Crossing Rhetoric: Female Father Pillow Talk

One Love Energy
Feb 26
11 min read

The Great Enrichment: A Humanomics Inquiry into the Rhetorical and Ethical Origins of Global Abundance

The history of the modern world is fundamentally defined by a single, startling discontinuity: the "Great Enrichment." This phenomenon represents an unprecedented explosion in human well-being, where real per capita income surged from a mere $3 per day—the wretched existence of almost every human who lived before 1800—to upwards of $100 or $137 in modern economies. To characterize this as a standard "Industrial Revolution" is to miss its essential character.

While the initial industrial phase saw welcome but modest gains, the subsequent Great Enrichment involved a growth factor of 30, 50, or even 100, a magnitude that defies traditional explanations rooted in capital accumulation, exploitation, or institutional tinkering. This analysis suggests that the primary driver of this abundance was not a mechanical change in property rights or a piling of "brick on brick," but a revolutionary shift in rhetoric, ethics, and ideology that for the first time in history dignified innovation and trade. By reframing economics as the science of abundance rather than the dismal science of scarcity, a more rigorous "humanomics" emerges—one that recognizes that the human mind and its liberated creations are the ultimate source of wealth.

The Malthusian Stagnation and the Hockey Stick of Growth

For the vast majority of human history, the economic reality was characterized by a flat line of subsistence. Whether in the Roman Empire, the Song Dynasty of China, or the high Middle Ages of Europe, the average person lived on the equivalent of $2 or $3 per day. While specific periods saw "efflorescences"—temporary doublings of income due to trade or minor technical improvements—these gains were invariably neutralized by population growth, a mechanism known as the Malthusian trap. Innovation existed, as seen in the control of fire, the transition to agriculture, and the invention of the printing press, but its impact on living standards was glacially slow and eventually offset.

The year 1800 marks the beginning of the "hockey stick" of growth. In the United States, Britain, and subsequently much of the world, real income per person shot up the blade of this stick, resulting in a 3,000% to 10,000% increase. This growth was not merely quantitative but qualitative. The standard of living today, even for those at the lower end of the income distribution in rich countries, involves access to central heating, antibiotics, jet travel, and instantaneous global communication—luxuries that would have been fantastical to the wealthiest aristocrats of the eighteenth century.

|---|---|---|---|

Traditional economic indices often fail to capture the full scope of this transformation because they inadequately deflate money prices for improved quality. The Boskin Commission identified a downward bias in inflation measurements of nearly 2% per year, which, if corrected, would double the perceived growth rates of rich countries over the last century. This suggests that the factor of enrichment is likely closer to 100 than the conventionally cited 30. This mass flourishing allowed humanity to transition from a focus on basic survival to the "pleasures of nature and the mind," including higher education, tolerance, and intellectual pursuits.

The Failure of Materialist Causality

Economists have long attempted to trace this enrichment to material causes: the accumulation of capital, the exploitation of colonies, or the discovery of fossil fuels. However, closer scrutiny suggests these are "necessary but not sufficient" conditions—the "gears in a mechanical watch" rather than the "spring" that drives it.

Capital and the "Brick-on-Brick" Fallacy

A dominant view, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx and modern growth theorists, is that growth stems from "piling brick on brick"—the accumulation of physical and human capital. Yet capital accumulation is a routine process found in many stagnant societies throughout history. The Song Dynasty built canals and accumulated vast commercial wealth; the Romans had sophisticated banking and trade routes; yet neither experienced a Great Enrichment. Capital follows innovation; it does not initiate it. Without the idea of the steam engine or the electric motor, capital would merely have been invested in more lavish villas or ever-larger traditional estates.

