4 ms·

While I think it's important to not neglect the horrors of slavery and the theft of lands from indigenous peoples, it's disingenuous to imply that the sole (or

While I think it's important to not neglect the horrors of slavery and the theft of lands from indigenous peoples, it's disingenuous to imply that the sole (or a major) cause of America's current and continuous booming economy was either of these. The easiest way to dispel this notion is to show that the vast, vast majority of American wealth (>99%) came about long after slavery had ended. Indeed, if we could return to the economy at the time slavery was in full swing (even disregarding morals), not one rational person would choose to do so. Another way is to compare the US economy to those that didn't discontinue those practices. Or to show that even in current circumstances the US economy continues to grow rapidly, after hundreds of years of doing so. So, please don't forget the atrocities caused by the United States. But also don't attribute everything that ever happened in the United States to those atrocities. It may be a cheap way to brush aside the success of the United States, but it isn't an honest argument. Clearly there's something else going on that has made the United States the most wealthy country in the world (per capita).

throwaway2048 10y ago
Microsoft might have billions of lines of code today, but they would be precisely nowhere without the few K-lines of code that composed microsoft basic for the altair. Its misleading to say that 99%+ of american wealth occured long after slavery etc ended, because it still started there.
- austenallred 10y ago
  True, but I don't know if it's accurate that the United States wouldn't exist without slavery. I wish we could accurately run simulations; a lot of variables.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Try running it without the centuries of british and european progress and see what you end up with.
    - austenallred 10y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're making. The point Buffett and Munger were making is that the current American system works very well and creates enormous amounts of wealth. Doss the fact that there was slavery for centuries all over the world somehow refute that? I can't see how it does.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      That's kind of an absurd comparison. If you mean "what if time went on without Europeans in the US", that's a big what if. The indigenous peoples would have carried on in the Bronze Age, and would have been wiped out later by a different collection of foreigners. The reality is that the US benefited from the culture and know how of Europe without the baggage of supporting useless aristocracy.
  - chickenfries 10y ago
    Sure, but that's a pipe dream so why not study history instead?
    - austenallred 10y ago
      The question at hand is "Does the American system create massive amounts of wealth?" The comment essentially claimed it only did so because of slavery. I argue that isn't true. If the American system only works as a result of slavery then it should be discounted. If not, however, it should be understood and replicated where possible. And we should all study history regardless.
      - euyyn 10y ago
        No, the comment didn't claim that. Rather that it didn't start from scratch in a barren land, instead it started by abusing those people for advantage.
        ralfd 10y ago
        But ex-slavery states in the US are not the wealthiest and economically often in the bottom half. If abusing people gave an advantage the effect should be the strongest there?
        chickenfries 10y ago
        > they all represent a net gain for Americans from the barren lands, primitive structures and meager output of 1776. Starting from scratch, America has amassed wealth totaling $90 trillion. This is the original quote. The issue is with "starting from scratch." You're not starting from scratch if you obtained the land through genocide, assisted by free labor. You are starting with quite a lot. America did not start in 1776. European powers had been investing in the new world for hundreds of years at that point. The whole issue is calling the economy of America at 1776 "starting from scratch." It's ahistorical.
        euyyn 10y ago

throwaway2048 10y ago

Microsoft might have billions of lines of code today, but they would be precisely nowhere without the few K-lines of code that composed microsoft basic for the altair. Its misleading to say that 99%+ of american wealth occured long after slavery etc ended, because it still started there.

austenallred 10y ago
True, but I don't know if it's accurate that the United States wouldn't exist without slavery. I wish we could accurately run simulations; a lot of variables.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Try running it without the centuries of british and european progress and see what you end up with.
  - austenallred 10y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're making. The point Buffett and Munger were making is that the current American system works very well and creates enormous amounts of wealth. Doss the fact that there was slavery for centuries all over the world somehow refute that? I can't see how it does.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    That's kind of an absurd comparison. If you mean "what if time went on without Europeans in the US", that's a big what if. The indigenous peoples would have carried on in the Bronze Age, and would have been wiped out later by a different collection of foreigners. The reality is that the US benefited from the culture and know how of Europe without the baggage of supporting useless aristocracy.
- chickenfries 10y ago
  Sure, but that's a pipe dream so why not study history instead?
  - austenallred 10y ago
    The question at hand is "Does the American system create massive amounts of wealth?" The comment essentially claimed it only did so because of slavery. I argue that isn't true. If the American system only works as a result of slavery then it should be discounted. If not, however, it should be understood and replicated where possible. And we should all study history regardless.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      No, the comment didn't claim that. Rather that it didn't start from scratch in a barren land, instead it started by abusing those people for advantage.
      - ralfd 10y ago
        But ex-slavery states in the US are not the wealthiest and economically often in the bottom half. If abusing people gave an advantage the effect should be the strongest there?
        chickenfries 10y ago
        > they all represent a net gain for Americans from the barren lands, primitive structures and meager output of 1776. Starting from scratch, America has amassed wealth totaling $90 trillion. This is the original quote. The issue is with "starting from scratch." You're not starting from scratch if you obtained the land through genocide, assisted by free labor. You are starting with quite a lot. America did not start in 1776. European powers had been investing in the new world for hundreds of years at that point. The whole issue is calling the economy of America at 1776 "starting from scratch." It's ahistorical.
        euyyn 10y ago