Various papers say this, and GPT5 thinks it’s true even accounting for enforcement costs. As one would expect, it’s not true if you also subtract things like health costs to enslaved people themselves.
The book argued that slavery was an economically rational institution and that the economic exploitation of slaves was not as catastrophic as presumed [...]
From what I can tell everyone thinks the conclusions around economic efficiency were true
Many in the historical community were impressed with the authors’ application of cliometrics. In general historians and economists agree with the conclusion that slavery was efficient and economically viable but had more mixed attitudes towards the material well being of slaves.[5]
Why do you think this, and does this account for enforcement costs (which were very high)?
Various papers say this, and GPT5 thinks it’s true even accounting for enforcement costs. As one would expect, it’s not true if you also subtract things like health costs to enslaved people themselves.
Can you list some particular papers?
The big one is Time on the Cross by Fogel. Wikipedia says
From what I can tell everyone thinks the conclusions around economic efficiency were true