Emancipation or Obfuscation? The economics of slavery

 

Before emancipation slaves were very valuable, marketable, living commodities. Slavery was abolished throughout the British empire in 1833, and in1863 in the US. Almost 200 years later it is very difficult for many of us to imagine human beings reduced to commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace like cattle.

Perhaps looking at how dairy cattle –other living, breathing, marketable commodities--are bought and sold well deepen our understanding of slavery. There are certain similarities. Like cattle, slaves were investments. The prices buyers were willing to pay for a slave depended on how large a return such an investment was expected to yield. Like cattle, the age, health, and expected duration of the work-life of the slave in question were all considerations in accessing the market value of a slave. Also, like cattle, there were high maintenance costs associated with ownership; both cattle and slaves need to be fed, housed, and cared for. And, as with all commodities, a high demand for labour would raise the price of a slave in the same way that high demand for milk would increase the market-value of a dairy cow. In the 1800s there was very high demand for labour, especially on plantations.

In 1850 the average price of a slave ranged from $14,000 to $240,000 in today's dollars. Today a dairy cow would fetch somewhere between $900 and $3,000. Of course a young healthy slave or dairy cow would fetch far more than an old decrepit one. At the end of their productive years dairy cows could be sold to the glue factory or turned into dog food. Not so for slaves; if they outlived their usefulness they became a liability. Nevertheless, and not surprisingly, slaves fetched far more in the marketplace than dairy cows do, the former being far more versatile than the latter, the use-life expectancy of  slaves much longer, and slave labour being far scarcer than milk.

That was then. This is now. Today we are celebrating the 187th anniversary of the emancipation of slaves, and congratulating ourselves for having abolished that ancient barbaric practice. But what is absent from the discourse is how we avail ourselves of cheap labour in this day and age. We often don't even give a second thought to today's treatment of labourers, which is in many respects worse than slavery. Slaves were the private property of slave owners, as dairy cows continue to be the private property of dairy farmers. Private property rights were and are highly respected. The loss of private property was mitigated against.  Great care was taken to ensure that the private property was fed well enough and kept healthy enough to maintain maximum  productivity.

Today most labour (apart from service sector labour) is out-sourced. Out-sourcing labour --renting a workforce elsewhere—allows contractors to avoid high maintenance costs, along with the responsibility of looking after the well being and safety of their workforce. Such workforces can be obtained for only a small fraction of what it would have cost to house, clothe and feed an equivalent number of slaves. And because the supply of workers greatly exceeds demand, such a workforce can be acquired for next to nothing. And you don't have to pay their medical bills. Should a worker die, or should the factory catch fire or the roof fall in killing several or all of them, a subcontractor will quickly and easily find alternative replacement workers. And for the same cost as buying a single slave in the 1800s, you can now rent a Haitian worker for fifty years! Or a 10 Sri Lankan worker for 20 years, although your shipping costs may be higher. Furthermore, by outsourcing your labour requirements you can avoid having to comply with local environmental and worker protection laws. And the best part is that you can externalize all of the maintenance and replacement costs of maintaining a workforce.

Yes, we are absolutely right to condemn slavery. But what we have allowed to replace it is in many respects even more despicable. Self-congratulations are not in order. We haven't really abolished slavery; we have only disguised, re-branded, and externalized it. And Western consumers benefit from this because the savings on labour are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices in our dollar stores, our Walmarts, and Amazon, while overseas workers have no option but to work long hours in unsafe workplaces for sub-subsistence wages. They are no more free than slaves were. We have abolished nothing. We are only obfuscating the issue.

What does the COVID 19 data tell us about socioeconomic development?

 

If the number of COVID deaths per million is any indication of which countries are the least developed socioeconomically, and it is, the US ranks 21^st out of 220 countries, followed by the UK, with 1,896/m and 1,886/m respectively. If we are going to parse out the “socio” from the “economic” in our metric we will have a better understanding of why countries rank as they do. Do the US and UK rank so low because they can't afford to vaccinate their populations or provide adequate treatment to COVID victims? Let's look at where countries of interest rank in terms of GDP per capita and find out:

