Wrong. Net worth is a statement of financial position, the amount by which the value of an individual’s (or business’s) assets exceed liabilities.
In free societies, “net worth” (the value of a household’s assets minus its liabilities) is the measure of its economic value to society.
In slave societies, the labor income value (the expected net value of the future services of a slave) is what each slave was worth as an asset.
Aside from Haiti all those places are vastly richer today than they ever were previously. Only the most hopeless romantic would even think to compare 21st century levels of wealth with the mid-19th century.
First, all those places are relatively poorer today than they were under slavery. The Mississippi Valley, which is the now the poorest region in America, used to be the richest region in America.
Second, after 147 years of scientific and technological progress (tractors, mechanical cotton pickers, modern fertilizers, etc.), the world as a whole is richer in the 21st century than it was in the 19th century, but that has nothing to do with abolition which was objectively an economic catastrophe.
Third, we can compare the free negro in the 21st century to a slave in the 19th century and see that the labor income value of a slave purchased in 1860 was $135K whereas the average free negro household in 2012 has a net worth of $5,000.
Alternatively, we can look at the real price and see that a slave purchased in 1860 would have cost $20,000 in 2009 dollars, which is still far more than the average single black woman in America who has a net worth of $5 in the 21st century.
Reasserting it doesn’t make it true.
It is true.
In slave societies, a negro slave in 1860 would have cost $20,000, but would have been worth the equivalent of $135K, whereas his free counterpart in the 21st century (or his free counterpart in the North in 1860) isn’t worth a fraction of that amount.
Also, there are other solutions, like making them work for the dole or inducing them to limit or forgo procreation. The majority of them, remember, can be gainfully employed, even without AA. So if it’s only the most hopeless segment of them your statement applies to (insofar as it applies at all) then why can’t the same be said of the most hopeless segment of whites?
There are no other solutions.
By “no other solution,” I mean that after almost 150 years of trying free societies still haven’t figured out a way to turn the negro into the type of economic asset he was under slavery. The bottom line is that negroes are objectively worth far more as slaves than as free laborers.
Sterilizing them or making them work in exchange for welfare is an admission that freedom has failed. Gainfully employing them and having negro households which have an average net worth of $5,000 is another startling admission that free negroes aren’t worth anything near as much as slaves.
For a moment I thought you were addressing Nate Silver the polster.
Damn it would be fun to have someone sit down in a debate with a goldenboy of the left and give them their desserts.
Hunter,
In free societies, “net worth” (the value of a household’s assets minus its liabilities) is the measure of its economic value to society.
Net worth can apply to individuals as much as households (I guess you’ve been googling definitions, lol) and it’s a statement of financial position, not “value to society.” It’s that simple. If you want to reinvent the meaning of terms feel free, but then don’t be surprised when people who know better dismiss what you have to say.
First, all those places are relatively poorer today than they were under slavery. The Mississippi Valley, which is the now the poorest region in America, used to be the richest region in America.
What matters is whether they’re absolutely poorer. They’re not. They’re absolutely richer. (Except for Haiti. I think there’s some legitimate doubt about Haiti.)
In slave societies, a negro slave in 1860 would have cost $20,000, but would have been worth the equivalent of $135K, whereas his free counterpart in the 21st century (or his free counterpart in the North in 1860) isn’t worth a fraction of that amount.
There are plenty of productive blacks who would fetch more than $20,000 today if they were enslaved and sold at auction. Hell, even a supermarket shelf-stacker would be a bargain at $20,000. If he costs $10,000 to feed, house and clothe you’d recoup your investment in about two years.
Sterilizing them or making them work in exchange for welfare is an admission that freedom has failed. Gainfully employing them and having negro households which have an average net worth of $5,000 is another startling admission that free negroes aren’t worth anything near as much as slaves.
Firstly, the argument for abolition never rested on economics. It’s the right thing to do, period.
Secondly, you’re wrong about the economics. Their net worth results from decisions they make about what to do with what they earn. If I’m the world’s greatest brain surgeon but I spend virtually all I earn I too could have a net worth of $5,000. That net worth is neither a reflection of my value to society (which is reflected by the fees I can charge) nor in any way a drag on society.
