Perhaps I've missed the point, but I find it funny to think the economics field pre-1974 thought slavery made no "economic" sense. Of course free labour would be rational, from an "economical", "quantitative" perspective. That's why life is such crap when we do whats best for the economy instead of what's best for humans, which sadly continues very much to this day and shows little signs of changing.
In Economics, when we say "Rationality", we mean "the possibility of human cooperation with the minimal effort and the maximum satisfaction". And yes, by this perspective, slavery and free trade are the same thing and make any sense.
Of course, the point of view of Fogel and Engerman is biased by a capitalist/conservative perspective from Chicago School of Economics, but this isn't the subject approached that. They approached that historical facts could be interpreted by simulations of data analysis based on Rational Expectatives (minimal costs and maximum yield). Alongside with Douglass North, Fogel and Engerman had laid the foundations of Cliometrics, a new field in Economics.
On the other hand, there are two Economic historians (Joel Mokyr and Avner Greif) that don't agree with this point and proposed that we couldn't simulate the History based on graphics and data analysis.
Fogel and Engerman's Time on the Cross came out in 1974 or 1975 when I was starting grad school in American history. I still remember that it made a huge impression on the field. It argued--really for the first time--that slavery made economic sense and that it was not the backward institution (economically speaking) that it had often been considered to be. Their work draw heavily on quantitative methods to show that, far from disappearing, slavery was rational (again, speaking in economic terms). It was a turning point in the historiography of slavery and is still, nearly 50 years later, a very important work. Although it's drawn significant criticism, as usually happens with major works, it has largely held up despite the criticism.
Great explanation.
I quoted your point, my dear
@tiganeasca, because I'd like to point a little thing: even this book being a classic, a true masterpiece and a contribution for Fogel's Nobel (and knowing that the SA forgot to laureate Engerman -- another incosequence of SA
), this point of view doesn't make any sense in Brazil because the mecanisms of slavery were different here.
So, I agree with them about their analysis on History, but it couldn't be applied here.
Taking the opportunity, what are your perceptions about "Factor Endowments" theory? Are you familiarized with it?
First of all, I never heard of it. That is one of the problems with this planet, there are too damn many books. And then most of them are not worth the time, in my rarely humble opinion.
Second, there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was created by some Swedish bank in the 60s not Alfred Nobel.
Third, I have made a "hobby" of Economics since I read the book, The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood. That book convinced me that there was something wrong with economics so I pulled out my Samuelson's Economics from college intending to read it cover to cover if necessary.
Economists do not talk about NDP, Net Domestic Product. They only subtract the depreciation of capital goods, but the Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between capital and consumer goods. So ignoring the depreciation of consumer automobiles and other consumer goods since WWII and not talking about Planned Obsolescence is a Big Lie. The economics profession is screwing us.
Yes. Prize in Economics Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or something like else or Prize for Professors of Chicago School of Economics. LOL.
Samuelson and his
Economics! I need to read it again!!!
His co-author, William Nordhaus, won "this prize" too.
Well, I promise that I don't ask you again, but what are your impressions about Thomas Sowell? Have you read him? Thank you in advance.
