A Discussion of Chapter 8 “Or From the Right and Middle”
While last chapter, McCloskey argued against the anti-growth beliefs of the Left, now she says the Right suffers from a lack of faith in the Great Enrichment continuing in the future.
Note to the Left: You are Wrong about Economic Growth
I have to admit having read these two chapters side by side, the Left got more criticism. But I think that is because McCloskey wants us to understand that anything that slows or stops the process of economic growth that fostered the Great Enrichment is harmful.
While the thinkers she cites from the Right seem to understand the process of the Great Enrichment that has already occurred, her criticism centers around their lack of understanding that it can continue in the future.
This doom and gloom view of the future that the time for growth is over increases the likelihood of going along with anti-growth policies that will get us the opposite of what they are seeking.
Lack of faith in growth for the future
McCloskey first cites economist Tyler Cowen, one of the authors of the textbook I use in my intro economics classes, and she says he is an economist she admires.
While she says he correctly discusses the increase in productivity we have had due to an increase in technological change and innovation that has led to adopting more and better machines, what she calls the Great Enrichment, he expressed concerns about job losses from these machines.
He concedes that ‘it was true in the great Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century and it is true now: machines do not put us all out of work, as eventually machines will create jobs. (p. 62)
McCloskey first objects to his statement of putting us “all out of work” because as she says,
Not “all jobs” he concedes. Well, actually machines have put no one out of work who can move to another job, and on balance not anyway the bulk of workers, as you can see in the absence, 1848 to the present, of a rising reserve army of unemployed. (p. 62)
This is similar to her arguments in an earlier chapter against the anti-growth positions of the Left that are also concerned about job losses.
Could It Be Income Inequality Is Not a Problem?
McCloskey goes on to criticize Cowen’s use of the words “create jobs,” which I really enjoyed as this is a pet peeve of mine. This common phrase creates the wrong impression in people’s minds of what jobs are and why they exist.
A job is a voluntary deal between a worker and a boss. It is the opportunity, not the job, that is “created” by a newly invented machine. Government can “create jobs” only by taxing some deal to subsidize another, with no net gain unless the government is wiser about trading opportunities than people in trade. (p. 62)
We need policies in place that increase the number of opportunities and then jobs will follow.
Why an environmental limit is not a concern
McCloskey does not disagree that there is a limit, just that we are nowhere near it, and our ingenuity continues to expand it. (p. 66)
For example, bauxite ore used to be useless dirt. Rare earth minerals used to have little value but now are vital to our battery technology.
Here is a huge future dream: cost effective desalinization which would remove concerns about sufficient water around the globe. That is a good example of how there is still room for technological change and further growth.
She discusses that early industrialization did come with a lot of pollution that has since been reduced. The countries now developing are often in the news for horrendous pollution, like China.
Here’s a surprising fact, though, that shows today’s polluters are less than yesterday polluters showing improvement from the Great Enrichment even in our production of “bads” not just in goods.
In 1912–1913, a poor and therefore smoky Chicago was smothered in suspended particulates 50% higher than those in 58 poor Chinese cities in 1980–1993. (p. 67)
Thus, she concludes there is room for more innovation, more growth, and rising income while keeping an eye on reducing environmental damage.
Why spiritual life will improve
She wraps up this chapter with a discussion on why the Great Enrichment will continue to enhance spirituality, not just material needs.
That economic growth would lead to “no spiritual or moral life” was first raised in chapter 3 as a concern of the Right. (p. 25)
Capitalism and the Hockey Stick
Instead, McCloskey asserts, “Enrichment leads to enrichment, not loss of one’s own soul.” (p. 70)
She quotes H. L. Mencken eloquently elaborating this point.
…with the rise from want to security, from fear to ease, comes an awakening of the finer perceptions, a widening of the sympathies, a gradual unfolding of the delicate flower called personality, an increased capacity for loving and living. (p. 70)
Conclusion
So to put it less eloquently, I think McCloskey is saying in this chapter,
“Buck up, you on the Right and in the Middle! You understand the mechanism of innovation and economic growth that has given us the Great Enrichment. There is no reason to think it was true then but not now.”
That is, we all need to hold to optimism for the future by continuing policies that support the economic growth that has gotten us here.
Reference: McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen, 2016. “Or From the Right and Middle,” Chapter 8 of Bourgeois Equality, The University of Chicago Press.
Join Medium with my referral link – Ellen Clardy, PhD
As a Medium member, a portion of your membership fee goes to writers you read, and you get full access to every story…eclardy.medium.com
By Ellen Clardy, PhD on .
Exported from Medium on December 15, 2022.
