From where does economic wealth and abundance come? I think there are two primary sources: Production and trade.
Production is quite obvious to most folks. The earth furnishes us with abundant raw materials, but human labor transforms the resources into something useful. The most ancient form of wealth creation goes back to cultivating and herding. Learning how to cultivate crops and breed animals led to greater quantities of food. Eventually, there was excess over the population’s needs. This freed some of the population to pursue cultic religious rituals, organize armies, create art and music, become artisans, and build cities. Even so, agriculture was the foundation of societal wealth, and agriculture requires land. Therefore, throughout recorded history, land has been the primary measure of wealth.
In the ancient world, if you wanted more wealth, you had to annex more land. That generally meant taking it from someone else. Land is a fixed quantity. It is a zero-sum game. If we are unequal in our distribution of wealth, then my surplus matches your deficit. Certainly, the Greeks, the Romans, and other ancient empires engaged in trade, but that trade was limited to a slim minority at the top of the social pyramid. Wealth was considered illegitimate in the Greco-Roman world unless it was amassed through agriculture.
About 300 years ago, humanity stumbled upon the idea of labor specialization combined with trade; a tipping point, if you will. Adam Smith did not invent this idea. He just observed what was already happening and described it well.
A while back, I heard Dr. Jay Richards use his example of “The Trading Game.” Richards describes his experience playing the game in the sixth grade. Each student was randomly given an item of approximately the same economic value (About $1). Each student was instructed to rate how much they valued what they had received from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest value. Richards received Barbie trading cards, which he ranked as a 1. Then the students were placed in groups of five and allowed to trade with each other. Richards found a girl with a paddleball, and they traded to each other’s satisfaction. The students recorded their values again. Finally, they were allowed to trade with anyone else in the room. When the trading was finished, the students wrote down the value of the item now in their possession.
If you added up the students’ ratings at the start of the game and compared them to the sum of the students’ ratings at the end of the first trade, you would find that the sum for the class was higher than it was at the beginning. The sum would be higher still after the second round of trade. Furthermore, no one would have an item of lesser value at the end of the game than the one they started with. There were rules to these exchanges. No theft or intimidation was allowed, so there was no way to go lower than the value of the starting item. Often in these games, everyone’s value goes at least a little higher. “Societal wealth” is expanded purely through trade.
Specialization of labor accelerated the importance of wealth generated through trade in a couple of ways. First, specialization led to improved product quality. Second, it led to much higher productivity for any given worker, lowering the price of goods. High quality and low prices in one area fueled a cycle of others specializing labor in their industries, thus driving productivity higher and prices lower. Trade became evermore profitable because it became so much cheaper to exchange with others than to produce everything yourself. Of course, the advent of combustion-powered machines sent this process into the stratosphere of productivity. They expanded per capita productivity exponentially. The infrastructure and transportation innovations this made possible (and later information technologies) expanded the importance of trade by even greater magnitudes.
To understand the magnitude of change, economist Brad DeLong estimates that the average worldwide per capita income in real dollars rose from $90 in 12,000 BCE to $180 in 1750 CE. Between 1750 and 2000, per capita income rose from $180 to $6,600. This was during a time when the world population grew from less than one billion to more than six billion. The percentage of the world population estimated to be living on less than $1 per day was 84% in 1820, but it is now between 15-20% and falling.
Economics is no longer a zero-sum game. Land in fixed quantities is no longer the driving issue. Worldwide abundance beyond the wildest dreams of the ancients is now possible. Many fret over global economic growth, worrying that we will exhaust global resources. However, commodity prices have been declining steadily from 1862 (when reliable records were first kept) to the present, and economists see no end to the decline in sight. Declining prices mean the supply is sufficient for the foreseeable future. Recycling and renewable resources should eventually make global abundance permanently sustainable.
We need to think of economics more in the sense that we think of relationships. I see someone who is alone and overlooked. I have an abundance of friendships and social networks. What is my response? Feel guilty about my abundance and then try to distribute my friends to the lonely so that I live only a bare level of relational subsistence? No. I extend hospitality. I invite the lonely person into my network of relational exchange, where he comes into abundance. My wealth of relationships increases as well. Yet when it comes to economic wealth, we often default to zero-sum thinking, believing that if we live on just enough to survive and give away the rest, we are doing God’s will. We end up viewing the poor purely as units of consumption rather than as people called into abundance and relationships who can increase the abundance of others through production and exchange.
Next, we will examine the three primary ways we use wealth and how they interrelate.
Leave a Reply