Thirdly, just because the free market doesn’t have a use for all negroes at all times can’t be held to reflect on all negroes in toto unless it can also be held to reflect on all whites in toto, because there are always some whites the free market has no use for.
Silver,
Net worth can apply to individuals as much as households (I guess you’ve been googling definitions, lol) and it’s a statement of financial position, not “value to society.” It’s that simple. If you want to reinvent the meaning of terms feel free, but then don’t be surprised when people who know better dismiss what you have to say.
(1) First, we don’t even have to look at individuals because the average net worth of negro households in 2012 isn’t worth a fraction of the labor income value of a single slave bought in 1860 or even the real price of single slave bought in 2009 dollars.
(2) Second, I am pleased to see you have reread the essay which clearly says that labor income value is the true measure of the worth of a slave’s services in 2009 dollars, not the real price of a slave.
(3) Third, I take it you don’t know that the value of any asset (your house, your car, precious metals like gold or silver, or an agricultural product like cotton) is constantly fluctuating because prices are determined by the subjective impressions of individuals in a market.
The price of anything in a free market is very much a measure of its “value to society.” It is the value that society attaches to that object or the services of that person at any given point of time.
What matters is whether they’re absolutely poorer. They’re not. They’re absolutely richer. (Except for Haiti. I think there’s some legitimate doubt about Haiti.)
Did I say anywhere above that we are absolutely poorer in 2012 than in 1861? I don’t recall saying anywhere that the world isn’t a richer place in the 21st century that it was in the 19th century.
I did say that abolition was an unmitigated economic catastrophe in Dixie. In the stroke of a pen, Abraham Lincoln wiped out almost $4 billion dollars (in 1860 dollars) of Southern wealth. The economic impact of abolition was even more catastrophic in that our economy was based on slavery so the ripple effect cascaded through everything from property values to state finances to private credit to the incalculable opportunity costs of being burdened with millions of worthless free negroes.
In 1860, Southern per capita income was almost twice that of the North. How many decades did abolition set back our national progress?
There are plenty of productive blacks who would fetch more than $20,000 today if they were enslaved and sold at auction. Hell, even a supermarket shelf-stacker would be a bargain at $20,000. If he costs $10,000 to feed, house and clothe you’d recoup your investment in about two years.
After 147 years of freedom and almost 50 years of Great Society redistributive spending, the average negro household in America isn’t worth a fraction of the labor income value of a single slave purchased in 1860 on the New Orleans market.
Slavery was one solution to the negro question. Freedom was another solution that singlehandedly transformed America’s most valuable economic asset into its single greatest economic albatross.
Firstly, the argument for abolition never rested on economics. It’s the right thing to do, period.
If it was so obviously “the right thing to do,” why did abolitionism start out as a fringe movement? Maybe it is because it wasn’t so obvious at the time that abolition was “the right thing to do.”
Secondly, you’re wrong about the economics. Their net worth results from decisions they make about what to do with what they earn. If I’m the world’s greatest brain surgeon but I spend virtually all I earn I too could have a net worth of $5,000. That net worth is neither a reflection of my value to society (which is reflected by the fees I can charge) nor in any way a drag on society.
As free individuals, negroes have the freedom to make their own choices, and the result of those choices is that the average net worth of a negro household is $5,000, the average net worth of a single black woman is $5, and over a third of negro households have a net worth less than zero.
As slaves owned by masters, negroes did not have the freedom to make their own choices, and the result was that a single slave purchased in 1860 cost the equivalent of $20,000 and was an asset worth $135,000 at the time.
Are free negroes a burden to society? In America’s cities, their presence usually seems to indicate higher rates of crime, a decline in property values, a decline in public schools, the flight of businesses, the erosion of the tax base, political corruption, and the collapse of public services.
Thirdly, just because the free market doesn’t have a use for all negroes at all times can’t be held to reflect on all negroes in toto unless it can also be held to reflect on all whites in toto, because there are always some whites the free market has no use for.
The only compelling argument for the presence of millions of negroes in a European society was the economic argument for slavery. That’s still true after 147 years of this experiment in freedom.
