1. #33301
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    The Libertarian Party believes in open borders - it's an official part of the party platform. Not sure about the Communist Party - the strawman communists that live in certain people's heads take whatever position that person wishes to argue against, but we should stick to actual people and organizations rather than imaginary target dummies.
    Communists are generally opposed to the idea of freedom of movement, because they believe that workers need to be located where their skills can be best utilized to serve the greater good, rather than allowing them the freedom to chase personal opportunities that may be beneficial to them, but harmful to society as a whole. For example, many peasants will naturally seek to move to cities because there is more money to be made there, but if this happens on a grand scale then it will lead to overcrowding in urban areas and reduced food production in rural areas. And you could certainly make the argument that mass migration of poor workers from the third world is a net negative for the global economy, since it siphons off a labor force that is needed to rebuild at home and instead employs them domestic servants and gig workers performing mostly unnecessary services for wealthy Westerners that add little economic value.

    However, there is also the component of far left ideology that states that people from impoverished nations who have suffered centuries of colonial exploitation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. While allowing them to migrate is not beneficial from a strictly economic point of view, imposing draconian restrictions on their freedom of movement while the wealthy capitalists who are responsible for causing far more harm to the planet face no such limitations obviously does not do much to promote equality among the peoples of the world. I feel like we should all strive for a world where people aren't forced to migrate from their homes in order to make a decent life for themselves, so that if people are to move to another country it will be because they choose to for reasons of personal enrichment, not because they are being pushed out by violence at home or pulled in by seemingly lucrative but ultimately harmful economic opportunities.

  2. #33302
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    However, there is also the component of far left ideology that states that people from impoverished nations who have suffered centuries of colonial exploitation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.
    And it is purely an invention of the right wing (far or otherwise) in this country that those further on the left are not only Communist, but no different than Stalinist.
    So there really isn't a need to bring up something the far left believe as an example of Communist.

    Are there Communist in the far left? Sure. Is the far left the same as Communists? No.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  3. #33303
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    And it is purely an invention of the right wing (far or otherwise) in this country that those further on the left are not only Communist, but no different than Stalinist.
    So there really isn't a need to bring up something the far left believe as an example of Communist.

    Are there Communist in the far left? Sure. Is the far left the same as Communists? No.
    In practice, communism gained a lot more traction among poor countries than in the industrialized West, and so Marxist ideology became entwined with anti-imperialism. The likes of Castro or Ho Chi Minh were hardly academics hyper-fixated on the proper allocation of the means of production, they just found allies among communist movements that would help them overthrow their occupiers at home. And all communist states have officially promoted ideologies that emphasized racial equality and multi-ethnic solidarity, though of course in practice the realities of governing a nation of mostly uneducated peasants that had plenty of long held biases and historical grudges meant that it wasn't always so rosy in practice. But this idea that some people on the left have that communists are really just right wingers in disguise and that the true radicals are utopian social democrats in the Scandinavian mold is just not borne out by the facts.

  4. #33304
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,189

    Default

    Oh, my lord. This would be absurdity on steroids if it were to come to pass....

    Mike Pence Could Become Donald Trump's Nemesis in 2024
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  5. #33305
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    There is a lot of different calculations about slavery and the GDP, but one thing is clear, slavery was a much bigger part of the US GDP than the California Gold Rush. And I think the falseness of that statement is what is the point here.
    It's still important to note a falseness that people here believe.

    According to the link provided to support the notion that the percentage of GDP derived from slavery is roughly eighty percent, it was about a tenth of that, in the mid to high single digits.

    The main takeaways are that (1) the actual percentage of GDP derived from slavery is measured from final goods and services that involved slave-based production, and (2) Ed Baptist clearly did not understand what he was doing when he calculated his statistic. Cotton was by far the biggest item on the list of final goods and services, and, while its output varied year by year, it is probably reasonable to place slave-based goods in the mid to high single digits, not the 50 percent claim that Coates repeated.
    If people here are off by ninety percent, that's an important thing to point out.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  6. #33306
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The link you provided is an economic historian suggesting that people exaggerate the economic value of slavery.



    He specifically calls out the 80 percent argument as erroneous.
    I explicitly linked this research because I said the 5-50% number is garbage. To show how absurd it is to make that kind of argument.

    It cites sources of the Northern economic engine that relied on support from slave-grown cotton and the proceeds to hand-wave those away.

    If 60% of Southern output is tied to slave-grown cotton, and 20-25% is dedicated to production/support of said slave-grown crop ... it seems like a silly argument to me. You could cut down to textile processing or whatever, not the tools or insurance or everything else and that drops it to 15%. So an argument for 75% could be made. But then the argument is 3/4th of the economy vs. 4/5th of it. Which is still more than half.

    I could see an argument made that 60% of the US economy was tied to slave-grown cotton, just the cotton itself, but that is still larger than 50%.

    So sure, if someone wants to say it was not 80% ... great. It still was over half of the US economy no matter how much some people move the goal posts.

