Slavery was never profitable.

Slavery was never profitable.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    And?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Capitalism was never profitable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is fair to say that most of the wealth of the western world can be attributed to slavery. America is still making money off of slavery today, some of these well known American companies today got their start during slavery.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The op proved slavery is unprofitable. Your post proved his is mentally retarded.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          proved it with a screenshot of unsourced text lmao
          they have to be real retarded to believe slaves were not profitable.
          "The money was in other things"
          Yeah, guess what gave the slave owners time to do these mysterious other things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well done jidf. Or are you a moderator, they are dumber.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Adjusted for inflation that's over $60000 for one slave. There's no way they cost anything close to that much. Maybe $6000 for a good slave, maybe $600 or less for most.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      His is too dumb to do math. Op wins.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Whatever Tyrone, no one was paying 60k for your great grandpa. That's ludicrous on the face of it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well done jidf.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            israelites owned most slaves and controlled the slave trade. It was profitable enough.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              israelites did own all the slaves but the rest of your argument is gibberish.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The replies thus far are mentally retarded, I see no objection.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If slavery wasn't profitable then how come it happened? Those slave plantations wouldn't have been running if they weren't making money.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        israelites issued loans. Slaves were used as collateral not as actual workers.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Doesn't answer the question

          >If slavery wasn't profitable then how come it happened?
          `the slave owners plan was buy them so they could eventually be free

          Lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does answer the question. But well done jidf.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Being able to use slaves as collateral for a loan does not explain how slave plantations made money.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It does, worthless retard.
                >it doesn't
                >but it does
                Your trolls are not amusing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Borrowing money is not making money... not sure, but you might be retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Obviously you are mentally retarded and slavery was never profitable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I see. You're only pretending to be retarded. Have fun then.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well done jidf. Or are you a mod, only mods are mentally retarded.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If slavery wasn't profitable then how come it happened?
        `the slave owners plan was buy them so they could eventually be free

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >discounting that slaves reproduce themselves
    >discounting that if you buy a child slave it's way cheaper
    But yeah, in Cotton Kingdom Frederick Olmsted interviews slave owners and one very openly told him that slavery barely makes a profit, at most he broke even. But there was a culture in the South of whites never doing "slave work" even if it meant abject poverty. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't find enough paid laborers.
    The book is a fascinating read.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I didn't discount any of that you just got stuck in the midwit filter.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, you did.
        2000 dollars was the price of a healthy skilled male slave. There is no reason to buy that, you could get a slave for have or less than that.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm skeptical of that price. It seems extraordinarily high

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Show your math worthless retard.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        also you could rent out your slaves. A part of the slaves on your plantation could be used as rental slaves almost exclusively.
        Also cotton wasn't the only product the slave economy produced, the produced tobacco, rice, wheat, corn etc. The plantations could sustain themselves on food.

        Show your math worthless retard.

        pic related; Source: Historical Statistics, Table Bb212. Average Slave Price.
        Now fuck off.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That refutes your point. Show your math worthless retard. Show slavery was profitable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            if read my initial post and not just screeched like a retard, you would've read that I even mentioned a contemporary book that said slavery was barely profitable.
            But your math was incredibly simplistic and had several wrong assumptions: like the price of a slave, that you need to buy slaves constantly, that they only produced cotton and that cotton was the only means of making money with slaves: You could rent them out, you could produce foodstuffs with them, you could produce tobacco with them, they could help build infrastructure on your plantations, they reduce transport cost etc etc

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I made none of those assumptions and your reply is literally mentally retarded.
              I asked you to do simple arithmetic and you were too stupid to that.
              You are too stupid to add numbers and are acting superior. What is 2+2 you worthless retarded piece of shit?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I made none of those assumptions and your reply is literally mentally retarded.
                Yes you did. You claimed one price for slaves (not true), one mode of making money with them (also not true), a production quota which is bullshit and one static price for bread and cotton (also obviously not true)
                because you think you can calculate the entire economic structure of a very specific class in a very specific country in the 1850s with like 4 static numbers. It's a VERY complex question that needs a book-length breakdown of all the factors.

                >You are too stupid to add numbers and are acting superior.
                I have a degree in Physics from a German university. I think I know more about maths than you do.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You just repeated yourself.
                Like I said, jidf, show your math that slavery was profitable. You are too dumb to solve 2+2 but maybe you can prove your retardation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                because YOU repeat yourself, you bring one scenario, I bring like 5 different scenarios of making money with slavery and your just say "lol retard".

                >s. It's a VERY complex question that needs a book-length breakdown of all the factors
                It's not. It's so obviously unprofitable and you're too dumb to add the food cost vs the cotton produced.

                YES FOOD COST IS A COMPLEX QUESTION, you fucking imbecile:
                What do they eat? What does the plantation produce for itself? How much do they eat? What does storage cost? What does food preparation cost?
                Answer every one of those questions exactly, or you can't calculate the actual food cost.
                The example you mentioned is bread, bread is a food stuff that is already prepared: Buying just the ingredients for bread is already cheaper and letting the slaves bake the bread for no labor cost.

                The guy that thinks you can answer complex economic processes with "lol just add and subtract, retard" calls other people stupid.

                also, the confederacy had more israelites in the government than the Union had. Google Judah P. Benjamin. No matter how much you call people jidf.

