Ep. 1478 New York Times Thinks Slavery Drives Economic Progress

The New York Times recently announced its "1619 Project," by which it intends to demonstrate that "nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery." Our friend Phil Magness points out that in its economics it relies on now-debunked statistical claims. Also, I discuss the bizarre phenomenon by which the left is now claiming that slavery is a highly efficient system that drives exceptional economic growth. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

[nustada]

Where else do you find "free" healthcare, food and housing other than being in slavery.

[doughtymqan]

Dwight D. Eisenhower said, I must paraphrase “If you want to be taken care of, go to prison, free food, clothing etc.”

[accorda]

Anti-slavery was a design feature of laissez-faire capitalism.

[jeffersonianideal]

I attended a luncheon meeting featuring a keynote speaker whose shtick was performing as an Abraham Lincoln impersonator. A strike against him from the git-go. After the event concluded I asked him if he thought slavery in America would have ended on its own by about 1880 due to the rapid expansion of the industrial revolution. I'll never forget his answer. He claimed that slaves would have continued to be used in the United States to mine for gold and therefore, slavery would have continued into the 20th century.

[RicaRoseHopeful_Voluntarist]

Thank ya, Tom. You've been one of my favorites for a while, now. Just sayin'.

[christianponicki]

The so-called 1619 Project gave its first talk on August 13th: the speakers were 8 blacks, and 1 Jew. That's all.

[tominpuertorico]

Then the tribes in Africa that used slavery should have the best economies in history. Can the NYT explain this disparity?

[abramgaller]

The belief that slavery could be efficient is incredibly dumb.

[jutsu]

They are justifying slavery. Crazy talk.

[awesomeant]

Tom can you please talk about vaccines. I'm very conflicted on this issue.
Another issue I'm very conflicted on is suicide, as in, how do you stop a person without violating the non-agression principle?

[moden]

Everybody knows Sparta for it's supreme technological achievements.

[stevebh]

America was originally intended to be a British island/plantation zone for a British drug crop for their first empire (in this case tobacco before they got to rubber and opium elsewhere). They needed manpower at first to grow tobacco, which is not hard. Cotton was a century later. Empires tend to want their colonies non-industrialized. But the Yankees in New England got away and started manufacturing. While the Brits were running power looms, the Yanks had invented the cotton gin and interchangeable part weapon manufacturing. When it came to railroads the north made 1/3rd more miles per capita than the south (even with no slaves), and when it came to factories, did even better.



None of that fits the narrative that slaves were important to American's eventual dominance. Slave-free manufacturing was how the US finally escaped British dominance. Not for nothing does 1889 Twain has a "Connecticut Yankee" go to King Arthur's Court in the 6th century, to show the past the marvels of future technology (exploding mines, electric wire, telephones, Gatling guns, bicycles). Certainly not a southern plantation owner, who would have had little to offer by comparison.

[jamiekloer]

When did true prosperity and economic growth come to America before or after slavery.? It came between the end of slavery and the beginning of the federal reserve and financial repression and a new form of slavery.

[oliverbristow]

Is there an episode which explains the ubiquity of institutionalised coercion in human society? If so someone pleade direct me to it.

[FrankHarwald]

10:00 It's no accident that the left doesn't like fixed definitions but prefers to use vaguely defined terms because the left is fundamentally against all a priori assumptions & this includes fixed definitions & all forms axioms & premises. Instead, they want to have a language in which the meaning of everything & anything is based upon socio-historical usages perceived through historical materialist analysis. In other words: the meaning of every word should solely depend on who used it where in what context of class power hierachy analysis according to our historical materialism & not what the words previously meant based on what people intended to state using them.
& Yes, you're correct, using these sort of floaty definitions is utterly useless - because you can't use the terms to make an argument for or against anything or express anything at all. & if you were to pull this historical materialist concept of semantics all the way through - you will necessarily end up being inconsistent - that is, you can't use it to say anything meaningful. In other words: it makes thinking about anything meaningful - & meaning itself impossible - & that's what the left actually wants: destroy logic & reason wholly (& I don't think it's superficial hate that drives the left but a deep dark desires of satanism - but that's another story).

[pretorious]

One of the most idiotic assertions ever made.

[Calislav]

I gave a thumbs down cause I’m a idiot