Slavery was always economically useless, in that it decreased the total output of a given population. The reason it was nonetheless practiced is because it served as a wealth transfer from less powerful people to more powerful people.
This is also the reason for collectivization in the Soviet Union and China under Mao - the extraction of an agricultural surplus which it was supposed to generate, in order to get foreign currency which would then be used for the purchase of capital goods from capitalist pigs.
But of course, just as slaves, peasants will work less hard when they can keep 0% of what they produce, so collectivization turned the USSR - with some of the most fertile lands in the world - into a grain importer. Same for China, where people were dying from hunger as late as 1976.
Impressive scapegoating, but I'd recommend doing a better job at reading. Slavery is 'profitable' for the owners, as it transfers income from the slaves to the slaveholders, but not for the society as a whole, as there is a net loss of production due to people not working when someone else profits from it.
Slavery was always economically useless, in that it decreased the total output of a given population. The reason it was nonetheless practiced is because it served as a wealth transfer from less powerful people to more powerful people.
This is also the reason for collectivization in the Soviet Union and China under Mao - the extraction of an agricultural surplus which it was supposed to generate, in order to get foreign currency which would then be used for the purchase of capital goods from capitalist pigs.
But of course, just as slaves, peasants will work less hard when they can keep 0% of what they produce, so collectivization turned the USSR - with some of the most fertile lands in the world - into a grain importer. Same for China, where people were dying from hunger as late as 1976.
It sure wasn't economically useless to the J's that did most of the slavery.
Impressive scapegoating, but I'd recommend doing a better job at reading. Slavery is 'profitable' for the owners, as it transfers income from the slaves to the slaveholders, but not for the society as a whole, as there is a net loss of production due to people not working when someone else profits from it.
Not disagreeing that slavery was very bad for society economically. Just stating that it was successful in making the corrupt all the wealthier.