Repertor is always correct but never politically correct.Thanks Barb & Rep -
that record sleeve's the most gloriously Politically Incorrect image
I've seen in a long time, even on this disgraceful website!
Will people never learn they should not give likes to slaves?
View attachment 520109 Have they never heard the adage "parels voor de zwijnen (pearls for the swines)"?
Nevertheless congratulations, Eul!
I can see you followed a management course.You will get better results from a modicum of praise rather than from continual blame and denegration.
Likes wouldn't have helped. You can't eat likes.I am sure that the Nazi factories staffed by starving slaves produced a lot of shoddy work.
I can see you followed a managemant course.
Likes wouldn't have helped. You can't eat likes.
but a grindslave fed on beans produces excellent coffee (advt)I can see you followed a management course.
Likes wouldn't have helped. You can't eat likes.
Crabs are very intelligent beings. They do not differ much from humans (except that they have more legs).The Perishers – “Eyeballs in the Sky”
Like you say: "fed on beans".but a grindslave fed on beans produces excellent coffee (advt)
You will get better results from a modicum of praise rather than from continual blame and denegration. Was there not a recent discussion on just this subject with regard to slavery?
I am sure that the Nazi factories staffed by starving slaves produced a lot of shoddy work.
Slavery (except here at the forum) would have collapsed with mechanization. Slaves, like mules, are not cheap to own and maintain. Another wrong but widely held belief is all Southerners owned slave when it was truly a very small percent. Most slaves were treated far better than depicted because as stated they were cheap...I've probably mentioned this on another thread, but Edward Baptist in his book about slavery in the Southern US, "The Half Has Never Been Told" shows data suggesting that per acre cotton productivity under slavery was very high, higher than under the post-Civil War system of sharecropping. It was exceeded only in the mid-twentieth century with the advent of mechanization and modern fertilizers and pesticides. That of course is NOT a justification of slavery. His book disputes the contention that slavery was failing under its own weight before the Civil War.
I've probably mentioned this on another thread, but Edward Baptist in his book about slavery in the Southern US, "The Half Has Never Been Told" shows data suggesting that per acre cotton productivity under slavery was very high, higher than under the post-Civil War system of sharecropping. It was exceeded only in the mid-twentieth century with the advent of mechanization and modern fertilizers and pesticides. That of course is NOT a justification of slavery. His book disputes the contention that slavery was failing under its own weight before the Civil War.
Slavery (except here at the forum) would have collapsed with mechanization. Slaves, like mules, are not cheap to own and maintain. Another wrong but widely held belief is all Southerners owned slave when it was truly a very small percent. Most slaves were treated far better than depicted because as stated they were cheap...
All true. And while 'slavery' in name does not exist in the US in this day many illegal aliens are treated much the same as the slaves were!The problem for the American South was its economical model was a bad one, it was dependent on a cash crop which always leaves one a hostage to fortune, can anyone say boll weevil? Even without something like that though you have the potential for somewhere else to get better at growing or delivering the same crop for less in the future. What slavery does is lock in labour, the slaves might be expensive but the issue is they are not free to head after the best wages and an owner who keeps the entire product of a worker minus cheap food and cheaper board is unlikely to be willing to give that up for any lesser amount.
That was why the North kept on growing faster. People could find jobs that would feed their families and then look to take a leg up when a more productive industry offering higher wages came along and this happened time and time again generation after generation. The Southern planation owner might sneer as another of his Northern cousins went bankrupt but he failed to note that the other three to four new entrepreneurs who were making even more money than him. Thus it seemed axiomatic that without them the Union would collapse and so a rebellion in defence of slavery would surely work. Only they very quickly found that while the North was stretched by the needs of war the South started cracking from the get go and stunning victories could only hide so long that each new Northern army was slightly bigger and after a while there were no more men to refill the Southern ranks unless they dared arm the very slaves they lived in terror of.
'From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.' Adam Smith I.8.40
He accepted that the high profits of tobacco and sugar plantations, and the shortage of free labour, disguised the long-term disadvantages of slave labour, and the same probably applied to cotton plantations too. So, from Smith's point of view, the plantations weren't profitable because they used slave labour, it was the other way about, they went on using slave labour because they were profitable enough and didn't see any need to change. One can think of parallels in the failure to invest in technology and skills in industries in Western countries in more recent times, 'we're turning a good profit, why bother?'
Slavery (except here at the forum) would have collapsed with mechanization. Slaves, like mules, are not cheap to own and maintain. Another wrong but widely held belief is all Southerners owned slave when it was truly a very small percent. Most slaves were treated far better than depicted because as stated they were cheap...
So you did!Actually I've only just noticed, just before you topped 50,000 Wragg,
I snuck past 80.000 - not sure who gave me the crucial nudge,
but thanks everyone!