[orange8]

> Wildly incorrect. The slave trade peaked around 11% of the UK economy: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-...

Thanks for the link, very interesting. Some quotes from it..

"By the end of the eighteenth century, the British part of the Triangular Trade alone incorporated economic activities equivalent to around 5% of the British gross domestic product. If we add the activities in the American plantation complex, as well as the industries in Britain directly dependent upon this (either for inputs of raw materials or for markets for output), the estimated figures show that economic activities equivalent to around 11% of British GDP were directly involved in or associated with the Triangular Trade and the American plantation complex. Activities of this magnitude can hardly be dismissed as marginal to the British economy at the time."

Note that this 11% is only at the end of the 18th century. Just a snapshot of a trade that started in the 15th century.

"The transatlantic slave trade did have intimate connections to several European economies, but the consequences have also been fiercely debated."

They say "fiercely debated", you say "wildly incorrect". Do you actually read the sources you link to?

"One important reason for this focus on Britain was no doubt the publication of Eric Williams’ much-cited book Capitalism and slavery, first published in 1944."

Someone actually wrote a whole book about it! That's how deep the subject is. I remember watching a 1 hour lecture on you tube, where this professor argued that the trans-Atlantic slave trade is actually what made Europe and economic powerhouse. Something about a combination of good timing and location. If you have any alternative theory of what powered Europe's economic growth in the 18th century, let me know. My take, it was not much different from what powered the roman empire and many other economic powerhouses going thousands of years back.

"The assumptions underlying such counterfactual models can be quite controversial. For instance, the American plantation complex might seem unimportant as a supplier of cotton and other plantation crops, if one assumes a very high elasticity of supply of these crops in other parts of the world, and declining costs of maritime transport. In his recent book Empire of cotton, Sven Beckert has essentially argued against making such an assumption. In his view, the coercion involved in the expansion of the American plantation complex was the key ‘that opened fresh lands and mobilized new labor, becoming the essential ingredient of the emerging empire of cotton – and thus an essential ingredient in forging industrial capitalism’."

Another book! This one is more about America though, and the influence of the cotton industry, powered by slaves. Not sure how those GDP calculations from the 1800s you quoted were arrived at, but I'm certain an "essential ingredient in forging industrial capitalism" is not 5%.

[rayiner]

> I remember watching a 1 hour lecture on you tube, where this professor argued that the trans-Atlantic slave trade is actually what made Europe and economic powerhouse.

You can find one or two professors to stand behind literally any point. But that theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If the slave trade is “actually” what was responsible for European wealth, how did Britain end it almost overnight without any significant impact on its economy? It’s not like the slave trade was in a natural decline in 1807 when the British banned it. It had peaked just a couple of decades before.

> If you have any alternative theory of what powered Europe's economic growth in the 18th century, let me know

The rise of strong central governments that could protect trade routes, and the early part of the Industrial Revolution.

[orange8]

> You can find one or two professors to stand behind literally any point. But that theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Not just one or two, the article you linked to clearly states that it is hotly debated by economic and history experts. The professor is an expert on the topic, are you? One thing all experts agree on, is that Africa was, a very exploited continent. And many believe it still is. How else would the worlds richest continent in terms of natural resources also have the worlds poorest populations? Europe benefited from the African slave trade, you say "just a tiny bit", I say significantly, but on that we both agree.

> If the slave trade is “actually” what was responsible for European wealth, how did Britain end it almost overnight without any significant impact on its economy?

They ended it at the height of the British Empire. When they had colonized huge swathes of Africa. It did not impact Britain's economy since the direct exploitation of african peopls was replaced by the direct exploitation of africas natural resources. Colonialism is just another form of slavery.

> The rise of strong central governments that could protect trade routes, and the early part of the Industrial Revolution

That's right. And one of the most lucrative trade routes in human history that they protected, controlled and profited from was the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

[inglor_cz]

"what powered Europe's economic growth in the 18th century, let me know"

The growth in 19th century is much more explosive, and I would say that the primary reason is widespread use of coal for energy. Not being dependent on the power of muscles (and wind) was a game changer for Europe. And absence of that capability put a hard limit on Roman economic power. You just don't gain much economic efficiency from burning wood and working people and animals to death.

Economic development in countries that were able to harness steam power was enormous regardless of their slavery laws (some notable industrial hotspots like Prussia never had slavery to begin with). Countries like Portugal and Spain, with their old colonial empires, were much more stagnant.

Generally, slavery only sort-of works in agriculture and possibly mining. Anything more value-added requires voluntary, educated workforce. Nazi and Soviet slave-powered industries were extremely inefficient, sabotage was a constant problem, even though punishments were heavy.

[orange8]

Rich nations are exactly like poor people. If you are lucky to grow up privileged, your path to success is very easy compared to someone who group up poor. Rich nations inherited the loot from slavery, and used it to power their innovation.

That is because Rich nations have the luxury to turn their attention and resources to the sciences and arts, once the basic necessities of life have been taken care of. Europe hardly made any progress during its so called "dark ages".

Yes, slavery as a mass industry became economically obsolete due to advances in science. That does not mean it was not very lucrative and beneficial to the those economies on the right side of it while it lasted. A study of human history is just one of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer, until the next revolution comes about.

[inglor_cz]

"Rich nations inherited the loot from slavery, and used it to power their innovation."

The correlation between contemporary richness and former slavery is pretty weak. Many innovative countries like Ireland, Finland, Estonia, Taiwan or South Korea used to be actually subjugated to bigger empires. Meanwhile, no one considers Portugal, a major global power during the slavery era, rich or innovative.

Even in the US, the Deep South was technologically backward, which was one of the reasons why they actually lost the Civil War. If you have servants working on you, what is your motivation to study, tinker and innovate? Similar countries of today (such as Saudi Arabia) mostly spend their own loot of slavery on conspicuous consumption.

[nec4b]

Your interpretation of history is upside down. Rich nations existed before slavery, that is how they were able to afford slaves in the first place. On the other hand a lot of African tribal chiefs earned a lot of money by selling captives into slavery and yet had nothing to show for.

>> Europe hardly made any progress during its so called "dark ages".

I recommend you reading a history book or two before making such claims.