Question

In: Economics

What public policy to further this revolution? As little as is prudent. As Adam Smith said,...

What public policy to further this revolution? As little as is prudent. As Adam Smith said, “it is the highest impertinence…in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people.” We certainly can tax ourselves to give a hand up to the poor. Smith himself gave to the poor with a liberal hand. The liberalism of a Christian, or for that matter of a Jew, Muslim or Hindu, recommends it. But note, too, that 95% of the enrichment of the poor since 1800 has come not from charity but from a more productive economy.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, had the right idea in what he said to Reason magazine last year: “When people ask, ‘Will our children be better off than we are?’ I reply, ‘Yes, but it’s not going to be due to the politicians, but the engineers.’ ”

I would supplement his remark. It will also come from the businessperson who buys low to sell high, the hairdresser who spots an opportunity for a new shop, the oil roughneck who moves to and from North Dakota with alacrity and all the other commoners who agree to the basic bourgeois deal: Let me seize an opportunity for economic betterment, tested in trade, and I’ll make us all rich.

What does Ms. McCloskey believe is responsible for the vast wealth in the U.S? Do you agree?

Do you believe your children will be better off than you are? Why are we so rich?3

Solutions

Expert Solution

The big economic story of our times is not the Great Recession. It is how China and India began to embrace neoliberal ideas of economics and attributed a sense of dignity and liberty to the bourgeoisie they had denied for so long. The result was an explosion in economic growth and proof that economic change depends less on foreign trade, investment, or material causes, and a whole lot more on ideas and what people believe.

Or so says Deirdre N. McCloskey in Bourgeois Dignity, a fiercely contrarian history that wages a similar argument about economics in the West. Here she turns her attention to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe to reconsider the birth of the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism. According to McCloskey, our modern world was not the product of new markets and innovations, but rather the result of shifting opinions about them. During this time, talk of private property, commerce, and even the bourgeoisie itself radically altered, becoming far more approving and flying in the face of prejudices several millennia old. The wealth of nations, then, didn’t grow so dramatically because of economic factors: it grew because rhetoric about markets and free enterprise finally became enthusiastic and encouraging of their inherent dignity.

An utterly fascinating sequel to her critically acclaimed book The Bourgeois Virtues, Bourgeois Dignity is a feast of intellectual riches from one of our most spirited and ambitious historians—a work that will forever change our understanding of how the power of persuasion shapes our economic lives.

MY VIEWS

Since 1700, the GDP per capita in places like the US has risen, in real terms, over 40 fold. This is a real increase in total wealth, created by the human mind. And it was unleashed because the world began to change in some fundamental ways around 1700 that allowed the human mind to truly flourish. Among these changes, I will focus on two:

  1. There was a philosophical and intellectual change where questioning established beliefs and social patterns went from being heresy and unthinkable to being acceptable, and even in vogue. In other words, men, at first just the elite but soon everyone, were urged to use their mind rather than just relying on established beliefs
  2. There were social and political changes that greatly increased the number of people capable of entrepreneurship. Before this time, the vast vast majority of people were locked into social positions that allowed them no flexibility to act on a good idea, even if they had one. By starting to create a large and free middle class, first in the Netherlands and England and then in the US, more people had the ability to use their mind to create new wealth. Whereas before, perhaps 1% or less of any population really had the freedom to truly act on their ideas, after 1700 many more people began to have this freedom.

So today's wealth, and everything that goes with it (from shorter work hours to longer life spans) is the result of more people using their minds more freely.

At the time, perhaps to my shame, I had never even heard of Deirdre McCloskey nor her work that has been published in three volumes called the Bourgeois Era explaining what she calls the "great enrichening" (which I am slowly plowing through). My thinking when I wrote this seems reasonably consistent with her conclusions, though she has obviously been a lot more systematic in thinking about it. This exchange with Gregory Waymire is a short but quite readable window on her thinking. She writes in part:

You're adopting a conventional and somewhat silly view that the bourgeoisie were especially diligent, when it is not true as fact and is anyway not the character of the bourgeoisie that mattered to the Great Enrichment (which by the way was a factor of 30 per capita in countries that fully adopted economic liberalism, not the factor of 10 you quote: look at the passage again, and read slower and longer). Weber sometimes got this right, sometimes wrong. But people tend to read him as saying that higher savings and more diligence, Ben Franklin style (and even Ben did not actually do it), is what made us rich.

One trouble which such a conventional argument is an economic one that Solow-type models (and Smith- and Marx- and Weber- type models) that reduce growth to savings and labor effort are radically mistaken. What matters is human creativity released from ancient trammels....

What made us rich, I argue at no doubt tedious and unreadable length in the Bourgeois Era trilogy, is imagination, ingenuity, radical ideas released. They were released in turn by liberalism, Smith's "liberal plan of [social] equality, [economic] liberty, and legal [justice]."


Related Solutions

The great 18th-century economist Adam Smith wrote, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to...
The great 18th-century economist Adam Smith wrote, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” Explain how each of the three conditions Smith describes would promote economic growth.
Adam Smith coined the Diamond Water Paradox. Where something that is essential to life has little...
Adam Smith coined the Diamond Water Paradox. Where something that is essential to life has little value where something that does not has great value. 1.) Explain what theory Adam Smith was using and therefore was unable to explain why the paradox existed.
Adam Smith coined the Diamond Water Paradox. Where something that is essential to life has little...
Adam Smith coined the Diamond Water Paradox. Where something that is essential to life has little value where something that does not has great value. 1.) Explain what theory Adam Smith was using and therefore was unable to explain why the paradox existed. 2.) Explain how modern economist have solved the Diamond Water Paradox. 3.) Explain the difference between Marginal Utility and Total Utility 4.) Give an example of Marginal Utility vs Total Utility in today's society. give each answer...
What was Karl Marx and Adam smith theory of economics?
What was Karl Marx and Adam smith theory of economics?
Describe what Adam Smith meant by the “invisible hand.” Smith first used this metaphor in the...
Describe what Adam Smith meant by the “invisible hand.” Smith first used this metaphor in the context of how capitalists make decisions to invest in the most profitable activities. Why do you think many economists think this metaphor is very useful to explain the mechanism underlying a presumed compatibility between selfish interests and a successful social provisioning in capitalist economies? Do you think the fact that Smith used the words “invisible hand” very sporadically (only three times) in his work...
What is the difference between classical and distorted Adam Smith? Does demonetization relate with Distorted Adam...
What is the difference between classical and distorted Adam Smith? Does demonetization relate with Distorted Adam Smith? If yes, then how?
What is Adam Smith theory of value? and What is Richard Cantillion Theory of value? Are...
What is Adam Smith theory of value? and What is Richard Cantillion Theory of value? Are there similarity between these theory of value thougt?
2. What is the relationship between the economic philosophy of Adam Smith and the Dutch and...
2. What is the relationship between the economic philosophy of Adam Smith and the Dutch and British East India Companies?
Are price and value different? What does Adam Smith have to do with this?
Are price and value different? What does Adam Smith have to do with this?
what is the similarity between Adam Smith and Richard Cantillon in terms of the economic thought...
what is the similarity between Adam Smith and Richard Cantillon in terms of the economic thought of the price specie flow mechanism? and whats is price specie flow mechanism explain please.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT