Hypothetical Ecinomics: Slavery, Egypt, etc.

[Rethius]

I am branching this off into its own topic.

To narrow things down so we can all be on the same page:

We're discussing SLAVERY from an economic standpoint. For the sake of argument and example we will use Ancient Egypt (3150 BC to 30 BC).

Egypt utilized slavery as their base work force for much of it's existence so I think it will work nicely.


Slaves were used to construct the ancient tombs dedicated to Egypt's king and priestly class. They were also used in the general work force OUTSIDE of building these elaborate structures (Slaves were utilized on Farms, mines, road construction along with general construction, and of course 'personal' use.

This is not a discussion on the morality or lack there of surrounding the subject, rather the big question is: Is slavery effective financially and otherwise in a community?

Things of note: The region has rich amounts of resources in the way of minerals ranging from gold, stone, iron, copper and more. The Nile also offers much in the way of agriculture.


By all means expand.

Edit:

Commerce centers a lot around the Nile, fishing, farming etc its usually done there. Tradesmen tend to do very well for themselves by selling goods to the people.

The average person makes money by selling fish, or food. Some work under a foreman as overseers to slaves working in mines or clay pits.

The biggest source of income would be TRADE! Both within the nation's borders, and outside.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

I would argue that based on the motivation, and the need for the upkeep of slaves, that it would have two effects.

-Decrease in output from a compensation society. The slaves will have nothing to work for, therefore they will produce lower quality items where quality is important, and less items when quantity is important. There will be perpetual underutilization of labor.

-The money you would have saved by forgoing wages would be replaced with upkeep, such as the provision of food and lodging. There would be no net gain in the contribution margin per unit.

[Vyn]

I heard somewhere that the people who built the pyramids in Egypt weren't in fact slaves, but it was more like their 'holy duty.' Something akin to a Mormon Mission.

I've been wrong before.

[Raziel]

No, pretty sure they were Jews there Vyn.

[Rand_Shea]

It wasn't just Hebrews. It was conquered people from areas within Africa as well as purchased slaves from countries/tribes that Egypt traded with.

Also, the definition of slavery back in those times and in Africa was different than what slavery was in Northern European nations and in America. It was an type of economic reimbursement as those who went into debt faced being put into slavery to repay their debts along with their families until the debts were paid.

Case in point, some guy borrows money and/or animals to start say... a vineyard in order to produce wine, but there's a massive shift in weather that causes the land to be ruined and the animals to be killed. Unless that guy managed to pull through or get enough money somehow to pay back what he owes... him, his wife, their children, their grandchildren, and their greatgrandchildren on down the line are legally put into bondage and spend whatever length of time necessary to pay back what was lost.

Keep in mind that housing, food, and clothing were added on as additional debt, hence why it could possibly take GENERATIONS for a debt to be paid back to the family of the lender, or whoever paid it back to them by buying the slave.

Slavery was also used as a means of offloading children to other families that could better feed and take care of them if conditions where their parents lived were dire. When conditions improved, parents could essentially 'buy' their children back, or the child would remain a slave to the family that took them in until they reached a certain age.

The slavery in Egypt was not turned into a human trading market until the advent of the Greek and Roman Empires, when it was discovered that the pale people across the sea would pay in much gold and jewels to own slaves... and that in turn was the foundation for Northern Europe and subsequently America getting the concept that Slavery = 100% ownership of another human being.

As for the Hebrews, though... whether or not they were 100% owned and abused by Egyptians is debatable. Some sources say they were, others say that their slavery was a mutual commitment as the Hebrews, having been a nomad people, wanted to stay in Egypt for some reason and the price for most of them doing so was to agree to be laborers and 'slaves', because Egypt otherwise had very little viable ground to use for things like agriculture and livestock, since The Nile only flooded a small strip of land in otherwise barren desert. Which interpretation you get is highly dependent upon the source.

But, then again, I could be completely wrong about all of this. This is all just regurgitation of things I've come to learn, and I make no claim of being any sort of expert.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

That sounds somewhat correct... indentured servitude. I wasn't aware though, that it was the standing practice in Egypt.

