RE
> non-Marxists like Fogel, Engerman, and
> Oakes . . . . tries to show that
> the plantation system was both
> profitable and efficient on capitalist
> terms.
I believe that current mainstream thought on
slavery is that:
1) slave holders wanted to make money but they did
not seek the highest profit possible. In this
sense they might have differed from capitalists.
In particular, slave holders could have made more
money from investing in manufacturing, but they
did not. The culture of the slaveholders looked
down on manufacturing and, so, they were generally
unwilling to invest in manufacturing. Empirical
work my mainstream economists indicate this.
2) slavery was not "efficient" in any meaningful
way. It was profitable because slaveholders forced
slaves to work hard and long. That is, more human
input (work effort) was produced within slavery.
More input got more output. This is not efficient
this is making people work hard. Further, slavery
production itself was "inefficient" because slaves
intentionally worked poorly when they could get
away with it. And, because slaves often broke any
expansive tools, slaveholders were not able to use
the "best" techology available. Fogel and Engerman
themselves eventually came around to this point of
view after attacks they experience after Time on
the Cross.
The above ideas I think are generally well
accepted within the mainstream of economic
historians.
Eric
