I guess it's worth noting, too, that the more complex the economy gets, it's harder to know who the moochers are. DEI officers? Receivers of carried interest taxed as capital gains income?
That is one of the most interesting things about "commercial society". In agrarian society, it is pretty clear who the moochers are—the thugs with spears, their bosses, their tame accountants, propagandists, and bureaucrats, plus the lumpenproletariat. In commercial society, it is not...
One of the great mysteries of the modern age is how conservatives are constantly terrified that at any moment the mob (manipulated by, although despised by, the "elites") will take over a vote themselves "free stuff."
I am a big fan of Adam Smith, but we should, among other things, note that he avoided ever dealing with the fact that the society he lived in was very largely run by and for "gentlemen" who had done nothing to obtain their landed estates and who spent their lives spending money they had not earned as extravagantly as possible, and that, furthermore, the British government was both officially and unofficially acquiring more land by conquest rather than purchase and, most spectacularly in India, acquiring new "subjects" who were subject indeed to an arbitrary rule for the benefit of their "betters" far far away. "Barter, truck, and trade", yes, but also conquer, confiscate, and rule.
In addition to your points, Britain built its empire on trading drugs (tobacco, sugar, rum, tea, and later opium) and slaves. They made today's criminal bosses look petty in comparison.
"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged…" This works fine when the economy is small and limited to families, clans, and small towns. But as the economy grows, you end up with a "global village" where those making clothes and cars live on the other side of the world. They can be "well fed, clothed, and lodged" for a small fraction of the cost of paying American workers. As many have noted, globalization has reduced poverty in the developing world, while creating a lot of hardship for the working class in the developed world.
It is worthwhile to note, however, that globalization was mainly the result of
a) transportation technology that make it feasible to transport manufactured goods across vast distances,
b) communications technology that made it feasible to coordinate closely (with or without ownership) to make those imports competitive with locally made goods,
c) market liberalization in developing countries, above all China that enabled firms in those countries to take advantage of a) and b),
d) (in the US)
i) fiscal deficits that shifted the terms of trade from tradeable to non-tradable goods and
ii) trade agreements that prioritized exports of services and intellectual property over export of manufactured goods (US agricultural interests were well served by trade negotiations).
All that said, there was a Stolper-Samuelson shift against manufacturing labor.
"If you, member of the élite, create a society in which those whom you rely on find that your “gift-exchange” relationship with them has left them poorly fed, ill-clothed, and badly-lodged, then it is you who is the moocher."
That reminded me how unfortunate Romney's moocher speech was.
I guess it's worth noting, too, that the more complex the economy gets, it's harder to know who the moochers are. DEI officers? Receivers of carried interest taxed as capital gains income?
That is one of the most interesting things about "commercial society". In agrarian society, it is pretty clear who the moochers are—the thugs with spears, their bosses, their tame accountants, propagandists, and bureaucrats, plus the lumpenproletariat. In commercial society, it is not...
One of the great mysteries of the modern age is how conservatives are constantly terrified that at any moment the mob (manipulated by, although despised by, the "elites") will take over a vote themselves "free stuff."
I am a big fan of Adam Smith, but we should, among other things, note that he avoided ever dealing with the fact that the society he lived in was very largely run by and for "gentlemen" who had done nothing to obtain their landed estates and who spent their lives spending money they had not earned as extravagantly as possible, and that, furthermore, the British government was both officially and unofficially acquiring more land by conquest rather than purchase and, most spectacularly in India, acquiring new "subjects" who were subject indeed to an arbitrary rule for the benefit of their "betters" far far away. "Barter, truck, and trade", yes, but also conquer, confiscate, and rule.
In addition to your points, Britain built its empire on trading drugs (tobacco, sugar, rum, tea, and later opium) and slaves. They made today's criminal bosses look petty in comparison.
I was reading in the new scientist that music predates language. So if societal division of labor came before language where does music fit into this?
Well said.
"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged…" This works fine when the economy is small and limited to families, clans, and small towns. But as the economy grows, you end up with a "global village" where those making clothes and cars live on the other side of the world. They can be "well fed, clothed, and lodged" for a small fraction of the cost of paying American workers. As many have noted, globalization has reduced poverty in the developing world, while creating a lot of hardship for the working class in the developed world.
It is worthwhile to note, however, that globalization was mainly the result of
a) transportation technology that make it feasible to transport manufactured goods across vast distances,
b) communications technology that made it feasible to coordinate closely (with or without ownership) to make those imports competitive with locally made goods,
c) market liberalization in developing countries, above all China that enabled firms in those countries to take advantage of a) and b),
d) (in the US)
i) fiscal deficits that shifted the terms of trade from tradeable to non-tradable goods and
ii) trade agreements that prioritized exports of services and intellectual property over export of manufactured goods (US agricultural interests were well served by trade negotiations).
All that said, there was a Stolper-Samuelson shift against manufacturing labor.
This is one of your best(est) pieces. Thanks!
"If you, member of the élite, create a society in which those whom you rely on find that your “gift-exchange” relationship with them has left them poorly fed, ill-clothed, and badly-lodged, then it is you who is the moocher."
That reminded me how unfortunate Romney's moocher speech was.
Politically not as damaging as Clinton's "deplorables" and Obama's "cling to their guns." :(
Probably true, but lines up well with "moocher."