Although, I avoid studying Egypt... it creeps me out..

Anyway, indentured servitude would carry something of an incentive, but the sheer magnitude of the debt may discourage the workers. If the debt for example, lasts for generations, what are the odds that you are going to pay all of it off?

[Raziel]

Although, I avoid studying Egypt... it creeps me out..

THOTH DEMANDS YOU LEARN OF HIS GREATNESS
http://vovanthanh.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/thoth_01.jpg
THERE SHALL NEVER BE MORE GREATNESS THAN THOTH

[Karkarov]

In reality what we have today in america is very similar. How many people are working today to pay of debt loans from their college days etc that they likely will not be clear of until their 40's?To be sure it isn't as extreme but the similarity is there.

In general just to weigh in slavery is bad. Regardless of "why" you are a slave the truth is you are going to end up doing work that you likely will not enjoy, don't want to do, and you will be living by another persons leave even if they don't think they 100% own you. Those types of conditions inspire depression, lack of work ethic, taking no pride in what you do, etc etc. Long story short unless someone chooses that lifestyle themselves they are unlikely to be effective as a laborer.

Meanwhile the same guy who hates slave life could simply be paid a fee that is equal to what you would have spent on thier upkeep anyway and now they feel empowered and in control. They end up doing the same work but they feel rewarded for doing it because the reward is not some intangible thing they can't put their hands on. If they fail to work you just fire them and get a new person and now they have nothing so it behooves them to do at least moderately well at their job.

[Rethius]

In reality what we have today in america is very similar. How many people are working today to pay of debt loans from their college days etc that they likely will not be clear of until their 40's?To be sure it isn't as extreme but the similarity is there.

In general just to weigh in slavery is bad. Regardless of "why" you are a slave the truth is you are going to end up doing work that you likely will not enjoy, don't want to do, and you will be living by another persons leave even if they don't think they 100% own you. Those types of conditions inspire depression, lack of work ethic, taking no pride in what you do, etc etc. Long story short unless someone chooses that lifestyle themselves they are unlikely to be effective as a laborer.

Meanwhile the same guy who hates slave life could simply be paid a fee that is equal to what you would have spent on thier upkeep anyway and now they feel empowered and in control. They end up doing the same work but they feel rewarded for doing it because the reward is not some intangible thing they can't put their hands on. If they fail to work you just fire them and get a new person and now they have nothing so it behooves them to do at least moderately well at their job.

I'm glad someone brought this out.



... Wal-mart?


I would argue that based on the motivation, and the need for the upkeep of slaves, that it would have two effects.

-Decrease in output from a compensation society. The slaves will have nothing to work for, therefore they will produce lower quality items where quality is important, and less items when quantity is important. There will be perpetual underutilization of labor.

-The money you would have saved by forgoing wages would be replaced with upkeep, such as the provision of food and lodging. There would be no net gain in the contribution margin per unit.


Motivation is kept in line by the strong desire of not to being flogged.

You are basically right on the upkeep however, but it basically evens out. Paying for the most minimal provisions for a bunch of slaves vs paying a substantial amount for a handful of paid workers.


We'll have to do some math Aleria, but I think in the end it will break even.

[Thalevia]

Before anyone gets on a really long tangent about slavery and Egypt let me just correct something.

Slaves didn't build the tombs. Workers and artisans did. And as far as we can tell, they weren't Jews either, they were native Egyptians.

Deir el-Medina (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/medina.htm)

So find better examples for examining slavery ok.

Editing this real quick before I run to work. There was slavery in Egypt but it was more a serf system in many cases and was made up of war captives and others of non-native Egyptian birth. They had a lot of privilages that we don't associate with slavery. They worked the fields and in houses but did not build the tombs.

[Emmons]

Get Thalevia's take on this because she's going to be the one pretty much the most qualified on this subject. Go find yourself some sources in the library though and don't believe everything you hear on the internet. I remember reading that egyptian "slaves" were actually subdivided into categories, and many of the people working on the pyramid were more like indentured servants (wage slaves) than work animals (Jews).

