Dr. Wolff: Globalization

[Toni]

Globalization isn't the issue. The issue is that life can't be made easy for everyone at the same time, the tendency of money clumping together, and people being willing to sell themselves out for worthless platitudes. Sure, life in rural America hasn't improved one bit, but at least some illegal who was working 60 hours a week isn't in our country anymore.

Sure it can. It isn’t, primarily because because unfettered capitalism leads to oligarchs. But basically, economic theory is predicated on the assumption that in order for there to be winners there must be losers. I don’t agree.

 

[Elixir]

Sure it can. It isn’t, primarily because because unfettered capitalism leads to oligarchs.

Large numbers of humans leads to oligarchs. Capitalism is just one way the dynamic manifests.

Throughout recorded history, in the case of every non-nomadic civilization there have have been rulers ruling over subservient officials ruling over provinces etc. and the rulers took everything they could and handed out what they needed to hand out in amounts needed to the right people to ensure the profitability of the entire enterprise. That has always meant paying your oligarchs well to retain their loyalty. And of course, occasionally killing everyone here and there. But mostly, just keeping an iron grip on change.

 

[Bomb#20]

But basically, economic theory is predicated on the assumption that in order for there to be winners there must be losers. I don’t agree.

Which economic theory?

 

[Gospel]

... Half of the country wanted protectionism, and the other half wanted free trade. ...

A review of primary sources, such as secession declarations and statements from Confederate leadership reveals that the preservation of slavery was a core motivating factor. Secondary factors don’t change the primary cause identified in the historical record. Nice try though.

Short version - RVonse ... love WHITE POWER!!!!ONONEONE!!!

Dude! He's not making his lame argument to try to prove the rebs were the good guys. He's making his lame argument to try to prove free trade is bad. Everyone here agrees the rebs were the bad guys and he's relying on that as a premise. His other premise -- that the rebs liked free trade -- is where his argument runs off the rails.

That’s a generous attempt to grant his argument legitimacy. If free trade were central to their cause, their own declarations would emphasize it clearly and repeatedly. Instead, they consistently center slavery.

They favored lower tariffs because it suited their export economy, not because of some broader free-market ideology. Even after the transatlantic slave trade was banned (just importing "Niggers" not banning enslaving "Niggers" in general), they hardly bitched about it because that increased the value of enslaved people. They were greedy, lazy and incredibly stupid opportunists that didn't give a shit about how the market functioned as long as they made money.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Half of the country wanted protectionism, and the other half wanted free trade. ...

A review of primary sources, such as secession declarations and statements from Confederate leadership reveals that the preservation of slavery was a core motivating factor. Secondary factors don’t change the primary cause identified in the historical record. Nice try though.

Short version - RVonse ... love WHITE POWER!!!!ONONEONE!!!

Dude! He's not making his lame argument to try to prove the rebs were the good guys. He's making his lame argument to try to prove free trade is bad. Everyone here agrees the rebs were the bad guys and he's relying on that as a premise. His other premise -- that the rebs liked free trade -- is where his argument runs off the rails.

That’s a generous attempt to grant his argument legitimacy. If free trade were central to their cause, their own declarations would emphasize it clearly and repeatedly. Instead, they consistently center slavery.

They favored lower tariffs because it suited their export economy, not because of some broader free-market ideology. ... They were greedy, lazy and incredibly stupid opportunists...

Quite so. I wasn't trying to grant his argument legitimacy. Very much the reverse -- I pointed out things wrong with it three times. Here's a fourth*: it's a guilt-by-association argument. Even if it were true that a gang of very bad people were for free trade, that wouldn't prove free trade is a bad idea. After all, Stalin was an atheist but that doesn't prove atheism is a bad idea. I was defending RVonse only from the accusation that he was making a white supremacist argument, not from the accusation that he was making a poor argument. They favored lower tariffs because, in Margaret Mitchell's memorable words, all the South had was cotton, slaves and arrogance.

(* Fifth, if you want to get technical -- the fourth thing wrong with it was what you pointed out. )

 

[Gospel]

I was defending RVonse only from the accusation that he was making a white supremacist argument, not from the accusation that he was making a poor argument.

I understood that. I wasn’t suggesting that RVonse was making a white supremacist argument, that was Patooka’s claim. I'm also not arguing for or against Patooka’s accusation.

 

[RVonse]

... Half of the country wanted protectionism, and the other half wanted free trade. ...

