> Not true. It means that enormous productivity can be extracted from
>slaves by robbing them of even minimal sustenance,
Not true on the face of it -- minimial sustenance is what it says it is.
> as Karl Marx observed in
>describing U.S. plantation capitalists working slaves to death in seven
years
>of toil.
Erroneously observed, according to the work which won Fogel his Nobel prize. This is also really not very intuitive as a thesis about the sort of production which Nazi Germany was interested in.
>Daniel persists in differentiating between capitalist and slave
>labor, in contrast to Marx, who differentiated between pre-capitalist and
>capitalist slave labor, the latter being far more cruel than the former
>because it was relentlessly driven by market forces.
Very true, my mistake.
> Nazi slave labor was
>even harsher than Southern U.S. plantation labor, while the concentration
>camp system, created during the first month of Nazi rule, robbed the
working
>class of its political expression before undertaking any other tasks.
But for heaven's sake, you're trying to account for an *economic miracle* here! You would have to turn your slaves into supermen for the numbers to add up. I'll cede your and Doug's point to some degree insofar as it has political repression of the working class supporting a Nazi incomes policy, but even then, the monetary expansion was the proximate cause. And there have been many examples of incomes policies which did not result in increased growth. And, it leaves one with the problem of how it was that the Nazis managed to impose lower levels of subsistence on the _non-slave_ population than had the capitalists, which is needed for your conclusions to go through.
Productivity increases are by their nature slow things. The Nazi boom happened quickly. Monetary expansions work quickly.
> Daniel's coy anonymous quotation
Actually, it was from Brad DeLong, but from an unpublished draft on his website which I don't know whether he wants cited. Geez.
>about Hjalmar Schacht got a lot of facts wrong, some of which were
correctly presented in my summary >of Alfred Sohn-Rethel's book yesterday,
which, not surprisingly, Daniel failed to rebut.
No it didn't, and not surprisingly, you haven't listed any.
dd
___________________________________________________________________________ _____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------