I periodically ask my left-leaning friends to identify a nation that became rich with statist policies.
They usually point to Sweden or Denmark, but I point out that Sweden and Denmark became rich in the 1800s and early 1900s, when government was very small.
At that point, they don’t really have any other response.
That’s because, as I pointed out in this clip from a recent debate at Pomona College in California, there is no example of a poor nation becoming rich with big-government policies (though we have tragic examples of rich nations becoming poor with statism).
So if statism isn’t the right approach to achieve prosperity, how can poor nations become rich nations.
I’ve offered my recipe for growth and prosperity, but let’s look at the wise words of Professor Deirdre McCloskey in the New York Times.
The Great Enrichment began in 17th-century Holland. By the 18th century, it had moved to England, Scotland and the American colonies, and now it has spread to much of the rest of the world.
Economists and historians agree on its startling magnitude: By 2010, the average daily income in a wide range of countries, including Japan, the United States, Botswana and Brazil, had soared 1,000 to 3,000 percent over the levels of 1800. People moved from tents and mud huts to split-levels and city condominiums, from waterborne diseases to 80-year life spans, from ignorance to literacy. …50 years ago, four billion out of five billion people lived in…miserable conditions. In 1800, it was 95 percent of one billion.
Deirdre then explains that classical liberalism produced this economic miracle.
What…caused this Great Enrichment? Not exploitation of the poor, …but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative and energetic. …we eventually need capital and institutions to embody the ideas, such as a marble building with central heating and cooling to house the Supreme Court. But the intermediate and dependent causes like capital and institutions have not been the root cause. The root cause of enrichment was and is the liberal idea, spawning the university, the railway, the high-rise, the internet and, most important, our liberties.
In other words, the right ideas are the building blocks that enable the accumulation of capital and the development of institutions.
Deirdre’s analysis is critical. She reminds us that investment doesn’t merely depend on good tax policy and rule of law doesn’t magically materialize. You need a form of societal capital as the foundation.
Anyhow, to show how good ideas changed the world, this chart show how classical liberalism is the key that unlocked modern prosperity.
You may have already seen a chart that looks just like this. It was in a video Deirdre narrated. And Don Boudreaux shared a similar chart in one of his videos.
Circling back to the point I made at the start of this column, socialism (or any other form of statism) has never produced this type of economic miracle.
[…] explained how Western Europe and North America became rich in the 1800s and early 1900s with the tried-and-true approach of free markets and limited […]
[…] As a quick aside, when folks on the left use “neoliberal” as a slur, they are using the word to depict capitalism or libertarianism (the “neo” indicating today’s version of classical liberalism). […]
[…] As a quick aside, when folks on the left use “neoliberal” as a slur, they are using the word to depict capitalism or libertarianism (the “neo” indicating today’s version of classical liberalism). […]
[…] this year showing how per-capita economic output jumped dramatically once capitalism was allowed starting a couple of hundred years […]
[…] this year showing how per-capita economic output jumped dramatically once capitalism was allowed starting a couple of hundred years […]
[…] markets and both put the state over the individual, so they are far away from libertarianism(or classical liberalism) when looking from top to […]
[…] markets and both put the state over the individual, so they are far away from libertarianism (or classical liberalism) when looking from top to […]
[…] this year showing how per-capita economic output jumped dramatically once capitalism was allowed starting a couple of hundred years […]
[…] this year showing how per-capita economic output jumped dramatically once capitalism was allowed starting a couple of hundred years […]
[…] why I shared data earlier this year showing how per-capita economic output jumped dramatically once capitalism was allowed starting a couple of hundred years […]
[…] for most of human history. It wasn’t until capitalism emerged a few hundred years ago that we made the jump from agricultural poverty to industrial […]
[…] the title of Ms. Diallo’s column, neoliberal is the term used in Europe for classical liberals – i.e., advocates of small government and individual […]
[…] Regarding the title of Ms. Diallo’s column, neoliberal is the term used in Europe for classical liberals – i.e., advocates of small government and individual […]
[…] course not. It was simply a result of the Western world becoming rich because of limited government and the rule of […]
