If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves

Start of the Slave Trade Con does not address my point about the start of slavery. My opponent simply expressed a doubt in my argument, without actually refuting any of my points. Questions are not refutations, and Con’s questions could have been answered if he bothered to read my source. “In the aftermath of the Black Plague, Europe’s slave trade revives in response to the labor shortage.” [1] This is a widely accepted by historians as the cause of the slave trade. Frank Smitha from MacroHistory gave a more elaborate analysis; “It has been roughly estimated that a third of England died from the Black Death of 1348-49, and perhaps this figure is not far from the losses suffered in other areas of Europe through which the plague passed. Much farm land went into disuse, reducing the output of food. Farm animals died, further diminishing the food supply. With all the deaths and drop in demand for food, the price of food dropped. In Western Europe the demand for labor rose, and, with fewer people around willing to work for less, wages rose. And in Western Europe the shortage of labor brought on by the plague increased the demand for slaves, cutting into the demand for free labor.”[2] After expressing doubt regarding the legitimacy of my argument, con than claims my argument is irrelevant simply because other cultures practiced slavery. Just because other cultures practiced slavery does not make my example illegitimate. Instead of providing an example of slavery during a labor surplus, Con shifts the BOP to disprove his assumption. The reason Con could not cite an example of a slave society during a labor surplus is because it is economically implausible; they don’t exist because they can’t exist. You can conquer a nation without enslaving them. The purpose of enslavement is to provide cheap labor to meet an excessive demand. Slavery flourished in ancient Greece and in Rome, because labor shortages created an environment of cheap slaves and high wages. [3] Economics of the Slave Trade Again, Con does not attempt to refute the points I have made. My opponent simply expresses his own doubts, without refuting my claims. While it is true “Charts do not create demand, individuals do”, this straw man has nothing to do with my claim. The chart is a representation of the individual’s demands. The sum of the individual’s demands is the aggregate demand. The aggregate demand for slaves is a function of the labor shortage. Con claims that if legal, a labor shortage today would not result in slavery because slavery is considered immortal. This hypothetical assumption has nothing to do with the resolution. Hypothetically opting out of slavery due to moral principles does not prove people would buy slaves during a labor surplus. You cannot draw an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Con cedes that the cotton gin increased the marginal product of labor, and the potential for aggregate output. Despite this, con claims that the demand for slavery was based on racial motivations, rather than profit. As I stated before the cotton gin doubled the slave population in the south due to the increased in demand for slaves. The increased demand for slaves was not due to an increase in racism, it was due to the increase in Marginal Product. Con does not refute my point about slaves being expensive, but instead asserts that “expensive” is a relative term. I agree that “expensive” is relative, but that does not negate from my argument. The average Joe could not afford a slave. Only the wealthy owned slaves and the wealthy didn’t buy slaves simply to own slaves; if they did they would not be wealthy. Slaves were assets, but when a slave-owner bought a slave that they did not need the slaves would become a liability. This is tantamount to buying a jet airplane and then never using it. Conclusion Empirical evidence proves slavery depends on a labor shortage. All throughout history slaves were introduced when labor shortages threatened the economy. If not for a labor shortage the slave trade would not exist. Buying slaves you don’t need will act as a financial liability that reduces the marginal product of labor. When capital is introduced it increases the potential marginal product of labor, and therefore the potential output. Con’s entire argument is based on hypotheticals and assumptions. Con assumes that slave owners were irrational, and that they bought slaves without intending to use them. Con’s arguments are illogical, and unsupported. 1.https://www.freetheslaves.net... 2.http://www.fsmitha.com... 3.http://www.princeton.edu...