NationStates

Agymnum wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:I agree, actually. My AP teacher was very, very biased towards the Republican perspective as well.

Strangely enough, mine was the opposite. Mine taught Keynesian economics but was biased toward Democrats. Only nice thing she had to say about Romney was that he "looked presidential".

Ralkovia wrote:

Laerod wrote:Oh wow.

Slavery isn't a violation of human rights?

Ralkovia wrote:

Laerod wrote:Oh wow.

Slavery isn't a violation of human rights?

Allemonde wrote:Wow what a bunch of idiots. Maybe they don't know that originates from the Babylonians and the Muslims.


Oh crap never mind.

Ralkovia wrote:I actually draw problems with economics. They only seem to teach Keynsian economics at high school level.

Ceannairceach wrote:But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Ceannairceach wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
Not really. Slavery is a cost effective way of labor. Machines are more effective. Hence why slavery was prominent part of the World for millenia.

At the time of the Enlightenment, Europe didn't need slavery anymore. Before hand it had kept slaves as "serfs."

Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

Ceannairceach wrote:But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Ralkovia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Individuality-ness wrote:BURN ALL THE BOOKS!!!!

No. Commies burn flags, because they hate their nations. Therefore burning things is communist. Therefore take all the math books, give them to the Book Publishing industry, and get all the pages cleaned of ink before reprinting them as Bibles and copies of Atlas Shrugged. It's the only way, and it's helping the Job Creators^TM and Wealth Creators^TM to create jobs and wealth!

George Bush went in there because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found

Laerod wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Duvniask wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Once upon a time, Fox News made a news story about Obama not wearing a tie. So no. It should not be suprising in the least bit.

Ralkovia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

Individuality-ness wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Once upon a time, Fox News made a news story about Obama not wearing a tie. So no. It should not be suprising in the least bit.

I remember they made a Freudian slip, when they said that they got "Obama bin Laden" instead of Osama.

Ralkovia wrote:

Laerod wrote:No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

Ralkovia wrote:

Laerod wrote:No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

Gauthier wrote:

Individuality-ness wrote:I remember they made a Freudian slip, when they said that they got "Obama bin Laden" instead of Osama.

It's FOX. Freudian slips are *untintentional*.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Ralkovia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Of course. Free labor is more cost effective than slavery in certain jobs other than the primitive and mindless work that was entitled in picking and harvesting crops. There is a reason why slavery is still used in undeveloped parts of the World for farming.

Slavery exists and has existed because slavery is profitable and cost effective.

Laerod wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

You need to reread what was posted. "Not cost effective" and "inefficient" aren't the same thing, so presenting an argument as to why something was cost effective enough to survive doesn't mean that it's the best economic choice.

Ralkovia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Of course. Free labor is more cost effective than slavery in certain jobs other than the primitive and mindless work that was entitled in picking and harvesting crops. There is a reason why slavery is still used in undeveloped parts of the World for farming.

Slavery exists and has existed because slavery is profitable and cost effective.

Ralkovia wrote:

Laerod wrote:You need to reread what was posted. "Not cost effective" and "inefficient" aren't the same thing, so presenting an argument as to why something was cost effective enough to survive doesn't mean that it's the best economic choice.

Cost effective still means it worked and if it means that it "Got the job done" than slavery has just been economically justified.