    There are several after-the-fact or "what if" history books based around the idea of the South taking all their cotton and putting it in storage in France during the war, cashing in, and then winning because of that economic advantage. The strong Southern economy has always been an argument for why they should've won and why the loss was such a big deal.

    It just seems silly to me. Like saying the majority of the CSA DIDN'T secede because of slavery related reasons.

    So taking even the lowest possible number (5%) still puts slavery WELL AHEAD of the Gold Rushes.

    Which was the majority of my point.

    But I'd love to have a "slavery wasn't THAT bad" debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    There is a lot of different calculations about slavery and the GDP, but one thing is clear, slavery was a much bigger part of the US GDP than the California Gold Rush. And I think the falseness of that statement is what is the point here.
    Or as Kirby more succinctly put it.
    Last edited by BeastieRunner; 09-16-2021 at 10:39 AM.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  7. #33307
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xheight View Post
    Revisionism. In Trump's drawback the point was and was communicated to leaders especially in Asia that they would have to stand up their own resistance to China if the US was to help them do it.

    https://www.lowyinstitute.org/public...atter-who-wins
    Helping by not helping.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  8. #33308
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    I explicitly linked this research because I said the 5-50% number is garbage. To show how absurd it is to make that kind of argument.

    It cites sources of the the Northern economic engine that relied on support from slave-grown cotton and the proceeds to hand-wave those away.

    If 60% of Southern output is tied to slave-grown cotton, and 20-25% is dedicated to production/support of said slave-grown crop ... it seems like a silly argument to me. You could cut down to textile processing or whatever, not the tools or insurance or everything else and that drops it to 15%. So an argument for 75% could be made. But then the argument is 3/4th of the economy vs. 4/5th of it. Which is still more than half.

    I could see an argument made that 60% of the US economy was tied to slave-grown cotton, just the cotton itself, but that is still larger than 50%.

    So sure, if someone wants to say it was not 80% ... great. It still was over half of the US economy no matter how much some people move the goal posts.

    There are several after-the-fact or "what if" history books based around the idea of the South taking all their cotton and putting it in storage in France during the war, cashing in, and then winning because of that economic advantage. The strong Southern economy has always been an argument for why they should've won and why the loss was such a big deal.

    It just seems silly to me. Like saying the majority of the CSA DIDN'T secede because of slavery related reasons.

    So taking even the lowest possible number (5%) still puts slavery WELL AHEAD of the Gold Rushes.

    Which was the majority of my point.

    But I'd love to have a "slavery wasn't THAT bad" debate.



    Or as Kirby more succinctly put it.
    I don't think anyone's arguing slavery wasn't that bad.

    If slavery is a smaller percentage of GDP than some people estimate, it means the country allowed immense levels of suffering for a small percentage of GDP. That's hardly better than the alternative.

    One of the points in the article you provided was that people have a tendency to double and triple count expenses (IE- adding to the five percent of GDP that was cotton production intermediate transactions that are part of the costs of cotton production.)


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainEurope View Post
    Staring in Berlin Wall.
    That's a fair point. Socialists and communists don't want talented people to be able to leave.


    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Communists are generally opposed to the idea of freedom of movement, because they believe that workers need to be located where their skills can be best utilized to serve the greater good, rather than allowing them the freedom to chase personal opportunities that may be beneficial to them, but harmful to society as a whole. For example, many peasants will naturally seek to move to cities because there is more money to be made there, but if this happens on a grand scale then it will lead to overcrowding in urban areas and reduced food production in rural areas. And you could certainly make the argument that mass migration of poor workers from the third world is a net negative for the global economy, since it siphons off a labor force that is needed to rebuild at home and instead employs them domestic servants and gig workers performing mostly unnecessary services for wealthy Westerners that add little economic value.

    However, there is also the component of far left ideology that states that people from impoverished nations who have suffered centuries of colonial exploitation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. While allowing them to migrate is not beneficial from a strictly economic point of view, imposing draconian restrictions on their freedom of movement while the wealthy capitalists who are responsible for causing far more harm to the planet face no such limitations obviously does not do much to promote equality among the peoples of the world. I feel like we should all strive for a world where people aren't forced to migrate from their homes in order to make a decent life for themselves, so that if people are to move to another country it will be because they choose to for reasons of personal enrichment, not because they are being pushed out by violence at home or pulled in by seemingly lucrative but ultimately harmful economic opportunities.
    I hadn't really considered how freedom of movement would be restricted within a communist country.

    If someone is talented as a bridge engineer, it would make sense for him to go within his country to places where bridge engineers are in high demand. On the other hand, the country may not allow him to reject that offer, which is hardly freedom of movement.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  9. #33309
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xheight View Post
    I agree, Leftism is about critical perspective in service to the people with with out power. Solving problems requires knowing what is causing the problems which in our bloated technocratic society is an alienated government.
    Solving problems by eliminating the problem-solvers.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  10. #33310
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xheight View Post
    So why have our Asian allies been in a panic since the Afghan departure...anything to do with leaving friends hanging out with the wash?

    Recent Politico reporting
    You know, like Trump did to our Kurdish allies in Syria.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  11. #33311
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think anyone's arguing slavery wasn't that bad.
    I think I edited out my "yous" which weren't directed at you specifically, just in general.

