If they're literally at the point of starvation, maybe true - though famines often happen when people simply can't get access to food, even if they have the resources to buy it. So, bringing food to a starving area is unlikely to be bad for business.
However, the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money - i.e. they would starve without you, so they accept whatever trickle of resources you deign to assign. This is extraordinarily common throughout history, coupled with a threat of violence that all states use.
> the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money
If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave.
I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class.
The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.
In the past there was a fairly common practice to create a monopoly by outlawing people from importing food to a local economy. People may recognize the concept of mining towns, company stores, or its role in debt slavery.
The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves.
This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
No, this was companies doing it. They controlled ports, rail and roads (or what ever roads that may exist in remote areas), and controlling in-going supplies was a matter of policy and enforcement. Mining and railway companies where once very large and powerful, similar to some trading companies in the past.
In systems such as our own, where government power has been essentially captured by corporate lobbying, there is little difference between "government is doing it" and "companies are doing it."
Slavery created the wealth that made industrialization in the north possible, and was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of.
You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent?
Here's why that's wrong. When the Confederacy seceded, the economy of the South slid into ruin. The economy of the North thrived.
The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg.
Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
> was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of
The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground.
"made the South its most prosperous region"
That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
Do you understand the difference between starting an engine and keeping it running? I'm referring to northern wealth btw.
> Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America?
They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize.
> Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
> Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865
Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data. Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
> Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings
Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies?
> Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.
> slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize
Or that one. Sorry.
The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
If you recall, the original contention was that "You cannot make money off of people who are starving." Clearly you can—in the short term, and enabled by violent coercion, as you've helpfully added.
My argument summed up is that slavery was a "local maximum" that A) generated an enormous amount of wealth early on, and was thus a crucial factor in developing the American economy, even if it was no longer the main driver of wealth by the time of the civil war, and B) made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
It's clear which strategy wins long term, I don't think that's a debate. I should have phrased my earlier comment better, sorry.
The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!
> generated an enormous amount of wealth
I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.
> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?
Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.
The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.
This is false. You can create conditions where their only real choice is to work for you. And since they’re starving, they’ll work for very low wages. You sell the product of their labor and collect the surplus value created by their work.
The majority of the Chinese immigrants were male, many having left wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and future spouses at home in China. Foreign miner taxes in California, often aimed squarely at Chinese immigrants, prevented them from staking mining claims, which in turn forced them to look for opportunities elsewhere.
The CPRR hired an initial group of 50 Chinese workers that in short time dispelled the negative assumptions held by some CPRR managers. They fostered a reputation of strength, efficiency, and reliability. More Chinese workers would be hired and they held a variety of jobs: laborers, foremen, contractors, masons, carpenters, cooks, teamsters, interpreters, and medical professionals. Even so, racial inequalities persisted. Chinese workers were paid an average of 30% less than their white counterparts. They were segregated in work camps and had to pay for their own lodging, food, supplies, and equipment.
The disparity came to a head on June 24th, 1867, when all Chinese railroad workers from Cisco to Truckee, California, a 30 miles section of track, stopped work.
Confrontation, Threats -- and a Bloodless Resolution
After a week's worth of lean rations had settled upon the men, Charles Crocker returned to the work camps. He dictated the options as he saw them: wages and hours were immutable. If the hungry Chinese workers returned to work immediately they would only be fined, but if they continued on strike they would not get paid for the whole month of June.
Motivated by malnutrition, most men agreed to return to work
And in a truly free market you can buy unicorns because both only exist in fantasy land. In reality there is always some government rules involved that shape the market.
You can force starving people into unfair arrangements where the choice is between getting screwed or dying of hunger. You can use the existence of starving people as a threat to keep your work force in line. Sometimes it's not even the starving people that you're making money off of, but their minerals and land.
There are a lot of ways to profit from suffering. And sometimes it's not even about profit—it can just feel so good to have an Other to oppress.
> You can force starving people into unfair arrangements where the choice is between getting screwed or dying of hunger.
History shows us that if you want to force starving people to work for you, you also need to shoot the people who refuse. See the Soviet gulags, and the Nazi slave labor camps.
Only in response to posts that extol the virtues of collectivism and/or how bad freedom is. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it :-)
> Tell me your secrets Walter
Too bad it seems to be a secret that free markets are far more successful. My dad was a finance professor at a college in his later years. He said students would tell him from time to time that they had never heard of a case for free markets before. Isn't that amazing for people that lived their whole life in a free market country?
I remember one person complained to me that I was "ramming freedom down his throat!" It boggles the mind.
