How can I push my population into debt slavery without hurting the economy?

[Queshire]

Ah, I'm reminded of this song;

Spoiler

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Consider not just requiring them to be in debt, but giving people the option to opt-in to be resurrected for benefits while still living. I am reminded of the game Planescape: Torment, where there is a faction that handles a mortuary ran by the dead they revive, and people can sign a contract for some money if they offer the legal rights to their corpse, much like us donating our organs.

Additionally, you may like the idea of allowing people to sign onto being revived and serving a period as an undead worker after which they may "retire" as an "immortal"--all depending on whether or not these zombies have any sort of capacity for enjoying life and the potential to harness their own will if allowed.

 

[LAG]

Create a religion where blessings are earned from priests through labor, therefore everyone works not for food or coin but rather to be blessed each week.

 

[Solusandra]

The government of Amestris

Full Metal alchemist fic? Or coincidence?

 

[Solusandra]

I think this is a big oversimplification. The arguably longest-lived empire in history, the Romans, employed slaves on a massive scale, and they became very succesful (as an empire). Same for the British and the Spanish. Most people consider the ancient greeks very innovative. Much of their philosophy, culture, architecture and science is celebrated even today, and yet 30% of the population of Athens were slaves.

This is also a massive oversimplification.

• Under the Romans, you could get out of slavery a number of ways and become a citizen, which balanced the normal rebellious feet dragging that makes most slave economies so cumbersome.
• The spanish DIDN'T profit from the slave trade, they lost large amounts of money from it. The profited from plundering the gold coasts of Mexico, Venezuela and California. 2/3rds of the gold in circulation in europe came from their conquests in america.
  
• The British empire was the shortest member of the slave trade in the history of the globe and made most of their wealth trading spices between asia and europe. Half of the british empire was actually conquered in the world war they waged to END slavery and enforce that policy on the rest of the globe.
• You also leave out the 1400 year long trans-saharan slave trade of the muslim empire. I wouldn't say they profited much from it, but the Malian Empire certainly did; as raiding the rest of africa to sell slaves to the muslims was the entire basis for their economy from about 800ad to 1700ad.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I didn't say it was all glorious or great or alwyas a good idea. I was merely replying to the statement that "There's a reason why the nations that didn't willingly abolish slavery were all conquered by the nations that did." The fact that Roman had a different kind of slavery from what Europeans and Americans later had doesn't change the fact that Romans employed slavery on a massive scale and conquered nations left and right.

 

[LCatala]

The people that the romans conquered also employed slavery, often to a greater degree than the Romans. You cannot tell how well the Romans performed against a rival civilization without slavery because there was no such thing back then.