On the economic side, slavery is actually much more expensive, think of it this way. What is more expensive for Walmart? Paying an employee $7.50 an hour, or building housing, dining, and medical facilities for every employee as well as providing every meal (even if it's meager) and then also supporting any family members of theirs who can't work, and having to cloth them?

Also look up the concept of Scientific Management, it's why Ford kicked so much ass in his day, and I think you'll find a lot of help in it.

Be wary of setting a thesis before you get all your information, because at this point, it seems you are dead-set on the support of slavery even though there is a lot of discussion going on.

Also, it's spelled Economics.

[Emmons]

Addendum: Here's some ISBNs of books you might find useful:

0801878144
050002104X
0198150342
9774160916
1405118555

[Rand_Shea]

Before anyone gets on a really long tangent about slavery and Egypt let me just correct something.

Slaves didn't build the tombs. Workers and artisans did. And as far as we can tell, they weren't Jews either, they were native Egyptians.

Deir el-Medina (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/medina.htm)

So find better examples for examining slavery ok.

Editing this real quick before I run to work. There was slavery in Egypt but it was more a serf system in many cases and was made up of war captives and others of non-native Egyptian birth. They had a lot of privilages that we don't associate with slavery. They worked the fields and in houses but did not build the tombs.

Yeah... that's what I was trying to get across, but again, I'm not an expert on the subject. I wasn't certain if 'slaves' in Egypt had rights or not. I was leaning towards yes, but again... not my field of expertise.

But I did forget that about the tombs. The only one Egyptians did use slaves on would have been the pyramids, and that would have just been for sheer manpower to harvest the stones and get them in place... but from what I learned, it seemed that foreigner 'slaves' as well as Egyptians worked side by side doing it and were paid relatively the same or otherwise compensated.

Tombs, otherwise, were sanctuaries for the dead, so they would want people who cared about their work to actually touch anything involved in the process. An embittered and poorly treated slave wouldn't offer the quality of work or love for the work an artist would.

[Rethius]

Get Thalevia's take on this because she's going to be the one pretty much the most qualified on this subject. Go find yourself some sources in the library though and don't believe everything you hear on the internet. I remember reading that egyptian "slaves" were actually subdivided into categories, and many of the people working on the pyramid were more like indentured servants (wage slaves) than work animals (Jews).

On the economic side, slavery is actually much more expensive, think of it this way. What is more expensive for Walmart? Paying an employee $7.50 an hour, or building housing, dining, and medical facilities for every employee as well as providing every meal (even if it's meager) and then also supporting any family members of theirs who can't work, and having to cloth them?

Also look up the concept of Scientific Management, it's why Ford kicked so much ass in his day, and I think you'll find a lot of help in it.

Be wary of setting a thesis before you get all your information, because at this point, it seems you are dead-set on the support of slavery even though there is a lot of discussion going on.

Also, it's spelled Economics.

I guess Egypt is a bad example then I was never much of the historian but...

"On the economic side, slavery is actually much more expensive, think of it this way. What is more expensive for Walmart? Paying an employee $7.50 an hour, or building housing, dining, and medical facilities for every employee as well as providing every meal (even if it's meager) and then also supporting any family members of theirs who can't work, and having to cloth them?"

In some cases none of these were provided, (see: holocaust).

So assuming the labor force is entirely expendable, would it still cost more?

[Rand_Shea]

Slavery in America would have been a better choice, as the economy of the Southern states was almost entirely dependent on the labor of blacks.

Also... many companies across the world implement programs where they provide shelter, food, and care for employees as well as wages... The problem with those is, though, that it is the bare minimum of what is needed, and the wages the employees earn is probably, at the most LUCRATIVE, $2 an hour. More likely it's going to be somewhere in the realm of maybe $.75

So... it is possible to have a workforce of people and make a profit off their labor through Slavery, considering there's no laws or rules regarding the quality of care and what is provided to them. It would actually be really profitable.