Here we see that with the exception of Norway, the country with the largest social safety net, the two countries with the lowest GDP/capita have experienced far less COVID deaths/capita than the two countries with the highest GDP/capita. The USA, with a per capita GDP that is roughly 3.5 and 25 times that of the countries with the lowest per capita GDP is experiencing 311 and 8 times the number of deaths per capita. We can conclude that the poor socioeconomic ranking of the USA and UK cannot be attributed to a lack of economic resources. Therefore it must be because of how they are using available resources; the countries with the most economic resources are clearly lagging far behind the others in terms of social development. This should be particularly concerning to all of us, because it is also these two countries are the worst in terms of politically interfering in the affairs of other countries. To borrow a Gunther Frank phrase, they are largely responsible for “the development of underdevelopment”, not only at home, but also in the rest of the world. Ironically these two countries produce their own vaccines, and largely responsible for the abysmal global roll-out of vaccines. (The above statistics were obtained from Worldometer date on July 25 and 26, 2021)

In addition to being among the least developed socially, countries topping the list also suffer from moral depravity. Rather than donating surplus vaccines to countries who desperately need them, they are being allowed to expire. This is as true of Canada as of the USA. The UK is donating some 9 million vaccines to COVAX, most of which are due to expire in September –a time frame far too short for most recipient countries, whose healthcare systems are completely overwhelmed, to distribute them. Meanwhile Pfizer, one of the primary manufactures and distributors of vaccines, is strongly recommending that countries who cannot convince many of their citizens to get even a first dose, nevertheless purchase additional vaccines and offer them as a booster to citizens who have already received 2 doses. Beyond the pale is a campaign circulating on FaceBook that encourages anti-vaxers to book appointments regardless in order to further deplete the supply of available vaccines.

Collaboration or Incineration. Those are the options.

 

Excuses for climate inaction:

• Our emissions are negligible compared to China's!

• China: Our per capita emissions are low compared to yours. And besides that, most of what we produce is not even consumed by us.

• It would be completely irresponsible to cut everyone off of fossil fuels before affordable alternatives are on line. We have reduction targets for 2050.

• It is the consumers fault. Consumers are not choosing green alternatives.

• Producers are using too many carbon-intensive production processes, and shipping raw materials across the planet to take advantage of cheap labour and lax environmental laws, only to ship them all the way back again in the form of cheap consumer goods. .

• Developed countries have been spewing carbon for centuries! That stuff is still up there! Now they just want to keep the rest of us from developing so they can use all the resources themselves.

• If they want poor countries to reduce emissions, rich countries should provide poor countries with clean technology for free. Not only that. Poor countries should be allowed to sue rich countries for damages resulting from climate change, because it was demand and over-consumption in rich countries by rich consumers that is causing the problem.

• There is no point in stranding assets, loosing jobs and access to cheap fossil fuels unless other countries do the same. We should not put ourselves at an economic disadvantage until we have iron-clad guarantees that other countries are also going to reduce emissions.

No amount of windmills, solar panels, electric cars, LED light bulbs are going to stop climate change. Stopping and reversing climate change will require an unprecedented level of global cooperation that, if access to COVID vaccines is any indication, is never going to happen. So far I haven't seen any government, or even opposition party for that matter, propose a way to increase global cooperation in a grossly unequal and unjust world. National targets are useless without a serious plan to induce those who cannot afford to collaborate to change their minds. Naomi Klein was right: This changes everything. Because unless everything changes, nothing will change.

Reducing Global Carbon Emissions: Competition vs. Cooperation

Reducing Global  Carbon Emissions: 

Competition vs. Cooperation

 

As extreme weather events are making abundantly clear, we are not anticipating a climate crisis; we are in the midst of one. Although there are still a few outliers that deny climate change altogether, for the most part there is a general consensus that the status quo is unsustainable and something must be done. Yet most carbon emission reduction targets are set, not for this year, but for some future date –2030, 2050 or the turn of the century. In the interim –that period of time during which the crisis can only worsen—fossil fuel extraction, exploration, and consumption continues to rise. The decision-makers seem to be caught in a catch twenty-two; a damned if we do and a damned if we don't conundrum. Why? Because no country seems to be willing to take action that will place them at an economic disadvantage in the global market place.