[…] course not. It was simply a result of the Western world becoming rich because of limited government and the rule of […]
[…] course not. It was simply a result of the Western world becoming rich because of limited government and the rule of […]
[…] assuming you want to improve the lives of people in poor nation – is that the world needs more capitalism and less […]
[…] other words, the growth-producing concept of classical liberalism (as opposed to the statist version of liberalism that now exists in the United […]
[…] Just in case it’s not clear, Mises was referring to “classical liberalism.” […]
[…] if we care about maximizing freedom and prosperity, there’s no substitute for classical […]
[…] to the glorious miracle of capitalism, I’m writing this column 36,000 feet above the Atlantic […]
[…] Will answers Mr. Riffle’s question by noting that the world’s most successful nations operate on the principles of classical liberalism. […]
[…] of the postwar order simply because there are other parts that deserve our support. The goal is more global prosperity, not […]
[…] P.S. When she referred in her conclusion to “American liberal capitalism,” she was obviously referring to classical liberalism. […]
[…] P.S. When she referred in her conclusion to “American liberal capitalism,” she was obviously referring to classical liberalism. […]
[…] This is spot on. […]
[…] capitalism is the only system to produce mass prosperity, I actually support free enterprise more because it is a moral system […]
[…] Dan Mitchell celebrates the mass prosperity unleashed by widespread acceptance of bourgeois virtues. […]
“The bottom line is massive explosion of incomes after 1800. ”
I think it increases economic understanding if instead of thinking of it as increased “income” we think of it as increased productivity and increased purchasing power.
The reason is that socialist liberals suffer under the delusion that merely redistributing “income” will reduce “poverty.” The economic reality is that what the communist liberals are redistributing is the fruit of productivity and the resulting purchasing power. Somehow the delusion has to be overcome.
Nigel, I agree with you in theory, especially the year-to-year change. But I don’t think it changes the long-term ‘big picture’ conclusion. The bottom line is massive explosion of incomes after 1800.
I went to the source, recreated the chart and changed to log scale. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to copy it here in this comment box.
As presented, Max Roser’s plot of “Real GDP per Capita Around the World …” is of negligible worth. This in comparing different countries, and their shorter-term growth rates, over a time-scale of hundreds of years. Just look at how the differences are overwhelmingly undistinguishable before 1800.
If the plot were given with the vertical scale being the logarithm of GDP per capita (whether PPP adjusted or not), the short-term relative changes would be sensibly presented over the whole time-scale of the plot.
This deficiency (not using a log-value scale for plots over a long period) is, IMHO, far too common with economists – which is a serious disappointment. The need is for plots that do not over-emphasise the contribution of inflation (and/or inaccuracies in its indexation) and present (relatively short-term) growth or contraction substantially equally across the longer time-scale.
Best regards
jdgalt,
Japan used to be one of the freest countries in the world. Top 10. Your point is probably more correct about S Korea, but even they have ranked fairly high. I’m talking about economic freedom.
Having said all that, it’s possible that a benevolent dictator could produce good results if he chose all the right policies. It’s just that benevolence coupled with competence is rare, so it’s usually a bad idea to have too much power in the hands of government.
It does look from here as though both Japan and South Korea went from poor to rich under the command economies they have now. I hope I’m wrong, but please shoot this down if you can.
PPP is nonsense. Wikipedia writes India has GDP Per capita PPP $7,795 and nominal (read real) $2,016. Wik also writes PPP is Neoclassical economics which with Keynesian economics dominates microeconomics. Are you a Keynesian?
“What…caused this Great Enrichment? Not exploitation of the poor, …but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” ”
Nobody knows this better than the Globalists, but, because they are the demon infested winged monkey servants of Satan, they take great pains to steer clear of liberty and justice and anything else that might make the lives of regular people better. The Globalists hate regular people and want them to be poor and miserable. The misery caused by socialism and communism is not a bug, it is the primary feature and purpose of the program.
The Globalists use socialism and communism as an Orwellian tool which allows them to grind their boots in to the face of humanity, and they will grind their boots in our faces until we admit the truth of the situation. It’s a waste of time to try to explain to them what they are doing “wrong.” To them it is not wrong.