Blog

There was a very fine blog post on a New York Times Science page by John Tierney on Monday, May 17 concerning a new book called The Rational Optimist by Dr. Matt Ridley.  (If you click the link to the New York Times, I apologize on behalf of the Time for the annoying ad you must wait through.)

The gist of the book  (I haven’t read it yet), is apparently that trade and innovation are the drivers of progress:

“You can appreciate the timesaving benefits through a measure devised by the economist William D. Nordhaus: how long it takes the average worker to pay for an hour of reading light. In ancient Babylon, it took more than 50 hours to pay for that light from a sesame-oil lamp. In 1800, it took more than six hours of work to pay for it from a tallow candle. Today, thanks to the countless specialists producing electricity and compact fluorescent bulbs, it takes less than a second. That technological progress, though, was sporadic. Innovation would flourish in one trading hub for a while but then stagnate, sometimes because of external predators — roving pirates, invading barbarians — but more often because of internal parasites, as Dr. Ridley writes:

Empires bought stability at the price of creating a parasitic court; monotheistic religions bought social cohesion at the expense of a parasitic priestly class; nationalism bought power at the expense of a parasitic military; socialism bought equality at the price of a parasitic bureaucracy; capitalism bought efficiency at the price of parasitic financiers.”

Ridley’s point, obviously, is that when the “parasites” stifle trade and innovation because of their particular selfish aims, then all of society suffers.  His forecast for the future is quite optimistic, as he believes that overall, trade and innovation will continue in full force.

I do look forward to reading the book.

If you have read it I would most interested to hear what you thought.  Is the argument credible?  Or are there great gaping holes in his reasoning?

Thank you.

•••