[QUOTE=CookingWithGas]
You might like this, which is a discussion and display of a similar graph of personal income on a logarithmic scale vs. life expectancy.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks! That was seriously cool. 
-XT
China never practiced industrial-scale chattel slavery.
The US’s slavery advantage comes from the fact that we had the historical good fortune to be able to grow a labor-heavy crop during a period of unprecedented demand (brought about by industrialization) without labor costs. It’s well recognized that the British industrial revolution gained it’s initial momentum from cotton production (and they had a similar advantage coming from Indian cotton.)
Obviously the mere presence of slaves does not catapult a country into wealth. But in the right circumstances, having a huge supply of extremely cheap labor can make a difference (look at China.)
If the slaves gave the US the advantage than why is so much wealth in California and NY, rather than Alabama and Missouri?
Not to mention that places in Africa and the Middle East, (not mention Rome and Greece), had slavery for hundreds or thousands of years before America got in the game. You’d think that those places would be way richer than the US, with all of that slave wealth creation - but I just don’t see it.
It’s fairly obvious when one compares the economies of the prewar North and South that slavery was a huge impediment to growth.
Well, then, try the more relevant comparison between the free and slave portions of the United States prior to the Civil War. It indicates rather clearly that slavery enhances economic performance in much the same way that a boat anchor enhances swimming ability.
It was for the slave owning region, but it provided a boost to the industrialized north, who benefited from the supply of relatively cheap raw materials. Overall I don’t believe that the US’s current status as a wealthy country came from slavery, though I can see how a case could be made that it helped our early growth. However, even taking away the slavery and early growth I don’t think the US would be substantially less wealthy today than it in fact is.
-XT
Several of the cited factors seem to be something of a wash. Lots of countries have some sort of abundant natural resources; some are wealthy, but some are not. Same with countries with lots of cheap labor.
Other possible answers just tend to rephrase the question. For instance, one might say that investment in education is a key input to societal wealth, but then the question becomes, why do/can some societies invest more in education than others.
The deep answers are probably very specific, almost ineffable, and dependent on a particular time-frame. Note that one thousand years ago, we would have been asking, “Why is the Caliphate so wealthy?” At other times we would have asked, “Why China?”
But it isn’t. It’s measured in dollars. One of the main reasons the US is wealthy is that it is the world’s sole supply of the commodity necessary to conduct and measure trade: dollars. The Yuan is not demanded all over the world and China makes no legal dollars. People all over the world are not stashing away yuans against a rainy day, they are doing it with dollars and giving goods and services in exchange. It is almost as if they US was the only source of food in the world (an even more necessary commodity). That doesn’t mean that the yuan won’t someday be as important and the dollar will always be sought, but as of now the US is the only legal supplier of dollars.
In fact China is attempting to promote the use of the yuan despite it not being a floating currency (by promoting its use for bond emission, the signature of contracts with payment in Yuans, etc..). From what I’ve read precisely today, it seems they have some success in south-east Asia, even though the idea that the Yuan could become a major international currency while still not being traded freely on currency markets seems preposterous to most observers.
So what does that tell you now about America’s new future as it now lets in additional millions and millions of immigrants year after year while there currently is no shortage of workers?
China et al. generally had household slaves performing personal services and working on household farms. This is an entirely different thing than having large numbers of slaves performing industrial-scale agricultural labor- which is something that had never happened before because in the pre-industrialized work there weren’t markets for industrial-scale anything.
Comparing classical slavery to American slavery is like comparing a microwave to an industrial-scale threshing machine- they are different things with a different purpose.
Saying that “So and so had slaves all along and didn’t get rich” is like saying “Saudi Arabia had oil all along- why weren’t they rich in classical times?” A resource with no market is not going to get you very far.
Fair points, but I would mention that
[ul][li]Romans used slaves extensively for agriculture[/li][li]Many countries not only had slavery before the US, but they continued to have slaves at the same time as the US and afterwards[/li][li]My main point (which you did not quote) was about the North vs. South in the US, and my second paragraph was somewhat in jest[/li][/ul]
Slavery was profitable, although obviosuly abhorrent, for a time in the US, as it was in other palces - but the fact is that the US’s real wealth was created by banking and invention; and slaves aren’t very good for either.
Pure nonsense.
Half the people in this thread are just plain screwed in the head. There is no nicer way to put it. I have no idea how this got derailed into the pros and cons of slavery and its long-term economic impacts. The isn’t 1860 and the U.S. didn’t start to become a superpower until the 20th century.
Can we please keep this on topic or do you think about slavery every hour of the day no matter what the subject is? If you want a more focused essay topic for a leftist college class, how do you feel about slavery and its impact on the rise of Apple and the iPad in particular?
I guess I have to break it into short questions for you:
-
Do you assert China profits from slaves or slavery?
-
Do you assert the United States profits from slaves or slavery?
-
If you assert both of the first two things, explain the discrepancy in wealth between the United States and China.
Because they used slaves in a different way, to create different products, that interact with different markets. A couple of slaves that keep your house clean and do the cooking are probably not going to make a difference in your country’s economy. A few dozen slaves producing commercial crops for major markets will. American chattel slavery was a very different arrangement than most forms of historical slavery.
American not only had slaves, but they had slaves at a time when the market had an unmet need for massive amounts of cotton. Before the industrial era, there were no markets for cheap mass produced goods. It’s not just slavery, but slavery+industrialization.
Ironically, your China example argues this point well. China is currently booming precisely because they have a large supply of low cost labor, a market for cheap mass-produced goods, and a political/economic structure that can support it.
Personally, I don’t believe slavery was the decisive factor. But to equate American slavery to Roman slavery is ridiculous.
What in the world is it with this thread? Slavery? Loans? The focus seems bizarre to me.
Also, the average income per person is not that much above many other western countries. Lower taxes and longer working weeks could easily explain why the US is doing quite well.
What raw materials? Cotton for textiles and maybe tobacco, yeah, but it’s not like the slave system was cranking out iron, coal, lumber, gold, or other raw materials for the north.
Well, yes and no. Certain powerful Roman families specifically maintained a large force of slaves producing saffron, an extremely valuable and labor-intensive crop, and they did so to produce surplus cash, not for subsistence. In those cases, at least, Roman slavery seems roughly analogous to American cotton plantations.
One of the main reasons the sun rises is that the crowing roosters wake it up.
Even setting aside your confusion of cause and effect, measuring in dollars rather than yuan has no effect on relative economic statistics, any more than measuring in meters rather than feet has an effect on relative physical statistics.