(1) First, we don’t even have to look at individuals because the average net worth of negro households in 2012 isn’t worth a fraction of the labor income value of a single slave bought in 1860 or even the real price of single slave bought in 2009 dollars.
I wanted to focus on individuals because slaves were purchased as individuals not as households (at least so far as I’m aware, though I’m sure a budding slaver like you will set me straight if I’m wrong), which I hoped would make the task of spelling out to you why your use of net worth as a measure of value is incorrect.
(2) Second, I am pleased to see you have reread the essay which clearly says that labor income value is the true measure of the worth of a slave’s services in 2009 dollars, not the real price of a slave.
Okay, so make it $135,000 in my example. But in turn you’ll have to cease claiming that slaves were “worth: $135,000 in 1861 since that only applies to 2009 (because the kind of labor they can do in 2009 didn’t exist in 1861).
You still miss the point that employers employ these people, so for them it’s worth it. There’s no getting around this.
(3) Third, I take it you don’t know that the value of any asset (your house, your car, precious metals like gold or silver, or an agricultural product like cotton) is constantly fluctuating because prices are determined by the subjective impressions of individuals in a market.
The price of anything in a free market is very much a measure of its “value to society.” It is the value that society attaches to that object or the services of that person at any given point of time.
As an avid MR reader I’m sure you recall me making almost precisely that point myself not so very long ago.
The point here, however, is that the value of the assets one owns (or rather the value of one’s equity in those assets) is not the appropriate measure of an individual’s value to society, because the individual in question may have, on the one hand, opted for a consumerist lifestyle that eschews amassing assets or, on the other hand, may have inherited a vast amount of property that he’d unlikely be able to ever earn enough to purchase on his own. (Given this line of reasoning, I suppose there are some individuals whose net worth is a perfect reflection of their value to society, but there is no way to distinguish these individuals from any others, so net worth remains an inappropriate measure in all cases.)
If it was so obviously “the right thing to do,” why did abolitionism start out as a fringe movement? Maybe it is because it wasn’t so obvious at the time that abolition was “the right thing to do.”
That’s right, it wasn’t obvious. It also wasn’t obvious at one time that the earth was round or that it moved around the sun but knowing what you know now why would you ever go back?
Did I say anywhere above that we are absolutely poorer in 2012 than in 1861? I don’t recall saying anywhere that the world isn’t a richer place in the 21st century that it was in the 19th century.
I apologize. I didn’t notice your use of the term “relative” in the passage I was responding to (on the previous page).
I did say that abolition was an unmitigated economic catastrophe in Dixie. […] In 1860, Southern per capita income was almost twice that of the North.
I can accept that the consequences were catastrophic. Do you have a source for that statistic?
Are free negroes a burden to society? In America’s cities, their presence usually seems to indicate higher rates of crime, a decline in property values, a decline in public schools, the flight of businesses, the erosion of the tax base, political corruption, and the collapse of public services.
That’s another argument, one I don’t disagree with, as you well know.
The only compelling argument for the presence of millions of negroes in a European society was the economic argument for slavery. That’s still true after 147 years of this experiment in freedom.
That may have been the only compelling argument for their introduction, but it’s not the only compelling argument for their retention. I’d be the first to agree that niggers suck (or as I put it in my worst “fuck niggers” moments, “niggers equals shit, complete shit and nothing but shit, the absolute shit of the earth,” lol), but the question of what to do about it is ethically and politically complex, not ethically and politically simple, and I just don’t see that behaving as though it is simple helps any.
What to do with negros would be a simple soultion if so many folks weren’t all messed up with yankee thinking about how negros are people and our equals.
What to do with negros would be a simple soultion if so many folks weren’t all messed up with yankee thinking about how negros are people and our equals.
(1) That’s a giant-sized “if” there, feller.
(2) As if resistance to these supposedly “simple” solutions rests solely on belief in the truth of equality. Probably just as much resistance, if not more, especially on the part of elites, wannabe elites, and niggerlovers rests on the belief in the falsity of equality — they know the truth about nigs, but don’t want nigs to have to suffer for it or they believe that nigs should be niggerloved anyway.
Silver,
In free societies, “net worth” (the value of a household’s assets minus its liabilities) is the measure of its economic value to society.
