Deirdre Nansen McCloskey wrote a 3000-word essay in which she tackled the hot-button issues that flow from the Critical Race Theory (CRT) debate now sweeping the United States of America.
The trouble is that
Deirdre McCloskey has used every literary trick you can imagine to argue that
even if a handful of individuals got rich trading slaves, nations did not get
rich by participating in the business, let alone the British Empire or its
offshoot, the States that make up America’s Deep South.
So then, you may ask,
if not for slavery, how come the West got rich whereas the rest of the world did
not? Liberty, replies Deirdre McCloskey, it is the practice of liberty that made
it possible for the Western peoples to innovate, thus create the wealth they now
enjoy.
Poor woman. She seems
unaware that a great, big and fat falsehood has been debunked some time ago. It
was the erroneous notion that Evolution has leapt directly from the monkeys to
the liberal democracy of ancient Greece with nothing happening on Planet Earth
between those two moments.
The truth is that from
the alphabet of ancient Egypt, to its monotheism, agriculture, food and
beverage preparations, architecture, chemistry and cosmetics of that country,
innovation is what Greece inherited before injecting that Civilization into the
rest of Europe. And this is not to mention Babylon’s law and code of conduct or
China’s gun powder and spaghetti, or the windmill of Persia, and many, many more
innovations that filled the time gap between the monkey and the rise of Greece.
So then, what is it
that allowed the creation of wealth, both for the ancient and modern empires? Well,
there is a single word that tells this story: Surplus. And the best way to
understand the concept, is to tell a story that highlights it most salient
points.
So, imagine a
household in the middle of nowhere. The breadwinner goes to work far away every
day and comes home carrying food, which is the most important item for the
survival of the family. We can ignore the other needs for the purpose of this
discussion. However, because the family’s need for food is greater than the
breadwinner’s salary can buy, the oldest son who goes to school, works
part-time to supplement his father’s salary.
Actually, father and
son get paid money every day, which they use to buy the food they take home.
For a while, they spend as much as they receive, and the family is happy with that.
They go on in this manner for a while till one day, the father gets a raise in
his salary, equal to what the son is earning. He discusses the matter with the
family, and they decide that instead of increasing their consumption, they will
save the surplus money to do one of two things. They will invest the money and
watch it grow. Or the son will stop working, and spend the free time he now has
to work on the innovation that had been his passion since childhood when he
longed to someday break into the big league and be recognized as a great
inventor.
But how did the
concept of surplus help Britain and its American offshoot move ahead of
everyone and get rich? Well, Britain built a powerful navy that allowed it to
trade with its colonies, also allowed it to play the role of middleman in the
trades that took place between the colonies. This is how Britain accumulated
the wealth that sustained the navy, fed the nation, and created the surplus
that freed its citizens to engage in science, industry and the pursuit of
innovations.
As to the cotton
fields of the American Deep South, the story of King Cotton was not invented to
entertain people. It was invented because it had a commercial value not only to
the growers of cotton, but also the States that practiced slavery. This
happened because labor is a commodity that can be in shortage or in surplus. In
fact, having slaves to do the work, was the surplus that freed the citizens of
those states to engaged in science, industry and the pursuit of innovation. And
this situation was just fine with the tax collecting governments of those
States.
There is still a
question that bedevils the thinking mind. It is this: Why is it that instead of
prospering, or at least remaining stagnant, the economies of the colonies that
had a glorious past, deteriorated when they could have taken advantage of the
increased trade brought about by the British, and make the best of the new
opportunities opening to them? To understand this part and answer the question,
we go back to the analogy of the household in the middle of nowhere.
Imagine a big change
happening in the government of the jurisdiction where that house is located. It
turns out to be a foreign invasion that came to exploit the resources of this
and the surrounding jurisdictions. The invaders issue a proclamation levying
taxes on the citizens of the jurisdiction, but give every breadwinner the
chance to petition and have the tax load reduced on the family.
The breadwinner of the
household in the middle of nowhere turns to his inventive son, and tells him to
come up with a visual contraption that will explain to the commissars of the
invading force what will happen if the tax rate is not reduced on this family. What
the son does, is build a 100-liter basin. He adds to it both a nozzle with
which to replenish it with water, and an adjustable drain with which to
control, the amount of water that the basin is made to lose.
When the commissars
arrive to hear the presentation, the son explains that the family’s finances
resemble this contraption. There are 100 liters of “reserve” water in the
basin. What the father earns is like one liter a day going into the basin. What
the family spends is like one liter a day going down the drain. This is why the
family’s standard of living remains static, or call it stagnant if you wish.
If now, the tax load
will add to what the basin loses every day, the finances of the family will
deteriorate. Unless the father’s earnings match or exceed what is lost at the
drain — to feed the family and pay the taxes — the basin will be depleted sooner or later. Beyond this point, the
family will see its standard of living reduced because it will live on a reduced
income and no reserves left from which to draw.
That’s what the
colonial powers did to the colonies they conquered. They took more of their
resources and their talented people than the colonies could replenish
themselves. And so, while the colonial masters prospered, the colonies steadily
declined.