Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Your refusal to recognize the truth is a huge problem. You want something explained, I explain it. You pretend ignorance. Anyone can see this.
I have already named a couple. Another is Caves and Jones a bit more modern than Kindleberger. But all these are second level course material when it is obvious you have not understood basic economics.
John Taylor is not sufficient.
I see you failed your reading classes.
The paid labor per capita rates were $150 in the South to $144 in the North, so per capita income was higher in the South.
And you were asked what this had to do with trade in 1860.
Are you going to explain that or just babble on?
So, cite one of the authors that you use to footnote your comment:
“Let’s see 100 hats (with rare bird feathers and beads) at $10 each occupying 64 cubic feet and weighing 25 lbs total vs 100 bales of cotton at 25 cents/lb occupying say 3000 cubic feet and weighing 20 tons.”
One will be fine. Page, paragraph, or chapter will do.
I’ll provide a little more education for you since you are clearly without a clue here.
In 1860 the vast majority of people worked in agriculture, in the South as high as 70% so “wage rates” rarely affected their income. Hence, the per capita income does not reflect wage rates of mostly non-agricultural workers. It would have to reflect agricultural income. So you are equating things which are widely different.
And you continually (though corrected on several occasions) keep trying to use a figure for the South which does not consider the WHOLE population. When you do it shows per capita income to be about 30% less (from your own figures) than the North (which is not clearly defined). Income in the South was higher than the Midwest but nothing close to NE and the North as a whole.
I just gave you an example to make the point. I did not use any source for it. That is what the causal “Let’s see....” indicates to anyone paying attention.
You never asked what my example had to do with 1860 and the discussion was, in any case, about international trade and how transportation costs affected it. What I was attempting to do was to show that international trade BEGAN entirely limited to luxury items or at least items with very high prices relative to size and weight.
Anyone who has ever studied International Economics knows this as basic stuff.
By 1860 transportation costs, thanks to the steam engine, had declined to the point that low value products: cotton, wheat etc., could be more profitably transported but luxury items were still a big part of international trade. Imposition of tariffs skewed trade even more in the direction of luxuries since the additional tariff priced lower price items out of world trade.
That is factually wrong. I have given you documented data on non-professional employment as well as professional per capita income.
Your response has been to deny both while throwing out non-sensical, undocumented answers, suitable for a third grade student who is not doing his work, and is attempting to BS the teacher with rambling, senseless drivel.
You have been given several specific document references that all say the following:
The paid labor per capita incomes were $150 in the South to $144 in the North, so per capita income was higher in the South.
Those are the non-professional wages earned as documented by the 1860 census.
So that means that you cannot provide any documentation for your assertions.
Correction. That was not the discussion point.
You said: “What I was attempting to do was to show that international trade BEGAN entirely limited to luxury items or at least items with very high prices relative to size and weight. Anyone who has ever studied International Economics knows this as basic stuff.’
You did not show that because the data on imports to the South showed no luxury item imports.
You said: “By 1860 transportation costs, thanks to the steam engine, had declined to the point that low value products: cotton, wheat etc., could be more profitably transported but luxury items were still a big part of international trade.”
Show your data to prove that point.
You said: “Imposition of tariffs skewed trade even more in the direction of luxuries since the additional tariff priced lower price items out of world trade.”
Your continuous mocking of reasoned discussion through the use of preposterous assertions and contrived logic is amusing.
Your data shows nothing about “non-professional” or “professional” income. The table says it is posting
PER CAPITA INCOME. NOT “paid labor per capita income” whatever that is. TOTAL POPULATION not just Free White. TOTAL POPULATION. These are all YOUR figures
PER CAPITA INCOME
National avg. 128
North 141
Northeast 181
Northcentral 89
South 103
South Atlantic 84
E. S. Central 89
W.S. Central 184
What is so hard for you to understand? The avg for the South was 19%+ lower than the avg for the North. YOUR source says this is true, not mine YOURS.
Of course, it is totally consistent with common knowledge.
Actually your statistics show a hell of a lot more than you realize. They clearly demonstrates the cotton planters need for new lands and why they had to expand. The only section of the South that was profitable was the new lands of AR, MS, AL, LA where per capita income by YOUR figures was slightly above the income of N. Englanders. The rest of the South was about a third below the national average according to YOUR figures.
And your other claim is just laughable crap it is so wildly inaccurate.
You can believe the flamboyant and extravagant Planter class were actually parsimonious N.E. Calvinists if you want, I don’t really care. They were a luxury loving bunch.
I get paid to look up obvious facts on the Internet, are you ready to sign a contract. Otherwise look up what you want.
You clearly do not have the capacity to understand statistics, so study some of the theory I referred you to.
That means that you cannot produce the data.
That means that you cannot produce the reference.
You can use ad hominem attacks, red herring diversions, and straw man arguments all you want. Nothing changes the facts:
.......................................................................South..............North
Per Capita income non-skilled...........................$150................$142
Sources: Fogel & Engerman (1860 Census), Wm. Parker
Per Capita wages non-skilled............................$150..............$142
U S Census, 1860
Daily wages by job type and location .............
Bricklayers/New Orleans and Charleston averaged $3.
Brick layers in Chicago averaged $1.50.
Carpenters in New Orleans/Charleston earned $2.50 a day.
Carpenters in Chicago earned $1.50.
General laborers in these Southern cities earned $1.25.
General laborers in the North earned $.75.
Source: United States Senate testimony by Johnson, 1858
Per Capita income wealthiest individuals........$3978..............2,040
Census archive, University of Virginia, 1860
The numbers you posted do not make this claim. I replicated the significant numbers you posted. Per capita income in the South $103. Per capita income in the North $128. These aren’t MY numbers but YOUR numbers.
BTW Slaver Senatorial testimony is hardly worth the sound it made. And you have to be able to interpret what the numbers say. This you are incapable of doing as your repeated mistakes regarding each statistic show.
Everyone knows there were extremely rich Slavers but that tiny group is overwhelmed by the huge swathes of extreme poverty in the South. Areas where literacy was uncommon and which were basically outside the monetary economy.
No wonder you defend the Slaverocracy you don’t know anything about it.
BTW the Southern wage rates for slaves hired out was NOT as high as you believe.
It means I do not link as I have said. You have been given plenty of references regarding International trade.
Still waiting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.