In slave societies, the labor income value (the expected net value of the future services of a slave) is what each slave was worth as an asset.
First, all those places are relatively poorer today than they were under slavery. The Mississippi Valley, which is the now the poorest region in America, used to be the richest region in America.
Second, after 147 years of scientific and technological progress (tractors, mechanical cotton pickers, modern fertilizers, etc.), the world as a whole is richer in the 21st century than it was in the 19th century, but that has nothing to do with abolition which was objectively an economic catastrophe.
Third, we can compare the free negro in the 21st century to a slave in the 19th century and see that the labor income value of a slave purchased in 1860 was $135K whereas the average free negro household in 2012 has a net worth of $5,000.
Alternatively, we can look at the real price and see that a slave purchased in 1860 would have cost $20,000 in 2009 dollars, which is still far more than the average single black woman in America who has a net worth of $5 in the 21st century.
It is true.
In slave societies, a negro slave in 1860 would have cost $20,000, but would have been worth the equivalent of $135K, whereas his free counterpart in the 21st century (or his free counterpart in the North in 1860) isn’t worth a fraction of that amount.
There are no other solutions.
By “no other solution,” I mean that after almost 150 years of trying free societies still haven’t figured out a way to turn the negro into the type of economic asset he was under slavery. The bottom line is that negroes are objectively worth far more as slaves than as free laborers.
Sterilizing them or making them work in exchange for welfare is an admission that freedom has failed. Gainfully employing them and having negro households which have an average net worth of $5,000 is another startling admission that free negroes aren’t worth anything near as much as slaves.
For a moment I thought you were addressing Nate Silver the polster.
Damn it would be fun to have someone sit down in a debate with a goldenboy of the left and give them their desserts.
Hunter,
Net worth can apply to individuals as much as households (I guess you’ve been googling definitions, lol) and it’s a statement of financial position, not “value to society.” It’s that simple. If you want to reinvent the meaning of terms feel free, but then don’t be surprised when people who know better dismiss what you have to say.
What matters is whether they’re absolutely poorer. They’re not. They’re absolutely richer. (Except for Haiti. I think there’s some legitimate doubt about Haiti.)
There are plenty of productive blacks who would fetch more than $20,000 today if they were enslaved and sold at auction. Hell, even a supermarket shelf-stacker would be a bargain at $20,000. If he costs $10,000 to feed, house and clothe you’d recoup your investment in about two years.
Firstly, the argument for abolition never rested on economics. It’s the right thing to do, period.
Secondly, you’re wrong about the economics. Their net worth results from decisions they make about what to do with what they earn. If I’m the world’s greatest brain surgeon but I spend virtually all I earn I too could have a net worth of $5,000. That net worth is neither a reflection of my value to society (which is reflected by the fees I can charge) nor in any way a drag on society.
Thirdly, just because the free market doesn’t have a use for all negroes at all times can’t be held to reflect on all negroes in toto unless it can also be held to reflect on all whites in toto, because there are always some whites the free market has no use for.
Silver,
(1) First, we don’t even have to look at individuals because the average net worth of negro households in 2012 isn’t worth a fraction of the labor income value of a single slave bought in 1860 or even the real price of single slave bought in 2009 dollars.
(2) Second, I am pleased to see you have reread the essay which clearly says that labor income value is the true measure of the worth of a slave’s services in 2009 dollars, not the real price of a slave.
(3) Third, I take it you don’t know that the value of any asset (your house, your car, precious metals like gold or silver, or an agricultural product like cotton) is constantly fluctuating because prices are determined by the subjective impressions of individuals in a market.
The price of anything in a free market is very much a measure of its “value to society.” It is the value that society attaches to that object or the services of that person at any given point of time.
Did I say anywhere above that we are absolutely poorer in 2012 than in 1861? I don’t recall saying anywhere that the world isn’t a richer place in the 21st century that it was in the 19th century.
I did say that abolition was an unmitigated economic catastrophe in Dixie. In the stroke of a pen, Abraham Lincoln wiped out almost $4 billion dollars (in 1860 dollars) of Southern wealth. The economic impact of abolition was even more catastrophic in that our economy was based on slavery so the ripple effect cascaded through everything from property values to state finances to private credit to the incalculable opportunity costs of being burdened with millions of worthless free negroes.
In 1860, Southern per capita income was almost twice that of the North. How many decades did abolition set back our national progress?
After 147 years of freedom and almost 50 years of Great Society redistributive spending, the average negro household in America isn’t worth a fraction of the labor income value of a single slave purchased in 1860 on the New Orleans market.
Slavery was one solution to the negro question. Freedom was another solution that singlehandedly transformed America’s most valuable economic asset into its single greatest economic albatross.
If it was so obviously “the right thing to do,” why did abolitionism start out as a fringe movement? Maybe it is because it wasn’t so obvious at the time that abolition was “the right thing to do.”
As free individuals, negroes have the freedom to make their own choices, and the result of those choices is that the average net worth of a negro household is $5,000, the average net worth of a single black woman is $5, and over a third of negro households have a net worth less than zero.
As slaves owned by masters, negroes did not have the freedom to make their own choices, and the result was that a single slave purchased in 1860 cost the equivalent of $20,000 and was an asset worth $135,000 at the time.
Are free negroes a burden to society? In America’s cities, their presence usually seems to indicate higher rates of crime, a decline in property values, a decline in public schools, the flight of businesses, the erosion of the tax base, political corruption, and the collapse of public services.
The only compelling argument for the presence of millions of negroes in a European society was the economic argument for slavery. That’s still true after 147 years of this experiment in freedom.
I wanted to focus on individuals because slaves were purchased as individuals not as households (at least so far as I’m aware, though I’m sure a budding slaver like you will set me straight if I’m wrong), which I hoped would make the task of spelling out to you why your use of net worth as a measure of value is incorrect.
Okay, so make it $135,000 in my example. But in turn you’ll have to cease claiming that slaves were “worth: $135,000 in 1861 since that only applies to 2009 (because the kind of labor they can do in 2009 didn’t exist in 1861).
You still miss the point that employers employ these people, so for them it’s worth it. There’s no getting around this.
As an avid MR reader I’m sure you recall me making almost precisely that point myself not so very long ago.
The point here, however, is that the value of the assets one owns (or rather the value of one’s equity in those assets) is not the appropriate measure of an individual’s value to society, because the individual in question may have, on the one hand, opted for a consumerist lifestyle that eschews amassing assets or, on the other hand, may have inherited a vast amount of property that he’d unlikely be able to ever earn enough to purchase on his own. (Given this line of reasoning, I suppose there are some individuals whose net worth is a perfect reflection of their value to society, but there is no way to distinguish these individuals from any others, so net worth remains an inappropriate measure in all cases.)
That’s right, it wasn’t obvious. It also wasn’t obvious at one time that the earth was round or that it moved around the sun but knowing what you know now why would you ever go back?
I apologize. I didn’t notice your use of the term “relative” in the passage I was responding to (on the previous page).
I can accept that the consequences were catastrophic. Do you have a source for that statistic?
That’s another argument, one I don’t disagree with, as you well know.
That may have been the only compelling argument for their introduction, but it’s not the only compelling argument for their retention. I’d be the first to agree that niggers suck (or as I put it in my worst “fuck niggers” moments, “niggers equals shit, complete shit and nothing but shit, the absolute shit of the earth,” lol), but the question of what to do about it is ethically and politically complex, not ethically and politically simple, and I just don’t see that behaving as though it is simple helps any.
What to do with negros would be a simple soultion if so many folks weren’t all messed up with yankee thinking about how negros are people and our equals.
(1) That’s a giant-sized “if” there, feller.
(2) As if resistance to these supposedly “simple” solutions rests solely on belief in the truth of equality. Probably just as much resistance, if not more, especially on the part of elites, wannabe elites, and niggerlovers rests on the belief in the falsity of equality — they know the truth about nigs, but don’t want nigs to have to suffer for it or they believe that nigs should be niggerloved anyway.
agreed Silver
Another fish brained lynch mob dreamed up by the dying antiracist left http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/wmvgi/the_top_mod_of_rtea_party_new_right_is_a_white/