Thus, no, if the workforce was completely expendable, it wouldn't cost more monetarily.

[Rethius]

So... it is possible to have a workforce of people and make a profit off their labor through Slavery, considering there's no laws or rules regarding the quality of care and what is provided to them. It would actually be really profitable.

Thus, no, if the workforce was completely expendable, it wouldn't cost more monetarily.

You see, this here confuses me a lot because according to the International Labor Organization "The profits from forced trafficked labour are estimated to be in excess of $32 billion."


So, apparently people are making profit, how? I dunno, what you are all saying makes sense, but the facts say people are making profit off of it.

[Rand_Shea]

You see, this here confuses me a lot because according to the International Labor Organization "The profits from forced trafficked labour are estimated to be in excess of $32 billion."


So, apparently people are making profit, how? I dunno, what you are all saying makes sense, but the facts say people are making profit off of it.

Human trafficking?

The majority of that is with women and children, that are bought and sold for use in prostitution or sexual bondage. People are willing to pay a lot of money for sex... and some people are willing to pay lots more for sexual encounters that are typically illegal either because of the age of the 'object' or what the act entails being done to them.

Also... finding a dark hole to stockpile your 'goods' isn't that hard, and doesn't cost much when you cram them all in like sardines and don't necessarily care what happens to the inevitable filth that they naturally excrete and will build up.

Clothes? They can just reuse what they came with... They'll get dressed up if a client desires it, but if not... eh.

Medical care? If they die, no big deal, they didn't cost much/anything at all to get anyway. Shallow grave out in a field... if someone finds them, no one will ever know who they are.

Food? Rice is extremely cheap and nutritious enough. Watered down broth is even cheaper. Chances are they could stand to lose weight anyway.

It's relatively easy to spend very little on upkeep of another person, if you have no morals and no sense of empathy for their suffering.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

In respect to Slavery in the United States, I would like to point out that economic growth took off after it was ended.

In terms of letting the slaves die, first off, slaves are not cheap to buy in the first place, and after that, taking care of them is an additional fixed cost. The closest thing we have to that is a machine.

Letting a slave die is like throwing a machine out after it has a minor defect. It's not very cost effective at all.

Finally, in terms of motivation, threats have proven not to work as well as incentives. The Soviets tried it, the Chinese (before they went capitalist) tried it, the Nazis tried it, the North Koreans still try it, and in no case has it ever worked as well as capitalism.

[Rand_Shea]

In respect to Slavery in the United States, I would like to point out that economic growth took off after it was ended.

In terms of letting the slaves die, first off, slaves are not cheap to buy in the first place, and after that, taking care of them is an additional fixed cost. The closest thing we have to that is a machine.

Letting a slave die is like throwing a machine out after it has a minor defect. It's not very cost effective at all.

Finally, in terms of motivation, threats have proven not to work as well as incentives. The Soviets tried it, the Chinese (before they went capitalist) tried it, the Nazis tried it, the North Koreans still try it, and in no case has it ever worked as well as capitalism.

Not if you're the person who captured/acquired the slave to begin with. Modern 'slavery' is prevalent in many underdeveloped nations, particularly ones ridden with problems like starvation, where families will sell off their children in exchange for a few months worth of money to purchase food.

Or, the slavers don't even pay anything and just outright kidnap people. A practice not unheard of in Asia.

Cheap, or free, with an end payout in the thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the 'quality' of the 'product'? Sounds pretty profitable to me.

And economics have little to do with it beyond that... the people who engage in these practices still do not care about taking care of what they acquire. They only want to keep the people for as short of a time as possible, unless they're in the practice of using them for their own brothels and trading, in which case... they still don't care about mortality rates because for every 1 person that dies in their 'care', at least 20 others survive and provide them more than enough money to keep going after dumping the dead ones off somewhere.

Human greed isn't an uncommon pairing with human tendency to not care about the suffering of others.

[Fynne]

I would argue that based on the motivation, and the need for the upkeep of slaves, that it would have two effects.

