Without more evidence, I think we just have to agree to disagree. I believe everything you've listed is a second-order effect, and depending on the situation (such as sugar cane in Brazil) many of them do not even apply at all. The sugar cane example is so unique I'm not sure any of them apply, the only one I think might is #8. If you have Netflix and are interested, watch season 2 episode 3 of Rotten. There are other episodes on other industries as well involving what is essentially slave labor that I believe do not apply to many of your rules as well.

I am not saying slavery is always the best way to get an edge in a competitive market, but sometimes it is. Otherwise, why would people still be using it today? There are literally billions of dollars to be made every year in multiple industries if what you're saying is true.

> Otherwise, why would people still be using it today?

Generally because there is something else going on that interferes with the free market operating.

There's a good reason that slave economies used to be commonplace, and when free markets appeared they disappeared, one by one.

Do you think the US became a superpower because of slave labor? (Recall that the wealth produced by the slaves was demolished in the Civil War.) In example after example, countries that ditched slavery and turned to free markets became much, much wealthier.

> Do you think the US became a superpower because of slave labor? (Recall that the wealth produced by the slaves was demolished in the Civil War.) In example after example, countries that ditched slavery and turned to free markets became much, much wealthier.

I feel like China, while an extremely complicated example, is a good counterpoint to this.

China switched to free markets.

That's a very controversial statement without a lot more context. You can even google "is china a free market?" and see people arguing about it today (multiple articles from 2019). Many sources disagree with you, including Wikipedia. I realize this ignores almost all of the nuance and it is not binary, but I still would not consider the Chinese economy a free market.

I appreciate the discussion, but I think we just disagree.

> That's a very controversial statement without a lot more context.

Here's an overview of the switch to a market economy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

Let's try something I saw on the front page of HN today about how to disagree better :)

If the United States is an 8 out of 10 on the free market scale, what would you consider China?

It's less free than the US, but it's a lot more free than what it was before 1978. China's prosperity improved in direct correlation with adopting free market policies.

For another example, look at North vs South Korea. Same country, an arbitrary line drawn, one prospers the other doesn't. East and West Germany, same thing. North and South US before the Civil War, same thing.

I agree with all of your examples and historically the transition has worked as you described. I think that after China opened its borders for trade the transition is so murky you can barely even draw a line like you can for the others. One obvious difference between China and the others is their widely agreed upon currency manipulation. There is also the fact that companies are essentially owned by the state, and you can really only operate with the grace of the government. I believe censorship is severe enough there to be a factor as well.

I understand (or at least I think I understand) your point about how by becoming freer they have prospered more, but I think it is so much more complicated than that when it comes to China. I realize it's always dangerous thinking to say something is an exception; but China is an exception. Yes, China reaped many rewards by opening up trade, but they clamped down on many things simultaneously - essentially trying to have the benefits of free trade with the convenience of a draconian state.

This is going in a slightly different direction than I intended. My original point was about slave labor for specific industries (as opposed to countries), and I feel my point stands that some industries benefit from it. On the Ivory Coast of Africa, they have both fair trade and slave labor chocolate - the slave labor chocolate absolutely dominates the market. My next point was that China didn't become a super power simply by becoming a free market (and I contend is still is not a free market, although it is freer than it was 50 years ago), but by hoarding natural resources, manipulating their currency, exploiting workers (their own and from Africa), disallowing international competitors internally unless specifically sanctioned by the Chinese government (so essentially China decides who is allowed to participate), and other bullying tactics.

While I think China has a much more prosperous future than the Soviet Union did and they've managed their internal affairs much better (although I do think shit is going to hit the fan there soon in a very bad way), they became a superpower first and foremost by strong-arm tactics. Opening the market with the US and the rest of the world just provided them the money to do so, and we have bent to their will more times than not.

This has been fun, but we really need to agree to disagree at this point :)