James Pethokoukis:
Back in 1995, now-Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, “I personally happen not to be a great believer in the free enterprise system for many reasons.”And having watched Sanders during this primary season, it doesn’t appear to me that the self-described democratic socialist has much changed his opinion of capitalism. Which is both amazing and appalling. The single greatest story of human achievement of the past 2,000 years is the dramatic rise in living standards of the past 200 years. It’s an astounding ascent — see above chart — driven by innovative, entrepreneurial capitalism. Free enterprise. Economic freedom.
Yes, workers in advanced economies today are many multiples wealthier — almost incalculably so — than their counterparts in the early 19th century. But here is another way of looking at, thanks to a new study by consultancy Deloitte showing how technology-driving innovation has radically altered lives in Britain for the much better:
1) Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed in the last 144 years.
2) It has been saving us from dull, repetitive, and dangerous work. Agriculture was the first major sector to experience this change. In 1871 it employed 6.6% of the workforce of England and Wales. Today that stands at 0.2%, a 95% decline.
3) Overall, technological innovation has resulted in fewer humans being deployed as sources of muscle power and more engaged in jobs involving the nursing and care of others. Just 1.1% of the workforce was employed in the caring professions during the 1871 census. By 2011, these professions employed almost a quarter of the England and Wales workforce.
4) Technology has boosted employment in knowledge-intensive sectors such as medicine, accounting and professional services.5) Finally technology has lowered the cost of essentials, raising disposable incomes and creating new demand and jobs. In 1871, there was one hairdresser for every 1,793 English and Welsh citizens; now there is one for every 287. In 1948, a Freed-Eiseman 16-inch TV cost $795 in the US, roughly a quarter of the average annual salary, or roughly $12,000 today. A top of the range TV can be bought today for less than $1,000. On a quality-adjusted basis, the decline in prices is even more pronounced. US CPI data show that the price of a TV has fallen by 98% since 1950.
So thanks to the technology-driven innovation of entrepreneurial capitalism, we live richer, fuller lives that would be unimaginable to workers in the early 1800s or even later 1800s. Economist Robert Gordon describes the “special century” after 1870 in his new book, “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” as “more important to economic progress than have been all other centuries.” Or as my colleague Michael Strain has written:
Watched as much of Sanders’ NH victory speech as I could stand. The level of marxist BS talking points shouldn’t be surprising. What is disheartening is how many people there swallow up his garbage and think that marxist economic policies will ever bring properity, despite the obvious record wherever it is tried. What is so hard to understand about the very basics of human nature, that punishing hard work through confiscatory taxation while simultaneously rewarding laziness through “wealth redistribution” can only result in scarcity of resources? Why should anyone work hard when the government is going to take 50-70% of a successful person’s earnings to give to people who won’t work?
How’s that government mandated $15/hr minimum wage working out? How is that government mandated obamacare working out?
If the American people are stupid enough to vote in a damnable marxist as president, then they deserve the inevitable misery that comes along. Should that happen, I hope Texas finally makes the decision to secede.
The ten wealthiest nations in the world are social welfare states. The United States is one of them.
@Greg: Perhaps you measure wealth by the amount of debt a country has. In that case we are wealthy and getting wealthier. However I believe Sanders will kill REAL wealth creation if he ever gets elected. Why work hard and become successful just to have the government take it? How many governments checks do you get a month?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/bernie_sanderss_new_hampshire_victory_speech_terrifying.html
Bernie, like Prince Charles, would love it if we all (except for him and a few of his buds) went back to a subsistence lifestyle.
He had the temerity to claim that, just by taxing hedge fund gamblers there would be enough tax raised to give every student FREE college!
BUT, not accounting for smart people changing their behavior based on repressive taxation, ALL hedge fund employee activity only brings in about $40 billion in salary a year, with each manager averaging only $53,000 in salary per year.
So a 100% tax rate on all hedge fund employees won’t even dent college education needs.
As an industry, all American hedge funds only made $31 billion for investors last fiscal year.
So, lets say we grabbed every dime a manager makes PLUS every penny their investors make.
$71 billion.
It would be a squeeze to get every college student paid for for that.
But the NEXT year, the bottom would drop out.
Bernie would be looking for a new income stream.
He’s be looking at YOU.
@Greg:
Baloney. According to the IMF, the 10 wealthiest countries based on GDP per capita:
1. Qatar (not socialist)
2. Luxembourg (a socialist city)
3. Singapore (not socialist)
4. Brunei (not socialist)
5. Kuwait (not socialist)
6. Norway (socialist)
7. UAE (not socialist)
8. San Marino (socialist city)
9. Switzerland (socialist)
10. Hong Kong (not socialist)
So 6 of the wealthiest 10 are not socialist, and of the 4 socialist “nations” 2 are essentially cities that have virtually no military expenses as they rely on surrounding nations.
The US is ranked 11th on this list. Note that there is no mention of national debt in the IMF determination of wealthiest nations, either as a total number, a percentage of GDP, nor per capita.
The leftist economic policies of the Obama administration have resulted in the weakest excuse for a recovery, the largest, most catastrophic increase in our national debt ($10.8 trillion to over $19 trillion in just 7 years), the lowest workforce participation rate in almost 50 years, a near doubling of the number of people on foodstamps, a U-6 unemployment rate of at least 10%, and a per capita decrease in household median income of roughly $3000.
Electing a marxist gasbag like Sanders will result in even greater economic misery for the nation, through his idiotic confiscatory tax increases and outrageous increases in wasteful social welfare spending of money we do not have. Socialist efforts to further punish business will have the same effect as sand spilling out of the grip of an ever tightening hand.
How many governments have started out life as socialist? First, you have to have capitalism or some level of free trade to generate the wealth and income for which socialists become jealous. THEN you get socialism. For, without capitalism FIRST, there would be nothing present to sustain socialism while it spiraled down into abject failure.