-Decrease in output from a compensation society. The slaves will have nothing to work for, therefore they will produce lower quality items where quality is important, and less items when quantity is important. There will be perpetual underutilization of labor.

-The money you would have saved by forgoing wages would be replaced with upkeep...

Actually, if you have a city with a population greater than you have happiness to sustain, those folks aren't producing anything anyway. So as long as you're sacrificing more population than you're creating happiness, you're still hitting a net gain. Example: I have a size 13 city, but only 10 happiness. I can rush a wonder by sacrificing 3 population but creating 1 unhappiness for 10 turns. My city drops to size 10 and my happiness goes to 9.

By the time the unhappiness penalty goes away (ex. the people forget about the slavery incident 10 turns later) I'll have gained at _least_ one population point back, so I'll still have 10 population functional, but in addition to that, I'll have a greater percentage of happy, functioning people in the city because I got rid of the overpopulation problem.

And that's not even counting the effect of whatever wonder I produced; it could have an effect on economics, the number of population I can sustain, or even happiness!

Slavery is a win/win situation when used properly.


...such as the provision of food and lodging. There would be no net gain in the contribution margin per unit.

That's why you don't feed them. See: "sacrificing population"

[Rethius]

...


Sid Myers, what have you done?!

[Yatokth]

Actually, if you have a city with a population greater than you have happiness to sustain, those folks aren't producing anything anyway. So as long as you're sacrificing more population than you're creating happiness, you're still hitting a net gain. Example: I have a size 13 city, but only 10 happiness. I can rush a wonder by sacrificing 3 population but creating 1 unhappiness for 10 turns. My city drops to size 10 and my happiness goes to 9.

By the time the unhappiness penalty goes away (ex. the people forget about the slavery incident 10 turns later) I'll have gained at _least_ one population point back, so I'll still have 10 population functional, but in addition to that, I'll have a greater percentage of happy, functioning people in the city because I got rid of the overpopulation problem.

And that's not even counting the effect of whatever wonder I produced; it could have an effect on economics, the number of population I can sustain, or even happiness!

Slavery is a win/win situation when used properly.



That's why you don't feed them. See: "sacrificing population"

This is quite possibly one of the most fucked up things I have ever read.

[Rethius]

This is quite possibly one of the most fucked up things I have ever read.

...


He does however have a point. And if your civilization is Militaristic and Religious you wont have to worry as much about a civil disorder in said city.

Oh, and roll police state.

[Yatokth]

...


He does however have a point. And if your civilization is Militaristic and Religious you wont have to worry as much about a civil disorder in said city.

Oh, and roll police state.

His point is moot cause slavery isn't win-win for the people who die building his amusement park.

[Rethius]

His point is moot cause slavery isn't win-win for the people who die building his amusement park.

We can make more?

[Vyn]

His point is moot cause slavery isn't win-win for the people who die building his amusement park.

Tch. Yeah it is. They can haunt the Amusement Park and ride for free.

[Rand_Shea]

Actually, if you have a city with a population greater than you have happiness to sustain, those folks aren't producing anything anyway. So as long as you're sacrificing more population than you're creating happiness, you're still hitting a net gain. Example: I have a size 13 city, but only 10 happiness. I can rush a wonder by sacrificing 3 population but creating 1 unhappiness for 10 turns. My city drops to size 10 and my happiness goes to 9.

By the time the unhappiness penalty goes away (ex. the people forget about the slavery incident 10 turns later) I'll have gained at _least_ one population point back, so I'll still have 10 population functional, but in addition to that, I'll have a greater percentage of happy, functioning people in the city because I got rid of the overpopulation problem.

And that's not even counting the effect of whatever wonder I produced; it could have an effect on economics, the number of population I can sustain, or even happiness!

Slavery is a win/win situation when used properly.



That's why you don't feed them. See: "sacrificing population"

...what?

[Emmons]

Fynne's strategy is actually really good early in the game.

[Zethrin]

In reality what we have today in america is very similar. How many people are working today to pay of debt loans from their college days etc that they likely will not be clear of until their 40's?To be sure it isn't as extreme but the similarity is there.

