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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
