Talk:Sharecropping/Archives/2018

Sharecropping efficiency comparison
I marked the following word "dubious".

On the whole, sharecropping was not as economically efficient[dubious] as the gang agriculture of slave plantations.

I traced down the source (thanks for the page number link) and the word "efficient" is used there somewhat carelessly. It's not a deep discussion.


 * economic efficiency : a situation in which nothing can be improved without something else being hurt
 * productive efficiency : no additional output can be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs, and production proceeds at the lowest possible average total cost

The second definition probably comes nearer to this case.

The problem, however, is that average cost is equally slippery. It's primary an economic abstraction that aids in drawing up oversimplified supply/demand curves. (All progress in economic theory accrues to oversimplification. That's why it's called "the dismal science".)

And again, it's definition devolves:


 * total cost : includes the total opportunity cost of each factor of production as part of its fixed or variable costs

That's still pretty slippery.


 * opportunity cost : "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would have been had by taking the second best available choice

Well, again that's still pretty slippery, because benefits are subjective, and sometimes the eye of the beholder is being forcibly ignored.


 * gang agriculture : go home at night way too damn tired to educate your children to read
 * sharecrop agriculture : go home at night way too damn tired, but still manage to find the energy to educate your children to read

When does educating your children show up in the GDP figures? In a generation or two. Second generation literacy works miracles for labour productivity.

I really don't think we should be throwing around the word "efficiency" as endorsed by Ebeneezer Scrooge at the peak of his Bah! Humbug! bombast. &mdash; MaxEnt 15:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)