In general just to weigh in slavery is bad. Regardless of "why" you are a slave the truth is you are going to end up doing work that you likely will not enjoy, don't want to do, and you will be living by another persons leave even if they don't think they 100% own you. Those types of conditions inspire depression, lack of work ethic, taking no pride in what you do, etc etc. Long story short unless someone chooses that lifestyle themselves they are unlikely to be effective as a laborer.

Meanwhile the same guy who hates slave life could simply be paid a fee that is equal to what you would have spent on thier upkeep anyway and now they feel empowered and in control. They end up doing the same work but they feel rewarded for doing it because the reward is not some intangible thing they can't put their hands on. If they fail to work you just fire them and get a new person and now they have nothing so it behooves them to do at least moderately well at their job.

This is technically called Wage Slavery, and is a central component of modern Marxist thought. I'd think up a detailed logical rebuttal, but it's 4 AM, so I'll leave it to one of the more conservative posters to do it. Probably something to do with having more freedom to choose to work elsewhere...


Actually, if you have a city with a population greater than you have happiness to sustain, those folks aren't producing anything anyway. So as long as you're sacrificing more population than you're creating happiness, you're still hitting a net gain. Example: I have a size 13 city, but only 10 happiness. I can rush a wonder by sacrificing 3 population but creating 1 unhappiness for 10 turns. My city drops to size 10 and my happiness goes to 9.

By the time the unhappiness penalty goes away (ex. the people forget about the slavery incident 10 turns later) I'll have gained at _least_ one population point back, so I'll still have 10 population functional, but in addition to that, I'll have a greater percentage of happy, functioning people in the city because I got rid of the overpopulation problem.

And that's not even counting the effect of whatever wonder I produced; it could have an effect on economics, the number of population I can sustain, or even happiness!

Slavery is a win/win situation when used properly.

Someone has been playing too much Civilization. Real life does not work like those games. Seriously, my greatest peeve with that game (other than the RND generator combat system... my helicopter gunship just died to a knight... WTF?!) is that even with Civ 4, the economic system is still terribly simplistic and unrealistic.

Back to slavery in general, it's popularity as a system came in part because conquering warlords could just enslave whole populations to augment their economies. The Roman empire was built on this kind of economic growth through military expansion strategy, that had serious problems when they got overstretched and their steady stream of slaves dried up.

The economic advantage of slaves is you can literally work them to death, since they have no rights and you can basically use economy of scale to feed and shelter large numbers in mediocre conditions. The problem is the system is the slaves will revolt at any given opportunity so you need a constant physical force present, which after all is how you motivate them to do work in the absense of market incentives like upward mobility. Though some systems had ways of freeing slaves after they'd worked for a time, even allowing them to become citizens. Those systems tended to be more stable, and more similar to caste societies. Eventually those evolved into serfdoms where the peasants had enough rights to own stuff, like say, a cow.

Then came the French Revolution and all that jazz about liberty and equality... and now this is turning into a history lesson, so I'm gonna stop.

Also... OP spelled economics wrong in the thread title...

[Karkarov]

This is technically called Wage Slavery, and is a central component of modern Marxist thought. I'd think up a detailed logical rebuttal, but it's 4 AM, so I'll leave it to one of the more conservative posters to do it. Probably something to do with having more freedom to choose to work elsewhere...

Of course they would have the freedom to work elsewhere. Never said they wouldn't. When you are only qualified to do basic labor though pickings aren't exactly great or full of variety. By the way you realize what I described is basically exactly what work life is in america for the average citizen?

[Sejarki]

By the way you realize what I described is basically exactly what work life is in america for the average citizen?

Yes, you were then called a dirty Commie for daring to think such things. You realized you're a dirty Commie didn't you?

[Irontoe]

Fuckin' commies, man.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

Of course they would have the freedom to work elsewhere. Never said they wouldn't. When you are only qualified to do basic labor though pickings aren't exactly great or full of variety. By the way you realize what I described is basically exactly what work life is in america for the average citizen?