A review of primary sources, such as secession declarations and statements from Confederate leadership reveals that the preservation of slavery was a core motivating factor. Secondary factors don’t change the primary cause identified in the historical record. Nice try though.

Short version - RVonse ... love WHITE POWER!!!!ONONEONE!!!

Dude! He's not making his lame argument to try to prove the rebs were the good guys. He's making his lame argument to try to prove free trade is bad. Everyone here agrees the rebs were the bad guys and he's relying on that as a premise. His other premise -- that the rebs liked free trade -- is where his argument runs off the rails.

That’s a generous attempt to grant his argument legitimacy. If free trade were central to their cause, their own declarations would emphasize it clearly and repeatedly. Instead, they consistently center slavery.

They favored lower tariffs because it suited their export economy, not because of some broader free-market ideology. Even after the transatlantic slave trade was banned (just importing "Niggers" not banning enslaving "Niggers" in general), they hardly bitched about it because that increased the value of enslaved people. They were greedy, lazy and incredibly stupid opportunists that didn't give a shit about how the market functioned as long as they made money.

But that is exactly the kind of bull shit propoganda how every war is started. Lets just take a recent example of the Iraq war as one example. Did Bush advertise that oil, Israel, or Cheney's neocon doctrine was behind the conflict? Or was the focus on the US liberating the Iraq people and bringing them freedom?

No matter which war you want to talk about, the message conveyed to the people is seldom the real reason behind its cause. The civil war was no exception.

 

[RVonse]

... Half of the country wanted protectionism, and the other half wanted free trade. ...

A review of primary sources, such as secession declarations and statements from Confederate leadership reveals that the preservation of slavery was a core motivating factor. Secondary factors don’t change the primary cause identified in the historical record. Nice try though.

Short version - RVonse ... love WHITE POWER!!!!ONONEONE!!!

Dude! He's not making his lame argument to try to prove the rebs were the good guys. He's making his lame argument to try to prove free trade is bad. Everyone here agrees the rebs were the bad guys and he's relying on that as a premise. His other premise -- that the rebs liked free trade -- is where his argument runs off the rails.

That’s a generous attempt to grant his argument legitimacy. If free trade were central to their cause, their own declarations would emphasize it clearly and repeatedly. Instead, they consistently center slavery.

They favored lower tariffs because it suited their export economy, not because of some broader free-market ideology. Even after the transatlantic slave trade was banned (just importing "Niggers" not banning enslaving "Niggers" in general), they hardly bitched about it because that increased the value of enslaved people. They were greedy, lazy and incredibly stupid opportunists that didn't give a shit about how the market functioned as long as they made money.

Then we both agree the southern confederates were money grubbing, lazy, and greedy. Pretty much the same characteristics found of many other globalists including Klaus Schwab himself.

Can we at least also agree that the confederates were globalists and against northern tariffs imposed at the time? Because if you don't agree with the reported history of the northern tariffs I don't know what else I can say.

On the slavery issue you say was so central to the civil war. The southern confederates were not the sole cause of black slavery in the first place. Those white people did not enslave black people. They only kept them enslaved after they had already been enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. The black people originally sold as slaves were actually enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. This is a very inconvenient fact that will not be found in any Black Studies program. But it is the truth. Yes the plantation owners could have released the blacks after they had stupidly purchased them from Dahomey. And they should have. But that would be like asking any other capitalist to give away their capital assets needed for their production.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then we both agree the southern confederates were money grubbing, lazy, and greedy. Pretty much the same characteristics found of many other globalists including Klaus Schwab himself.

Can we at least also agree that the confederates were globalists and against northern tariffs imposed at the time?

Um, "globalist" does not mean "I don't like this here tariff that's hurting me right now." The South liked the 1816 tariffs just fine.

Because if you don't agree with the reported history of the northern tariffs I don't know what else I can say.

On the slavery issue you say was so central to the civil war. The southern confederates were not the sole cause of black slavery in the first place. Those white people did not enslave black people. They only kept them enslaved after they had already been enslaved by the black King of Dahomey.

Stuff and nonsense. The black slaves the confederates started their war to keep enslaved had never been in Dahomey in their lives. They were native Americans, and white Americans enslaved them right here in America. What some foreign king on the other side of some ocean they never crossed did to some other black people doesn't enter into it.

