No.

That increasing the welfare of slaves was an arguement for slavery

Well i believe the extact terms were

Because owning slaves is actually less efficient. Productivity is reduced and you have to foot the cost.

> Slaves in the 18th century were better off than slaves in the 17th century, could that be an argument for slavery?
@faultfiction

Yes welfare for slaves is basically a bonus for them.

That

Is a moral arguement

Not an economic one

You are saying that increasing the welfare of slaves is good morally and therefore justifies it

I know you dont actually believe this

You are giving an example

It's both, because from an economic perspective, the labour is free. Can you agree with that? And if you do, then the moral argument gains credibility by the welfare conditions

Yes but what bearing does the welfare of a slave have on the economy broadly

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1236738820072185858?s=19

Love her

The worse off a slave is the more they are working

<:LIZ:588678565235523595> <:LIZ:588678565235523595> <:LIZ:588678565235523595> <:LIZ:588678565235523595>

Slaves inherently do less harmful work for less time if they are placed into better conditions

Or they are provided more food

Which also makes the work easier

Slaves are the properties of the owner so assumign they would have been kept to the house or confined to the property. Better treatment and conditions is a moral argument for it? Given that the other option for them to be to find work which they wont.

It is a moral arguement indeed

I dont disagre

But it is unrelated to the effect the slaves have on the economy

Whether or not they are fed and housed better or worse

They still work

The slaves have a positive effect on the economy because the loss of capital in prodiving employment is not there giving you more profit.

Isn't that the argument from economics perspective

I never mentioned employing slaves

Or

Turning slaves into employees

But where you are not offering a wage you are paying for their upkeep. Paying a wage waivers responsibility for food or housing.

Again you are trying to relate a moral arguement to an economic one

To summarise

Im not im telling you that the morality is not an argument at all here because of the principles of economics being involved.

Free Labour

No wages

It’s not free. That’s not point.

Let me loop this back to your original example

Owning a slave comes with the requirement of feeding them and housing them or just leaving them in the farms