Rule of law (contracts, low official corruption), absence of arbitrary confiscation risks (ie the King is not going to suddenly come and grab your stuff), unfettered movement of goods/people/ideas. Generic ideas that allow you to compare across societies.
I actually studied economics, and the explanation of how growth arrived does not normally rely on slaves. It tends to focus more on the advent of early parliamentary government (Glorious Revolution), presence of coal in northern England, and advancement of science and technology.
There's no absolutes in economic history though, and you might well find an argument that the triangular trade aided the industrial revolution. That's more of a vignette that explains why England in particular might have prospered, rather than an explanation of how growth gets started in general.
Quite relevant as a set of innovations in the time when people started having to do business with strangers, particularly ones with different ecological positions. You can imagine having lived in agricultural societies there would be a big question of how exactly you're going to have a business relationship with say a factory owner or delivery company.
JSC, exchanges, (perhaps central banking as well) and various encounters with credit issues worked out a certain way in the UK, and innovations were copied across many other societies.
- Mass production: Venetian arsenal
- Central Bank: Sweden
- The word Bourse: a certain family in Belgium
- Political philosophy: lots of places
- Coal and steel production, factories: Northern France, Belgium
- Religious freedom: rather bloody wars still in living memory
While a large number of, not free but very low cost, laborers will build individual wealth for the small percentage of the population who use them, those same laborers do not participate in the economy. So you end up with very large supply and very little demand, little or no reason to innovate, and a stalled engine of growth.
Slavery, or even low wage workforce is bad even from the point of view of entirely selfish actors. It erodes the market eventually killing the entire economy.
The lesson is, if you want to get rich don't reduce the cost of your labor force, increase the value of your production.
I don't think that there is any doubt that slavery provided a great deal of the early economic growth in the American south. (Weirdly, I was just reading an article that suggested that slavery itself did not catch on in the Virginia colony until like 60 years after it was founded because slaves cost more than indentured servants, but didn't live any longer.)
However, if you combine the fact that the southern economy was based on labor intensive agriculture (indigo, tobacco, and cotton) with the presence of cheap slave labor prevented the southern economy from industrializing, which limited its growth during and after the industrial revolution.
An amusing note from the chapter: between 1620 and 1660 (?), the Virginia government continually re-passed laws requiring everyone to plant at least two acres of corn. Apparently, most didn't want to take the minimal time away from their tobacco crops, in spite of the fact that they were frequently starving.
The correlation between historical slavery and industrialization/modern wealth is negative.
Not really difficult to disentangle.
And theres Canada.
Whereas claiming they can't be disentangled is obviously disinterested.
Slavery was the rule, not the exception in the world at the time. The African kingdoms mostly practiced it, the Arabs were infamous for it, Mexico ended slavery in the 1830s after American industrialization was well underway, Russia didn't truly end serfdom until around 1900 as I recall, and then you have India's caste system, so only China is left without slavery in some form? But were they? And why didn't all of these countries industrialize?
However, you'll note that in the absence of southern cotton during the Civil War, these textile mills did not shut down or become unprofitable, they switched to alternate sources of cotton.
From this [0] I can only conclude that owners were paying for value and the price did go up over time, as did the price of cotton, but it looks like it was a good deal.
Two hundred years of slavery was not a major driver of economic growth?
Edit: Serious question, rephrased: do economic historians really not consider slavery a major driver of growth? If so, that would be highly counterintuitive. We're talking about the free labor of ~10 million people over two centuries, in an economy that was almost entirely agricultural.