 

[laughing dog]

... Half of the country wanted protectionism, and the other half wanted free trade. ...

A review of primary sources, such as secession declarations and statements from Confederate leadership reveals that the preservation of slavery was a core motivating factor. Secondary factors don’t change the primary cause identified in the historical record. Nice try though.

Short version - RVonse ... love WHITE POWER!!!!ONONEONE!!!

Dude! He's not making his lame argument to try to prove the rebs were the good guys. He's making his lame argument to try to prove free trade is bad. Everyone here agrees the rebs were the bad guys and he's relying on that as a premise. His other premise -- that the rebs liked free trade -- is where his argument runs off the rails.

That’s a generous attempt to grant his argument legitimacy. If free trade were central to their cause, their own declarations would emphasize it clearly and repeatedly. Instead, they consistently center slavery.

They favored lower tariffs because it suited their export economy, not because of some broader free-market ideology. Even after the transatlantic slave trade was banned (just importing "Niggers" not banning enslaving "Niggers" in general), they hardly bitched about it because that increased the value of enslaved people. They were greedy, lazy and incredibly stupid opportunists that didn't give a shit about how the market functioned as long as they made money.

Then we both agree the southern confederates were money grubbing, lazy, and greedy. Pretty much the same characteristics found of many other globalists including Klaus Schwab himself.

Can we at least also agree that the confederates were globalists and against northern tariffs imposed at the time? Because if you don't agree with the reported history of the northern tariffs I don't know what else I can say.

On the slavery issue you say was so central to the civil war. The southern confederates were not the sole cause of black slavery in the first place. Those white people did not enslave black people. They only kept them enslaved after they had already been enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. The black people originally sold as slaves were actually enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. This is a very inconvenient fact that will not be found in any Black Studies program. But it is the truth. Yes the plantation owners could have released the blacks after they had stupidly purchased them from Dahomey. And they should have. But that would be like asking any other capitalist to give away their capital assets needed for their production.

That is completely irrelevant to the issue of slavery as a cause for the US civil war because the civil war was caused by slavery in the USA. The origin of the slaves is irrelevant.

Moreover, as Bomb#20 points out, most of the US slaves by the time of the civil war were home grown, not imported.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On the slavery issue you say was so central to the civil war. The southern confederates were not the sole cause of black slavery in the first place. Those white people did not enslave black people. They only kept them enslaved after they had already been enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. The black people originally sold as slaves were actually enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. This is a very inconvenient fact that will not be found in any Black Studies program. But it is the truth. Yes the plantation owners could have released the blacks after they had stupidly purchased them from Dahomey. And they should have. But that would be like asking any other capitalist to give away their capital assets needed for their production.

I suspect Bomb#20's reply to you is about the 1808 prohibition on purchasing slaves from foreign nations. There was a little bit of smuggling, but other than that the vast vast majority of slaves born after 1808 would have been born in the US, not from some foreign land. Consider also the low life expectancy of both the times and of slaves in particular. Whites perhaps could live into their 40s in 1850 as an average. Slaves about half that, low 20s, like 22 as an average life expectancy. Now that statistic likely was also biased by infant mortality for both slaves and non-slaves. BUT still, you are looking at about 2 generations back MINIMUM for the average enslaved person at the start of the Civil War to find an ancestor from a foreign land.

So far as the side issue of the kingdom of Dahomey which was once a major center in the Atlantic slave trade, I don't think it is fair to put all the blame on them. If you recall, Europeans were enslaving Asians and other Europeans for a time. Sure, so were Africans enslaving Africans. Some of the time this was due to wars and sometimes raids. When Europeans came to the Americas, it was little different, they were enslaving the indigenous population. Importantly, they also tried raids and expeditions into Africa, but they often died due to harsh environments and diseases like malaria. So, they deemed it more efficient and better for survival to outsource that work to local populations, such as Dahomey. So slavers did not "stupidly purchase them from Dahomey." Their goal was to enslave people. They did so regardless of Dahomey, but Dahomey also worked with them when given benefits to do so.

Those asides are not relevant to generations later on, except to say that enslavers still wanted to enslave. So they enslaved by law the children of enslaved women. They forced mating, raped, and killed. They wanted to continue to have that power. The power was over 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc generation enslaved Americans.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How exactly is it "inconvenient"? Slavery shouldn't have been practiced in the West nor in Africa. At best it's just a non-sequitur.