitalism (who were also critics of chattel slavery).[8][20] Some defenders of slavery, mainly from the Southern slave states argued that workers were "free but in name

 

[BringItSon]

I would like to believe this also, but it may not be factual in all instances.

"Time on the Cross directly challenged the long-held conclusions that American slavery was unprofitable, a moribund institution, inefficient, and extremely harsh for typical slave. Instead, the authors propose that slavery before the Civil War was economically efficient, especially in the case of the South, which grew crops such as cotton, sugar, and coffee."

Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of most talked about topic between historians and such... so there are bound to be different theories, but slavery was inefficient is pretty well supported conclusion. theory that slavery was efficient on the other hand, is not as popular or supported by many historians, i think.

I find it hard to believe that slavery was efficient. Will slaves actually work 100 percent? or will just work just enough not to get whipped?

btw, inefficient and profitable is not the same thing.

 

[BringItSon]

If slavery wasn't economically efficient, it would not have been practiced.

Slavery was profitable, but i dont think was efficient.

If they were both profitable AND efficient, it would still be around in developed countries. Slavery got weeded out because it could not compete against developed markets. Humanitarian reasons only accelerated the process.

 

[noah way]

Slavery was profitable, but i dont think was efficient.

If they were both profitable AND efficient, it would still be around in developed countries. Slavery got weeded out because it could not compete against developed markets. Humanitarian reasons only accelerated the process.

Modern slavery thriving in the U.S.

Among the report's major findings:

* While forced labor exists across the United States, reported cases are concentrated in states with large immigrant communities, including California, Florida, New York and Texas.

* Victims of forced labor are trafficked into the United States from at least 38 different countries, with China, Mexico and Vietnam topping the list. Some are born in the United States and later held captive.

* Forced labor occurs in poorly regulated industries with a high demand for cheap labor - sweatshops, restaurants and hotels, in addition to agriculture and domestic work. A lack of official monitoring in these areas means unscrupulous employers and criminal networks can gain complete control over workers.

* Forty-six percent of those trapped in forced labor in America are found in prostitution and sex services, the study estimates. Another 27 percent are domestic workers, and one in 10 works in agriculture. These victims are spread across the economy - sweatshop/factory work makes up 5 percent; restaurant and hotel work makes up 4 percent. Sexual exploitation of children represents 3 percent.

The new study documents how modern slavery operates in the United States. Perpetrators use a range of crimes - fraud, coercion, physical and psychological violence - to hold their victims captive. They confiscate passports and threaten to turn their captives over to the authorities if they refuse to obey. In some cases, perpetrators and their associates threaten or physically attack the families of victims in their home countries.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... If they were both profitable AND efficient, it would still be around in developed countries. Slavery got weeded out because it could not compete against developed markets. Humanitarian reasons only accelerated the process.

Chattel slavery was formally outlawed in 1981, planet wide.

Perhaps other forms of coerced labor proved to be more efficient ?