More Tuckerism: ‘Conservative’ Journal Blames Markets For Social Ills

Media commentary tracks the business cycle. During recessions and most of the recovery, the media obsess over economic growth because tax revenues have declined. The media think we work only to feed Leviathan because without the government we would all die, right? And they will broadcast dozens of stories about people who died because of a lack of funding at one of our many levels of government.

Then when the economy turns around and GDP, the stock market and government revenue are robust, the media fix their gaze on all of the other problems that they can imagine. Recently, I wrote about Tucker Carlson’s screed. This week, Abby McCloskey rides a similar horse in her article “Beyond Growth.” Others will join them in a thundering herd, that is, until the next recession, which will happen within a year or two. Then their message will again become, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

How Christmas saved the world from starvation

The world was flat until 1600. Not the shape of the planet. According to the best economic history, standards of living even in 1800 AD hardly differed from those of 5000 BC. TV shows dealing with the ancient past assume a gradual slope of progress and portray Egyptians or Abraham and Sarah as if they were primitive South American tribes still stuck in hunting and gathering mode.

But if economic historians are correct, Egyptians in 3000 BC lived as well as the eighteenth century French. Famine and mass starvation were common. Nobel-Prize winner Robert Fogel wrote in Escape from Hunger and Premature Death that in eighteenth century France 20% of the people could get only enough calories each day to fuel a short walk to the spot where they begged.

Of course, some ancient capitals did better than others by looting conquered nations but per capita wealth never increased; it just sloshed from one conqueror to the next. Rome enjoyed wealth and splendor because it had stolen stuff from defeated nations.

The Great Stagnation Explained

A few economists are worried about the great stagnation, the apparent plateauing of wages and economic growth. Some attribute the malaise to rising inequality or technology having picked all of the low hanging fruit, or other causes. Any time someone identifies a problem every person with an ideology to promote offers their pet ideology as the cause or cure. Here is my take on it:

The industrial revolution caused per capita incomes in the West to rocket from $3/day in 1700 to as much as 130 times that amount today. A graph of incomes produces a “hockey stick” as this graph from the Atlantic that demonstrates:

Chicago economist Deirdre McCloskey’s explains in her book Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World that the innovation caused the rapid take off in incomes, but innovation requires that society value business and innovation and adopt “bourgeois values.” She devotes a large portion of the book to slaying zombie explanations for the rise in incomes, including thrift, capital accumulation, greed, the Protestant ethic, colonialism, education, transportation, geography, energy, trade, slavery, exploitation, commercialization, genetics, institutions, and science.

How is it possible for innovation to benefit all of society and not just the inventor? After all, successful inventors become very wealthy. The answer is that innovators capture merely 2% of the total benefit of their inventions according to Yale economist William D. Nordhaus in his paper “Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement.”