For fossil fuel producers this means an unwillingness to strand fossil fuel assets or forfeit jobs without iron-clad assurances that every other producer will do the same. Similarly, countries reliant on fossil fuels to maintain their productivity and increase their competitiveness in the global marketplace will not willingly abandon fossil fuels until there is a cheaper alternative source of energy to replace it. In other words, countries in which economic growth in the global marketplace is contingent on their ability to compete with other countries are unlikely to embrace or endorse a course of action that will reduce their competitiveness. Therefore the dichotomy between competition and cooperation between countries precludes international cooperation on climate action. The predominant global economic development model—considered to be the highest rung on some imagined  ladder of Darwinism social evolution—requires both constant expansion and competition. In a finite world, with finite resources, and a finite ability for the climate and environment to survive further expansion, only a willingness to abandon this economic development model in favour of something more sustainable can save us. How are we to resolve this dilemma and move toward global cooperation?

One of the primary barriers to global cooperation is the blame game. There are many metrics being put forward to assign blame and responsibility for this crisis. The metric favoured by one country is often rejected by others. While some blame producers –fossil fuel extractive industries—for continuing to make fossil fuels available, others blame countries who burn dirtier fuels –coal and such—for the crisis. Some focus on countries' consumption of fossil fuels in their production process for the problem, while others blame those who create a market for such products by purchasing them. Some blame consumers who don't want to spend the extra dollars to buy greener products. Some take a longer view, and absolve themselves of responsibility by putting the onus to take action on countries which have a long history of pumping C02 into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution and the invention of internal combustion engines. Still others point to the total emissions of countries, while others look at per-capita emissions. To placate increasingly alarmed citizens without jeopardizing their standing in the global economy many countries are committing to half-measures, future targets and alternative energy sources; a bid to convince citizens that things are under control and they can both have their cake –a robust and growing competitive economy—and eat it too—continue the high levels of consumption to which they are accustomed and to which they feel entitled. Even many of the most vociferous climate advocates seem convinced that by switching to green renewable energy we can continue to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and the commodification of resources indefinitely. They are, of course, deluding themselves and others.

What no one seems ready to admit is that without a consensus the global cooperation necessary to eliminate C02 emissions is simply not going to happen. Some embrace this lack of cooperation as an excuse for doing nothing themselves. Very few have seriously contemplated how to enhance global cooperation in addressing this existential threat. Of all the metrics above, perhaps the most hopeful—the most just, and therefore achievable—is a focus on per-capita emissions. By this metric it is both unjust and unreasonable for Canadians, spewing on average18.5 tons of C02 per person into the atmosphere, to expect Chinese emitting on average 7.38 tons of C02, to further reduce their emissions before Canadians have reduced theirs to at least the same 7.38 tons emitted by the average Chinese person. When and if Canada and other high per-capita emission countries have achieved lowering their emission levels top those of the Chinese we can begin to talk about further reducing the C02 emissions in China and other countries. Once we have all reduced our emissions to the levels of countries like Mali and Greenland --0.09 tons per-capita and 0.03 tons per-capita respectively--the barriers to international cooperation will have been largely removed. If, and only if this has is achieved in a timely manner, cooperation among all steak-holders, will it become possible to avert a total climate apocalypse.

To the contrary–if the same circle-the-wagons our-nation-first approach of wealthy nations in the global COVID vaccine roll-out persists—we are doomed. There is a strong correlation between levels of consumption and levels of C02 emissions. Over-privileged over-consumers cannot realistically expect the underprivileged and destitute to reduce emissions beyond levels to which wealthy nations and individuals are themselves unwilling to reduce their own emissions. Using a stick instead of a carrot to force collaboration—the use of military coercion or sanctions—will only further increase already unsustainable levels of emissions. The only way in which we can have our cake is for the insatiable gluttonous minority to stop eating it. The continued use of an economic development model based on constant expansion and resource extraction/depletion enjoyed by the few is incompatible with sustaining life on this planet. 

 

Can we get there from here? Can we make the necessary global cooperation possible? Theoretically it is entirely possible. Practically it seems unlikely. It seems that the house of cards, the foundation on which the privilege of the over-privileged decision-makers is built, must be torn down. I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is going to happen without first removing decision-making power from the over-privileged. It is my faint hope that exposing the cracks in the foundation will shed some light on the problem. Despite claims to the contrary, allowing market forces to determine the allocation of resources is not a viable option. An alternative more sustainable option must be found and implemented without delay. An alternative economy in which the objective is not growth, but in which we can all thrive, such as that proposed by Kate Raworth. Any suggestions as to how this can best be accomplished?

--Stewart Vriesinga