Note that I don't attack or berate people. Only ideas.
I'm sure your "dirty job" makes sense to you, and it's clear you even feel very righteous about it.
Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
Dang has been very clear on that, many times - whatever he "knows about you".
You really think it's "impossible" for a corporation with Star Trek replicator tech to profit from starving people? ... And that was the right time to fight "the virtues of collectivism"? You are trampling curiousity, and have admitted as much, and now you really ought to consider giving it a rest.
> Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people started out by trash talking capitalism, at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines even if you do it in every thread where people start attacking capitalism.
Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often, since they are almost always the instigators.
> every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade
That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.
> at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines
No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of the guidelines is to discourage ideological crusade altogether.
> Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often
'Selective enforcement'. Your argument suggests that it's okay to defend capitalism in response to criticism, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to those criticizing capitalism.
> since they are almost always the instigators.
A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.
I think your comment shows severe bias and an adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe you could form an appreciation for the spirit of fostering curiosity and constructive dialogue that is promoted here.
> That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.
I had no idea when I started this thread with a throwaway quip about future historians and Star Trek that (besides being one of my highest voted comments) it would veer off into this 70+ reply monstrosity about slavery and communism. HN commenters take things in wild directions, and I seem to have violated the no-flamewar rule unintentionally. For that I am sorry.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the multitude of possible economic power structures unlike the ones we have today, without someone always barreling in on a crusade against communism (which I never even mentioned nor support myself). This discussion doesn't seem possible when people insist on a false dilemma.
> A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.
If someone made the same remark about non-democratic political systems, would you say the same thing? "Democracy is the current dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of political systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism." I doubt it. I think some honesty is useful: you want to criticize capitalism but you don't want someone to defend it, you want a space to criticize it. I think if you're going to criticize capitalism then you need to be willing to fend with someone willing to defend it. It's fair game. It may seem unfair, but just like we hold onto our values of democracy tightly so some hold onto their values of capitalism.
If you want a space specifically to criticize capitalism, there are plenty on the internet, and HN isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure you can throw a pebble randomly at literally any Bluesky English poster or Mastodon instance and you'll find one though.
As an anarcho communist and prolific HN commenter I sigh every time I see his name. Sadly he doesn’t actually understand communism and seems to be stuck in 1980’s anti communist propaganda. For example the sibling comment to this one where he conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol). At least he’s getting the downvotes he deserves in this thread.
It's legal to start a commune in the US. Why not give it a try? Report back to us how it goes!
> conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol)
I do, because collectivism means you do not own the fruits of your labor. I bet you'd be outraged if I helped myself to some of your stuff that I decided you didn't need.
As a non-usian it seems kind of weird to see someone from the US declare that using weapons to keep people working is a non-usian thing to do, when a lot of the news we get from over there is cops killing people, school shootings, stuff about school-prison pipelines, things like that.
Then there are the genocidal militias employed by US companies to keep people from unionising, the genocidal treatment of indonesians, and so on.
As a survivor of communism, I sigh every time I see this ideology that killed countless millions still being pushed in places where other inhuman ideologies (like fascism and its ilk) will attract a swift ban.
>History shows us that slave labor cannot compete with free labor.
History shows us that you can build Pyramids and the Chinese wall with slave labor, probably not affordable with "free labor". But maybe we should also look at "modern slavery" that is "free labor" but without any chance to get another job or get reported to the police.
>it's about forcible slave labor, forced with guns and whips.
Worked incredible well for Belgium, and works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa...and for us (>bloody< cheap raw-materials for our phones)
I know what you want to say with it, forcing specialized people with whips isn't going to give you good results in the long run, however if you just need their joules it's shockingly effective.
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t slaves who built the pyramids. We know this because archaeologists have located the remains of a purpose-built village for the thousands of workers who built the famous Giza pyramids, nearly 4,500 years ago.
>Slaves were a constant presence in ancient Egypt. Starting with the Old Kingdom (2613 - 2181 BC), slaves took on different roles. Some became soldiers, others scribes.
Yes it does, or do you have another argument against the Chinese wall or Belgium for example? Do you really want to argue against the fact that slaves did (and do) the hardest, most back-breaking jobs?
In terms of quality you are right, in terms of quantity you are wrong (in the past), but in this day and age replacing people (slaves) with machines changes the whole thing again.
So yes, free labor with specialized people and specialized machines and cheap energy is the most competitive.
>None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
If you can sell your good's at the cheapest prices you compete very well in the "free market", there is also coltan in Brazil, Australia and China, but DRC sells the cheapest.
