Video: Why were Southern Whites so bad at business?

[RZehr]

I found this interesting. I guess slavery Aldo played a hefty role in ruining their work ethic. Boy, it sure isn’t that way anymore. Lots of good businesses and business men come from the South.

[MaxPC]

I found this interesting. I guess slavery Aldo played a hefty role in ruining their work ethic. Boy, it sure isn’t that way anymore. Lots of good businesses and business men come from the South.

I agree re the bolded.
Personally I see the work ethic issues being caused by the heavy burdens placed on the South by the North post-war. In that era, those who won wars punished the losers economically. Northern business men were "imported" to the South and were given first preference for loans, etc.

Of course, when that same punishment mentality was exercised against Germany and its allies for WWI, it led to WWII. There was no effort to rebuild the economies of the losers in order to avert another war.

Then of course, we can also blame Big Tomato, Big Potato, and Big Meat.

[temporal1]

THOMAS SOWELL adds perspective and depth to history. i wish the world had multiples of him, in his 40’s.
Next best thing: his books, videos, lectures.

It’s encouraging to witness young ones discovering him - most often, only AFTER leaving formal gov school education!

YOUTUBE DESCRIPTION ON THE OP (excerpt) VIDEO:

Thomas Sowell explains the historical observations and attitudes toward business among Southern Whites.
He sheds light on the economic choices and attitudes towards work in the antebellum South and their lasting effects on business culture.

This is an excerpt from 'Black Rednecks and White Liberals'.

-----------------------------------
Relevant Books
-----------------------------------
Black Rednecks and White Liberals: https://amzn.to/3p09hLx

Migrations and Cultures: https://amzn.to/32rBemh

Wealth, Poverty and Politics: https://amzn.to/3BHrsJr

[Neto]

"Business" (in terms of industrialization) was a Northern value. The South valued "Culture". This is judging others by values which were not their own.

[Ken]

"Business" (in terms of industrialization) was a Northern value. The South valued "Culture". This is judging others by values which were not their own.

I disagree. Southern plantations and other slave-driven industries like mining and steel in places like Birmingham were managed with the same degree of scientific business practices and efficiency as the north. For example: https://hbr.org/2013/09/plantations-pra ... management

In the north, the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was coal (steam) and then later oil. In the south the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was human bondage. Absent the Civil War, what would have eventually killed off slavery would have been oil and the advent of diesel driven mechanization in agriculture.

[temporal1]

THOMAS SOWELL gets into detail about how slavery in the world was/is primarily about ECONOMICS (TS’s first discipline).

He points out that slavery began between peoples who were geographically near one another, between peoples who looked like each other. All continents. He describes technology (esp shipbuilding) was the reason various “exotic” cultures had the means to travel (for economic reasons) to expand their profit-making.

Naturally, when markets dry up, businesses disappear.

Government has the unique capability of funding that which is not otherwise sustainable or marketable.
Others must be fiscally accountable.

This is my long time question about, historically, “how does slavery usually end?”
My hunch is, “usually with a whimper,” as markets fade; however, sometimes with big conflicts, which are dramatic and recorded in history and remembered. Potential profits drive drama/interest. Otherwise, “whimpers” and forgetting.

[Neto]

"Business" (in terms of industrialization) was a Northern value. The South valued "Culture". This is judging others by values which were not their own.

I disagree. Southern plantations and other slave-driven industries like mining and steel in places like Birmingham were managed with the same degree of scientific business practices and efficiency as the north. For example: https://hbr.org/2013/09/plantations-pra ... management

In the north, the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was coal (steam) and then later oil. In the south the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was human bondage. Absent the Civil War, what would have eventually killed off slavery would have been oil and the advent of diesel driven mechanization in agriculture.

I don't tend to think that a couple of big-city examples negate the idea that industrial business was not a typical Southern value. But I'll let it go at that. Neither of us were alive in that era, and I'm only making this response based on general impressions I got over the years in basically Southern education in the Oklahoma public school I attended, during the 60's and early 70's, which is 100 years after the end of the War Between the States. Cultural values are difficult to pin down, and a diverse culture like the American South probably didn't have consistent values across the board anyway. My statement was very general, in respect to both the North and the South. Not all Northerners were taken up with industrialization, either.

[Ken]

"Business" (in terms of industrialization) was a Northern value. The South valued "Culture". This is judging others by values which were not their own.

I disagree. Southern plantations and other slave-driven industries like mining and steel in places like Birmingham were managed with the same degree of scientific business practices and efficiency as the north. For example: https://hbr.org/2013/09/plantations-pra ... management

In the north, the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was coal (steam) and then later oil. In the south the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was human bondage. Absent the Civil War, what would have eventually killed off slavery would have been oil and the advent of diesel driven mechanization in agriculture.

I don't tend to think that a couple of big-city examples negate the idea that industrial business was not a typical Southern value. But I'll let it go at that. Neither of us were alive in that era, and I'm only making this response based on general impressions I got over the years in basically Southern education in the Oklahoma public school I attended, during the 60's and early 70's, which is 100 years after the end of the War Between the States. Cultural values are difficult to pin down, and a diverse culture like the American South probably didn't have consistent values across the board anyway. My statement was very general, in respect to both the North and the South. Not all Northerners were taken up with industrialization, either.

My point was that both the north and south were equally involved in the avaricious pursuit of business. It was just different businesses and different business inputs. The brutality of slavery was entirely for business purposes and wealth acquisition.

[barnhart]

I'm not sure how accurate it is to think of large scale enslavement as a southern thing, or more accurately a non-northern economic arrangement. There is a section of Manhattan built by planters, as they were euphemistically called. Enslavement by the 19th century was the expanding capital market of its day, driven as much by northern capital as by southern the cultural and legal landscape.

[Neto]

I disagree. Southern plantations and other slave-driven industries like mining and steel in places like Birmingham were managed with the same degree of scientific business practices and efficiency as the north. For example: https://hbr.org/2013/09/plantations-pra ... management

In the north, the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was coal (steam) and then later oil. In the south the source of energy that fueled industry and productive business endeavors was human bondage. Absent the Civil War, what would have eventually killed off slavery would have been oil and the advent of diesel driven mechanization in agriculture.

I don't tend to think that a couple of big-city examples negate the idea that industrial business was not a typical Southern value. But I'll let it go at that. Neither of us were alive in that era, and I'm only making this response based on general impressions I got over the years in basically Southern education in the Oklahoma public school I attended, during the 60's and early 70's, which is 100 years after the end of the War Between the States. Cultural values are difficult to pin down, and a diverse culture like the American South probably didn't have consistent values across the board anyway. My statement was very general, in respect to both the North and the South. Not all Northerners were taken up with industrialization, either.

My point was that both the north and south were equally involved in the avaricious pursuit of business. It was just different businesses and different business inputs. The brutality of slavery was entirely for business purposes and wealth acquisition.

OK. Understood. I was talking specifically about industrialization. (I would not consider farming activities to be 'industrial business'.) That's why I put business inside quotation marks, then added the parenthetical part.