Somewhat true, most firms also keep a good amount of money tied up in liabilities too, with long term, and even overnight loans. This is why when interest rates rise, so do prices on just about everything. (Overnight loans are more difficult to give out, ect.)

There are differences, however, between the current debt system and indentured servitude. With indentured servitude, the existence of debt removes the element of choice in the matter. You MUST pay back this amount through your work, leaving only as much as the creditor thinks you should have to provide for yourself. It would be the same if the IRS was garnishing 90% of your wages.

The current credit system is more flexible. Firms operate off of leverage ratios, and their credit score, and so do individual people. Is it prudent to pay off your debts? Yes. However, you also have the option to be irresponsible, and pay off debts with credit cards, or by taking out other debts, until your leverage is in shambles, and you have to either speak to a credit arbitration firm (which are vanishing, by the way), or file for bankruptcy.

Or you can be like me, and try to avoid debt at all costs.... something which often forces me into a spending freeze.

[Karkarov]

All thats true but my point is this, the debt system in use by america is just a thinly guised version of slavery. A credit company basically gives you the chance to spend more than you can afford to pay (thats the whole point and how they make money) and the end result is you owing them for the rest of your life. Your example of a person with garnished wages is actually quite common in fact.

But thats the whole paradigm shift I mentioned. Give a slave a wage, let him buy his own stuff, and even though he is still in the same position he thinks he isnt. That is how america's debt system works too, it gives you payment options, cash advance agencies, loans, credit cards, and a million other things that con you into thinking you are paying your debt when all you are really doing is paying interest.

The only way you can win in the economics model of modern america is to either A: be born rich or become rich through whatever means (good luck), or B: never spend what you can't afford to pay right now in full in cash if you had to. I live by method B.

PS: Communism works, but only if the people running it are 100% altruistic people beyond any corruption. Good luck finding enough of those people to fill out that government. I am not also not a communist, in fact, I am not an anything. I would appreciate it if the political humor was left on the TNG political forum which I coincidentally do not read.

[Szordrin]

Also, it's spelled Economics.

Damn you, got to the point before I did.

[Rand_Shea]

Credit debt is nothing like slavery in the least bit unless you CHOOSE to commit yourself to the goal of working off your debt for however long it takes. But, again... the key word there is choose.

Slavery in ancient cultures was not something you had a choice in. Either you paid your debts, or you worked to pay them off, and your bondage became the bondage of your entire family and descendants. If you chose to not pay your debts or submit to slavery, you were considered a criminal and either sought to be caught and forced into servitude, or if you pissed off your debtor enough, you could be killed for it along with your family. The only way anyone ever escaped slavery was to flee, and in the ancient world travel was not easily affordable or accomplished, and the choices of where to go were extremely limited as many countries did not want people moving in and cultural, racial, and ethnic differences were treated with open hostility.

Compared to back then, having the choice to just sit on your ass and never pay off debt at the sacrifice of credit rating is extremely lax and forgiving.

[Karkarov]

Uh Rand companies do come to get their money back sooner or later they don't just let you rip them off for thousands and thousands of dollars and do nothing about it. I also said in my initial post they were similar but the credit model is obviously less stringent.

Short of declaring bankruptcy you don't really have a way out long term and your debts can be passed to your descendants. Of course if you declare bankruptcy you also probably lose most if not all of your property and are probably screwed out of any chance at a good job, education, etc etc. Those are the breaks.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

Actually, any good company knows that there is a certain portion of its debts that simply aren't payable, and have established methods for writing off "bad debt expense", essentially, money that they realize will not be coming back.

This is actually one of the reasons why many banks in the United States fell during this recession. The CRA loans they were forced to give out quickly became worthless numbers on a balance sheet when rising gas and food prices killed the ability for people to pay the mortgage. As such, they were forced to write off many bad loans, and watched their asset base shrink dramatically.

This obviously doesn't look very good in the eyes of shareholders.

