[WalterBright]

> Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings

Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies?

> Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.

I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.

> slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize

Or that one. Sorry.

The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.

[eat_veggies]

If you recall, the original contention was that "You cannot make money off of people who are starving." Clearly you can—in the short term, and enabled by violent coercion, as you've helpfully added.

My argument summed up is that slavery was a "local maximum" that A) generated an enormous amount of wealth early on, and was thus a crucial factor in developing the American economy, even if it was no longer the main driver of wealth by the time of the civil war, and B) made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.

It's clear which strategy wins long term, I don't think that's a debate. I should have phrased my earlier comment better, sorry.

[WalterBright]

> enabled by violent coercion

The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!

> generated an enormous amount of wealth

I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.

> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.

So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?

Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.

The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.

[racional]

Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it?

Government instrumentalized to serve the interests of the wealthy elites, that is. So at the end of the day, it's the latter who are "doing" it.