    I do think that argument is about to come based on previous posts in this thread, just not from you specifically.

    If slavery is a smaller percentage of GDP than some people estimate, it means the country allowed immense levels of suffering for a small percentage of GDP. That's hardly better than the alternative.
    That is a depressingly sad point.

    There is really no way to sugar coat slavery.

    One of the points in the article you provided was that people have a tendency to double and triple count expenses (IE- adding to the five percent of GDP that was cotton production intermediate transactions that are part of the costs of cotton production.)
    Yeah ... even then ... you still get to 55-60% pretty quickly.

    To your earlier point, it's a cream of the crap situation. Do you want slavery resulting in massive GDP gains or very little? You still have people suffering and dying no matter how you cut it.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  12. #33312
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    I think I edited out my "yous" which weren't directed at you specifically, just in general.

    I do think that argument is about to come based on previous posts in this thread, just not from you specifically.



    That is a depressingly sad point.

    There is really no way to sugar coat slavery.



    Yeah ... even then ... you still get to 55-60% pretty quickly.

    To your earlier point, it's a cream of the crap situation. Do you want slavery resulting in massive GDP gains or very little? You still have people suffering and dying no matter how you cut it.
    Well I think the argument that he was trying to make was that, if slavery was really just an insignificant part of the American economy during the antebellum period, then it can largely just be brushed aside as a minor blemish on an otherwise noble time period, and that America could have easily reached its current level of power and wealth even without relying on it. Of course, this argument is absolutely bunk if you think about it for just a few seconds. For one thing, capturing, transporting, and guarding slaves was an extremely costly and time-consuming endeavor, if plantation owners could have achieved similar levels of productivity simply by hiring wage laborers they would have just done that. Only if the potential profits from using slave labor were so great that they far outweighed the costs of importing them would it make sense to operate a slave economy. And if slavery was really not all that important to the economy, why did the South go to war to preserve the institution? Surely losing 8% of your GDP would not be a big deal compared to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and total devastation of many major towns and cities.

    The thing is, even if the GDP calculation is off, you can only really understand the full impact of slavery by looking at the bigger picture. Slavery was the only thing that made American agriculture competitive on the global markets, because if the plantations had relied on wage labor to pick cotton they would have never been able to compete on price with production in places like Egypt and India, and indeed after the war ended much of the global production shifted to those areas. Without slavery, much of the South would likely have become a land of small subsistence farmers, following that old Jeffersonian vision, and without the massive pile of excess profits to invest in new technologies to improve efficiency, the country as a whole would have industrialized much more slowly and would likely have been left behind by the European empires, never attaining the status of world power that we take for granted now.

  13. #33313
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Well I think the argument that he was trying to make was that, if slavery was really just an insignificant part of the American economy during the antebellum period, then it can largely just be brushed aside as a minor blemish on an otherwise noble time period, and that America could have easily reached its current level of power and wealth even without relying on it. Of course, this argument is absolutely bunk if you think about it for just a few seconds. For one thing, capturing, transporting, and guarding slaves was an extremely costly and time-consuming endeavor, if plantation owners could have achieved similar levels of productivity simply by hiring wage laborers they would have just done that. Only if the potential profits from using slave labor were so great that they far outweighed the costs of importing them would it make sense to operate a slave economy. And if slavery was really not all that important to the economy, why did the South go to war to preserve the institution? Surely losing 8% of your GDP would not be a big deal compared to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and total devastation of many major towns and cities.

    The thing is, even if the GDP calculation is off, you can only really understand the full impact of slavery by looking at the bigger picture. Slavery was the only thing that made American agriculture competitive on the global markets, because if the plantations had relied on wage labor to pick cotton they would have never been able to compete on price with production in places like Egypt and India, and indeed after the war ended much of the global production shifted to those areas. Without slavery, much of the South would likely have become a land of small subsistence farmers, following that old Jeffersonian vision, and without the massive pile of excess profits to invest in new technologies to improve efficiency, the country as a whole would have industrialized much more slowly and would likely have been left behind by the European empires, never attaining the status of world power that we take for granted now.
    Are you talking about the link I shared?
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  14. #33314
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    Are you talking about the link I shared?
    Yeah I mean I wouldn't trust anything put out by AIER, they're another one of those right wing hack organizations that hides behind a distinguished sounding name, pushing propaganda disguised as research.

  15. #33315
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    I think I edited out my "yous" which weren't directed at you specifically, just in general.

    I do think that argument is about to come based on previous posts in this thread, just not from you specifically.



    That is a depressingly sad point.

    There is really no way to sugar coat slavery.



    Yeah ... even then ... you still get to 55-60% pretty quickly.

    To your earlier point, it's a cream of the crap situation. Do you want slavery resulting in massive GDP gains or very little? You still have people suffering and dying no matter how you cut it.
    The point in your article was that double-counting or triple-counting expenses gets the wrong results.

    As for what we should want, we should want accuracy regardless of whether results fit ideological priors.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •