Reddit reviews This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy

>That's why I initially asked if we're talking a specific band of time. It is UNDENIABLE that post Holodomor the Soviets were way better off than they were under the Czars. It's ALSO undeniable that one of the largest drops in standards of living in the history of the world without a domestic war was the fall of the USSR. I'm not some crazy tankie, Holodomor was a real ass thing, but so was the American genocide of 40-50m native americans and slave trade, both of which were classically liberal lines of enlightenment thinking that were precursors to neoliberal ideology.

Aside from this being a major whataboutism, source that precursor to neoliberalism claim.

>You literally denied slavery in tons of countries, including the US, and when presented with evidence of it you have no counter argument other than to cite that different sources cite different numbers on slavery in the same country, in large part because estimates and censuses are hard to find often due to the nature of it. Take some ownership of shit.

If you lie about one statistic, what else are you lying about? I'm not denying slavery doesn't exist. But it's an important normative value of all neoliberals to stop slavery. It's like trying to blame the northern states for slavery. they were the one against it.

>
>>If you were skilled labor pre-NAFTA and lived along the US border it was heaven, but for the vast majority of others it has meant ultimately lower wages or meager gains
>
>>Which is funny because if you look at literally any source, really most of the gains were made near the border.
>
>It has made it worse on both fronts

Citation needed.

> and the gains of it have gone almost entirely to people who were already well off.

Citation needed.

> income inequality has made it very easy to capture locals to make them sex slaves in both Mexico and the US as well as to own local governments and even buy legitimate businesses ala the Maquiadoras.

You're making so many claims you can't even keep up with the citations. Show me how income inequality causes all of that.

>There's literally no definition of poverty that's stable. It's almost always a relativistic metric. As such, income inequality is an aspect of it whether you deny it or not.

It doesn't matter how stable any of the other definitions are, income inequality is not a definition at all. Income inequality, in its own right, is not even a bad thing.

Before you keep going, might I remind you that literally all your citations so far in all your comments do not show what you claim. You need to focus not on the things happening, but the causal mechanism. So chop chop.

I never said the war wasn't about slavery primarily. I'd recommend this book. It's very good.

Also thanks for doing the legwork for me and giving me access to the exact numbers of slaves in places like Kentucky.

>How about the tens of millions (being generous) that died? How was their standard of living increased?

That's why I initially asked if we're talking a specific band of time. It is UNDENIABLE that post Holodomor the Soviets were way better off than they were under the Czars. It's ALSO undeniable that one of the largest drops in standards of living in the history of the world without a domestic war was the fall of the USSR. I'm not some crazy tankie, Holodomor was a real ass thing, but so was the American genocide of 40-50m native americans and slave trade, both of which were classically liberal lines of enlightenment thinking that were precursors to neoliberal ideology.



> By you own India link, it says less than half the number you cite.
>

You literally denied slavery in tons of countries, including the US, and when presented with evidence of it you have no counter argument other than to cite that different sources cite different numbers on slavery in the same country, in large part because estimates and censuses are hard to find often due to the nature of it. Take some ownership of shit.

>If you were skilled labor pre-NAFTA and lived along the US border it was heaven, but for the vast majority of others it has meant ultimately lower wages or meager gains

>Which is funny because if you look at literally any source, really most of the gains were made near the border.

That's literally what I said...NAFTA was sold in part saying it'd make lives better for Mexican citizens in unskilled manufacturing and agriculture. It has made it worse on both fronts, and the gains of it have gone almost entirely to people who were already well off. Walmart was literally trying to get away with not paying it's labor which I cited, and the vast concentrations of wealth in Mexico have lead to much much stronger cartels as vast changes in income inequality has made it very easy to capture locals to make them sex slaves in both Mexico and the US as well as to own local governments and even buy legitimate businesses ala the Maquiadoras.

>Income inequality is not a measure of poverty. Good God.

There's literally no definition of poverty that's stable. It's almost always a relativistic metric. As such, income inequality is an aspect of it whether you deny it or not.

Moderators, we need to get the list nailed down and stickied or on sidebar.

Oh yeah, we need to add Matt Karp. This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy.

I've read books on it, here's a new comprehensive one you can buy right now!
https://www.amazon.com/This-Vast-Southern-Empire-Slaveholders/dp/0674737253

This Vast Southern Empire is literally the best book written about the politics/economics behind slavery and everything surrounding the succession.