I hate to get political here of all places, but I wonder what Runey's politics are.
Now, I get that this is a game, and at a certain point you get to explain away certain problems with "it's fiction.", but I don't think you quite get to do that with the economics of slavery. Plenty of people believe that slavery is beneficial to the slaveowners, but it's not. Slavery did not benefit a country like the US, in fact, the US had more economic growth after slavery was abolished. Slavery doesn't only mean that slaves have it horribly, it also means that the wealthy, the masters, also have it worse than they would if slaves were free - after all, slaves don't have much money to spend, slaves need guards to ensure that they work, and slaves never get to be managers or entrepreneurs or similar, even if that's where they would be the most beneficial to the society. Even in the modern world, there is an obvious difference between the countries that had slavery in 1750 and those that didn't, when comparing their economies.
Slavery doesn't make anyone wealthy or powerful. The "country X is powerful because they have slaves" line is wrong. Slavery is unnecessary. It makes things worse for everyone, and it doesn't make anyone powerful. What improves economies is liberty, freedom to work whatever job you want, to create whatever business people demand and lead it the way you see best, and freedom to trade freely with whomever you want. If slavery worked, you'd see a lot more of it in the wealthiest places on the planet, and you'd never see it abolished. But it doesn't.
You must be registered to see the links