[Rand_Shea]

Uh Rand companies do come to get their money back sooner or later they don't just let you rip them off for thousands and thousands of dollars and do nothing about it. I also said in my initial post they were similar but the credit model is obviously less stringent.

Short of declaring bankruptcy you don't really have a way out long term and your debts can be passed to your descendants. Of course if you declare bankruptcy you also probably lose most if not all of your property and are probably screwed out of any chance at a good job, education, etc etc. Those are the breaks.

They can take things that you have purchased on their loaned money that are considered luxuries. This includes cars, boats, furniture, jewelry, and other non-essential items.

They can also take homes, but the process of eviction takes months.

They cannot, however, take things that have all ready been paid off. That would be considered theft.

At most with things you all ready have full ownership of, the most a financial institution can do is put liens on those pieces of property stating that they will get most if not all of the sale value of that item when and if you do sell it, and that is only really used on businesses and homes, and maybe perhaps vehicles if they fall within a certain price range.

My family got royally screwed over by the banks during and after the housing bubble and after it finally burst in California. The past two years has been trying to get out from under becoming upside down with property only to be completely stonewalled by the banks because they were unwilling to negotiate on debts they designed to occur, so a lot of that time was further spent on figuring out the ins and outs of laws regarding debt. My parents' credit for the next 7 years or so is ruined, but they didn't lose everything because other than real estate, they bought most of everything they own with cash or paid them off in full before things started going south, at the expense of their retirement and leverage, which they can now rest easier and wait for that to gradually recover.

There are ways out of debt (hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt) that don't require losing everything that would not have ever been possible in ancient times.

[Karkarov]

So Rand what your saying is your well off parents who were already liquid and probably what your average citizen considers "rich" tried to take advantage of the housing bubble and it didn't pan out but because they were well off and owned most of what they had the damage was minimal.

Thats great.

Do you have a story about how average joe america who does not own his house, his property, maybe not even his car got out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt with nothing but a bad credit score? No? I didn't think so.

There is an exception to every rule, but they are the called the exception for a reason. And again I point out in my first thread how I said there were similarities but todays system is obviously less harsh.

As for the banks, yes what they did was stupid. Not as stupid as the shareholders who applauded them when they were getting rich on make believe money though. The shareholders can stow their complaints right up their rear ends because they did nothing but encourage the loan fallout you describe. That is a classic example of why America's economy is on the downturn in fact, everyone has a scheme to get rich but it is always a scheme, not a plan or a strategy. Meanwhile thanks to the banks, automotive industry, and potentially the health care and insurance companies being bought by the government we are basically all going to be paying off a national debt fallout until our great grandkids are dead. That and our taxes will likely go sky high.

[Aleria Fadeleaf]

So Rand what your saying is your well off parents who were already liquid and probably what your average citizen considers "rich" tried to take advantage of the housing bubble and it didn't pan out but because they were well off and owned most of what they had the damage was minimal.

Thats great.

Do you have a story about how average joe america who does not own his house, his property, maybe not even his car got out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt with nothing but a bad credit score? No? I didn't think so.

There is an exception to every rule, but they are the called the exception for a reason. And again I point out in my first thread how I said there were similarities but todays system is obviously less harsh.

As for the banks, yes what they did was stupid. Not as stupid as the shareholders who applauded them when they were getting rich on make believe money though. The shareholders can stow their complaints right up their rear ends because they did nothing but encourage the loan fallout you describe. That is a classic example of why America's economy is on the downturn in fact, everyone has a scheme to get rich but it is always a scheme, not a plan or a strategy. Meanwhile thanks to the banks, automotive industry, and potentially the health care and insurance companies being bought by the government we are basically all going to be paying off a national debt fallout until our great grandkids are dead. That and our taxes will likely go sky high.

I would also thank our federal government, which forced the banks to give out subprime loans to high risk groups in the first place, which inevitably led to actions which under normal circumstances, no one would take.

[Villayna]

Unfortunately, this has gone from "theoretical" debate to political debate.

Feel free to bring it up in the political forum if you want to talk about it further.