                This is my last post, you are obviously mentally disabled.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What do they eat? What does the plantation produce for itself? How much do they eat? What does storage cost? What does food preparation cost?
                Even if they eat the cheapest possible food on wholesale prices it loses money.
                The rest of your rambling post says nothing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >s. It's a VERY complex question that needs a book-length breakdown of all the factors
                It's not. It's so obviously unprofitable and you're too dumb to add the food cost vs the cotton produced.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were not feeding the slaves

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Congratulations now not only is your slave not making any profit, he's not even alive anymore!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Slaves were also farming food in addition to cotton you fucking imbecile.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They weren't you worthless, retarded piece of shit making up false information based on nothing.
          The south had no cows or beef whatsoever and that was not local. It had almost none of the food it consumed besides corn.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Retard

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Well done jidf.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The thread dies now, as all the replies are mentally retarded with basic reading and math errors.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    At this point jidf is just waiting for me to leave the thread and get bored.
    The triumph of jidf in this endurance contest is a mark of the pure retardation of his.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the "math professor" already tried and failed to refute op I'm 100% certain every post below will be literal Down syndrome cases.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Slaves didn't cost $2000 if you bred them and didn't cost that much to feed if you didn't feed them bread.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The $2000 dollar has no effect on the calculation. It is a filter. Anyone mentioning it is mentally retarded and slavery was never profitable.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah. Slavery was never profitable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thomas Jefferson died in debt. Literally no slave owner had significant wealth besides bankers.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Duncan
    >Duncan sold his crops through the merchant firm Washington, Jackson & Co. in New Orleans, instructing them to sell it through their subsidiary Todd, Jackson & Co. in Liverpool, England.[10] The revenue derived from the cotton and sugar sales was sent to Charles P. Leverich & Co., his bank headquartered in New York.[10] His plantations yielded returns of US$150,000 annually.[10]
    > In the 1850s, Duncan owned more than 1,000 slaves, making him the largest resident slave holder in Mississippi
    Bread cost 30 cents a day. That's $100 per year.
    These are wholesale prices, the retail price is at least double.
    1,000 slaves costing $200 a year is $200,000. The revenue was $150,000.
    Slavery was never profitable even for top slave owners.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >buy wholesale quantities of bread at retail
      for what reason
      >returns = revenue

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Show your math jidf.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christ, so slavery was unprofitable, why did they keep slaves. I can somewhat understand slavery if it benefits the owners but now it seems like the owners just enjoyed keeping people captive, whip them, rape them and humiliate them. No different from sadistic psychopaths who kidnap people into their sex dungeons. The massive evilness of Americans never cease to amaze me.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        More or less.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you know all those labor studies, like the one about better lighting in factories improving worker productivity? that entire field didn't come about until the early 20th century
        a lot of people just didn't really realize that slavery was ultimately less profitable than wage workers. and hell, on the surface, it seems to make sense that slavery should be cheaper. but it isn't in most cases, although exceptions for time, place, specifics (like how cheap slaves were acquired or how well they work or the crops they produce), did of course exist.
        inertia, encouraged by ignorance and those few exceptions, are what made slavery so common.
        also remember that slavery in the americas often arose as an imperfect replacement of a system that no longer worked. in the spanish colonies, as supplies of indians dwindled due to the spread of old world diseases, farms and mines which had depended upon that supply of cheap labor needed to be replenished.
        in the english colonies, as the reality that indentured servitude was much worse and harsher in america than back home become known, all those indentured servants needed to be replaced.
        and as european trade with west africa grew, warlords realized the benefits of slavery, and a huge slave raid system lead to excesses of cheap slaves to be purchased on the west african coast.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your reply is idiotic. Slavery was never profitable. Capitalism was never profitable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >0 engagement on screenshotted post
            if you can’t answer yea or no as to whether or not that’s your own post then slavery was profitable. Just yes or no keeps it not profitable, don’t fuck this up

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Your reply is gibberish.
              The fact I said literally means you're mentally retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                naw I figured you’d be too bad at trolling to actually do something interesting so I asked myself “how can I get this retard to say his canned troll of ur reply gibberish?”

                Congratulations, you’re my slave, you do exactly what I want without even noticing your chains. I’m finding this all plenty profitable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Excellent work jidf

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your reply is gibberish.
                The fact I said literally means you're mentally retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Excellent work jidf

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So how are you? I didn’t really sleep too great. You doing ok?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I killed Cops and they didn't see
                https://www.google.com/amp/s/news3lv.com/amp/news/local/las-vegas-police-respond-to-northwest-valley-homicide

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                wild how the son didn’t see you. Only one was a cop though. Kinda sloppy

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Who was son

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Suthrons fought and died for a war to be unprofitable, protect an unprofitable way of life, and prevent their unprofitable economy from being destroyed by the tariffs of northern aggression. It was a war about state's rights, state's rights to be unprofitable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yep. israeli elites were the real victors of the civil war.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feed slaves?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did you know NK has a lot of ports. Yet OP claims they don't.
    OP also claims engines on ships aren't real and that gdp = tourism when in his own picture he posts it is proven wrong with Liberia having 0 tourism yet a high gdp

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nk is poor because it lacks a port. Suezmax.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    lmao do you guys think the dude saying israelites were legitimately all “what’s that??? You want a loan for ten thousand dollars? I don’t know…. Wait, if you can’t pay I get five naggers in collateral? Collect your money at the front!” is trolling or genuine

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally judeobolshevist

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        so the israelites first get everyone’s naggers in loans they couldn’t pay then use their newfound nagger bullion (nullion) to make money? But doesn’t nagger slavery not make profit?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >You could literally not feed slaves

    What is agriculture? What is a farm? What is vegetables? What is watermelon? What is livestock?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Impressively stupid reply.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You didn’t pay to feed the slaves, you made them live in farming hamlets and grow their own food

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wish the car that my grandfather bought 70 years ago reproduced and 2 generations later provided me an inheritance of 20 2022 Teslas.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Capitalism is literally retards

Your email address will not be published.