My only issue with what you wrote is your presumption that in a more competitive labor force you would have personally benefited from the larger pie, but I doubt that is true about white America as a whole. What do you think?

Yes on the profits and production. And the half-baked theory in my head is just that, half-baked.

Where I was going is looking at it like this. When you go through Mount Vernon they talk about the different jobs being done at different times of the year. Every season they were keeping the slaves busy. Farming, fishing, cutting wood, clearing land, etc. every time fo the year had a different focus. And most of those jobs aren't skilled or technical The actual dollar per hour of exploiting slaves may have been equal to or greater than hiring any individual laborer for any individual job.

But if I am the landowner I never have to worry about whether I can find labor to do those jobs if I have slaves. My production is much greater than using free men because I always have the labor when I need it and where I need it. I can rent out my slaves when I'm not using them, increasing my profit, something not possible at all with free men.

I think the other thing you are getting at, and feel free to correct me, is the inflation of wages. And slavery really controls that as well. Cotton and rice are very labor intensive. There were most likely not enough laborers in the south to actually staff farms with free men. And that would cause a rapid increase in wages greatly decreasing profits.

The willingness of humans to keep slaves and horribly mistreat them is pretty disturbing. Across societies, across millennia, willing to do the most horrific things to them. Gives me the willies.

“You start asking what whites can trace their current fortune to slaves. I know what the answer to that question is for me: ~$0.”

You were a swimmer at SMU? The SMU endowment has 100s of millions of dollars in mineral rights that generations back were owned by the plantation owning families. 30 years ago the endowment was likely 70% mineral rights. I doubt SMU would have a swim team much less money to give in scholarships without these funds. Also worth considering how you benefited from having basically zero competition with black Americans in the sport because blacks had limited access to swim pools just one generation above us.

I don't agree with you and I'll tell you why. You are looking at only one side of the equation -- the competition for jobs. You've got a zero-sum thinking hat on.

There is another side of the equation: the value of the input from each worker.

No on this we agree completely. When I said the pie would be bigger I mean the total economic output. The socialistic structure of a slave labor force is detrimental to net economic growth.

What I was saying is you cannot assume your stake in the larger pie would be the same (though I agree it likely would be). Even with a larger pie you are going to have some net losers.

Even with a larger pie you are going to have some net losers

3.) I've competed in many sports with black athletes, including swimming. Your "analysis" there is too wild to warrant engagement. That starts just getting to be anybody's guess.

Are you arguing that jim crow laws - blacks weren't allowed to swim - didn't effect the level of competition? You just made an economic argument to the opposite.

What I'm saying is that it becomes entirely unknown what anyone would have done in response to any type of particular circumstance. We are not without options. It degenerates into pure conjecture.

What I'm saying is that it becomes entirely unknown what anyone would have done in response to any type of particular circumstance. We are not without options. It degenerates into pure conjecture.

To cherry pick an example:

if blacks weren't allowed in public pool until, say, 1999 then Cullen Jones wouldn't have won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2008 and some white guy would have swam in his place. But then Phleps may have only won 7 golds so net loss for everyone (conclusion: black participation in swimming has been a net gain for all Americans).

I had a spreadsheet of everyone on here who swam, where they went and what events they did. I lost it because I had saved it on the desktop of a computer that was lost due to Harvey.

It's not just a larger pie. It's a better pie. That's what being materially richer is all about.

So, I'd say, yeah, whites would net benefit.

That’s not the point. The point is that whites disproportionately benefitted as compared to blacks. Whether we would all be better off or worse off economically in general if we hadn’t had slavery is immaterial to the discussion of reparations. The issue is that group A is viewed as disadvantaged as compared to group B and as a direct consequence of the actions of group B.

There are some generalized things you can say about economics, economics systems, and progress. I've made my points based on those principles.

Trying to just take one person's life and just add a random variable -- like the potential ramifications of potential increases in black swimming -- is just too speculative to conclude anything from. A few things to note...

1.) My college swimming career wasn't that great anyway. So it's not like we're arguing from some anomaly on my side.
2.) I never made even close to minimum wage while swimming.
3.) I might have been better served financially by just studying or working (but then that sets off a whole different reality too).
4.) I might have been better at a different sport. I just happened to be swimming when puberty hit.
5.) I might have gotten a black swim coach that I connected with better and had a better career.

That’s not the point. The point is that whites disproportionately benefitted as compared to blacks. Whether we would all be better off or worse off economically in general if we hadn’t had slavery is immaterial to the discussion of reparations. The issue is that group A is viewed as disadvantaged as compared to group B and as a direct consequence of the actions of group B.

I’m not in favor of reparations, but let’s be honest about the conversation.

The problem is while MAYBE you can pin the disadvantages on B, you are asking for reparations paid for by B, C, D, E through Z.

I was responding to a particular argument. You'd have to go back some ways to find it. But, yes, that was the point. It may not be the point you want to argue, or even the point you think we should be arguing, but I was arguing the point as it was made.

The moment any wage is paid better laborers have the ability to earn a better wage. Was the average slaves "compensation" commensurate with output? Possibly. But profits were obviously much better for those who were out-producing yet provided the same basic compensation. Exploitation of the basic human desire to do good work was at play here.

I think it was in the Das Kapital where Marx argues that slavery is the least efficient form of labor as the slave has no incentive to put any more work than he/she has to. Sure, a slave will work, otherwise he/she will be killed or not fed but that itself is not an incentive to put any extra work into the job, it is not motivation to perform better. If you work for money and if there is a chance for promotion workers tend to be more motivated and inventive. Just some thoughts from a book we had to read long time ago.

Look. I've obviously triggered you by showing you arguments that go against a deeply held belief of yours. I'm sorry, but that's not enough to silence me.

There are a few things I've noticed about you in our short time here:

1.) You went for an ad hominem attack in our very first exchange.
2.) You're now misquoting what I wrote.
3.) You seem to purposely misunderstand simple concepts (and I have no reason to believe you have a learning disability).

These traits are the traits of someone who's not up to arguing in good faith. I've only got so much time to waste. So, I'm going to ignore you. And, yes, I may continue digging, or writing, or speaking my mind as I do it.
I'd suggest you report me if you don't like it.
One way or another it will save us both time.

That's also a problem. Like I said, I'm not in favor of reparations.

what are "Slavery repetitions"