The Rejection of Plunder and Exploitation

The argument that Western riches were built on the "profits of slavery and colonialism" is quantitatively suspect. While the Atlantic slave trade was a moral catastrophe, it lacked the "quantitative oomph" to explain a 3,000% increase in per capita income. Plunder is a zero-sum transfer, whereas the Great Enrichment was a massive expansion of the total economic pie. Furthermore, regions most reliant on slavery, such as the American South or Brazil, were often the last to experience modern industrial growth. The wealth of the modern world came from the "innovation of ordinary people," not from the "piled plunder" of empires.

The Limits of Institutionalism

"Neo-institutionalists," such as Douglass North, Daron Acemoglu, and James Robinson, argue that "the rules of the game"—property rights and the rule of law—are the primary drivers of success. While secure property rights are essential, they are not a modern invention. England had robust contract law and property rights centuries before 1800, as did ancient China and the Ottoman Empire, yet they remained poor. Institutions are intermediate causes that must be sustained by a deeper cultural and ethical commitment.

The Bourgeois Deal and the Rhetorical Turn

The radical driver of abundance was a change in the way Europeans, and later the rest of the world, talked about and valued the "bourgeoisie"—the middle class of traders, inventors, and managers. For millennia, social honor was reserved for the aristocratic warrior or the contemplative priest, while the merchant was viewed with suspicion or outright disdain. Around 1700, particularly in Holland and Britain, a "new conversation" began to elevate the "bourgeois virtues"—honesty, trust, and imagination in trade—to a status of dignity.

This shift enabled the "Bourgeois Deal": a social contract where society granted ordinary people the liberty to "have a go" at innovation and the dignity to enjoy their profits, and in exchange, the people would get mass prosperity. This deal was egalitarian, replacing old hierarchies with a "Scottish" equality of respect—not equality of outcome, but equality of legal rights and social standing for commoners.

| Feature | The Aristocratic Deal | The Bourgeois Deal |

|---|---|---|

| Source of Honor | Military Valor / Heredity |

Trade-Tested Betterment / Innovation |

| Logic | Zero-Sum / Command and Control |

Positive-Sum / Voluntary Exchange |

| View of the Poor | "Natural Slaves" / Subjects |

Potential Innovators / Consumers |

| Outcome | Stability / Stagnation | Disruptive Progress / Mass Enrichment |

This rhetorical change exploded the economic pie, effectively expanding the "Edgeworth box" of potential resource use. Instead of merely adjusting existing scarce means (the "Max U" approach), people began to seek new means and even new ends. This "innovism"—a term preferred over "capitalism" because it highlights the role of new ideas rather than just savings—was the true spring of the modern world.

Humanomics: The Ethics and Rhetoric of the Market

Traditional economics, centered on the model of "Max U" (the narcissistic utility maximizer), fails to account for the ethical and linguistic foundations of the Great Enrichment. A more complete "humanomics" recognizes that economic activity is embedded in a complex web of "sweet talk," virtues, and shared stories.

The Role of Sweet Talk and Persuasion

Economic transactions are not merely mechanical exchanges; they are deeply communicative. Approximately 25% to 30% of the national income in a modern economy is earned from "sweet talk"—the persuasive language used by managers, sales representatives, lawyers, and teachers to coordinate activity and drive innovation. Persuasion is the common thread in all voluntary transactions, moving beyond mere information to include judgment, metaphor, and trust.

| Occupation | Weight of Persuasion in Role | Economic Function of Talk |

|---|---|---|

| Lawyers and Judges | 1.00 | Negotiating and enforcing norms. |

| Sales Representatives | 0.75 | Matching solutions to human needs. |

| Executives and Managers | 0.75 |

Coordinating human creativity toward ends. |

| Teachers and Professors | 0.75 |

Communicating and refining useful knowledge. |

| Police and Detectives | 0.50 | Enforcing constraints to enable voluntary play. |

| Natural Scientists | 0.25 | Formalizing the logic of natural principles. |

Note: Calculations reflect the share of marginal product attributed to persuasion vs. command or simple information transfer.

The Seven Virtues of the Bourgeois Era

The Great Enrichment was sustained by an ethical framework that went beyond simple "prudence". Humanomics identifies seven principal virtues that are essential for a functioning liberal society. While standard economics fixates on prudence, the survival of the Bourgeois Deal depends on the integration of all seven.

* Prudence: associated with the "Wealth of Nations" and the calculating merchant.

* Temperance: the virtue of self-command and individual conscience.

* Justice: the social enforcement of ethics and respect for the rights of others.

* Courage: the boldness required to innovate and risk failure.

* Faith: the trust in one's identity and the integrity of the market.

* Hope: the optimism that permits technical and institutional investment.

* Love: the charitable impulse and human connection that prevents social alienation.

Without these internalized ethics, "good institutions" are mere "dead letters". For instance, a rule against cheating only works if most people are fundamentally honest and desire to follow the rules for reasons beyond simple fear of punishment. This is the difference between a society of "non-slave adults" and one of "childish slaves" who only respond to the whip of the state or the bribe of the central planner.

Historical Contingency: The Four R's

The Great Enrichment was not an inevitable outcome of European "superiority," but the result of specific "egalitarian accidents" that occurred between 1517 and 1789. These "Four R's" catalyzed the change in rhetoric and ethics that made the modern world.

| The "R" Accident | Event and Location | Rhetorical/Ethical Catalyst |

|---|---|---|

| Reformation | German Reformation (1517) | Challenged the monopoly of religious hierarchy. |

| Revolt | Dutch Revolt (1568-1648) | Proved that a "race of plain citizens" could succeed against empires. |

| Revolution | English (1688), American, French | Formalized the ideology of equal liberty and dignity. |

| Reading | Scottish and Scandinavian Literacy | Sustained the "sweet talk" and technical exchange of commoners. |

The Dutch Revolt, in particular, was a critical turning point. The success of the Dutch Republic sparked a "widespread envy" in England, leading the English to imitate the Dutch burghers rather than continue to look down upon trade as an ungentlemanly pursuit. This shift was not initially driven by a desire for growth, but by a practical need to compete with Dutch enterprise. Similarly, the proliferation of reading in Scotland and Scandinavia moved northern Europe "through the door" of liberalism, allowing for a mass participation in the world of ideas.

The Clerisy and the backsliding into Scarcity

Despite the stunning success of the Great Enrichment, it has faced a persistent intellectual backlash from a class of artists, journalists, and academics known as the "clerisy". Emerging around 1848, this group—often the "sons of bourgeois fathers"—began to disdain the commercial liberties their fathers exercised. This "treason of the clerisy" manifested in a turn toward nationalism, socialism, and a recurring list of pessimisms about the modern world.

The List of Pessimisms

The clerisy has delighted in an ever-expanding list of reasons why the Great Enrichment is actually a tragedy. These include "seven old pessimisms" and "three new ones," which have consistently proven to be poor predictors of the future.

* Moral Decay: The belief that market enrichment "corrupts our souls" and leads to "selfish alienation".

* Malthusian Hunger: The recurring fear that we will "run out of food" or resources.

* Inequality: The obsession with "relative shares" of the pie rather than its total growth.

* Environmental Catastrophe: The view that growth is inherently "near-catastrophic" for the planet.

* Consumerism: Disdain for "nature's pleasures" (like frozen pizza or central heating) as "vulgar".

* Loss of Solidarity: Nostalgia for an imagined "Norman Rockwell world" or medieval social hierarchy.

* Technological Slavery: The fear that AI or automation will dehumanize us.

McCloskey argues that these pessimisms are a "rotten predictor" of reality. Since 1800, every such warning has been followed by further enrichment and human betterment. The danger is not in the material limits of the planet, but in the potential for the clerisy's anti-liberal rhetoric to poison the well of innovation.

Critique of the Neo-Institutionalist "Statist Nobel"

A central tension in modern economic history exists between the "Humanomics" view and the "Neo-Institutionalism" represented by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. While Acemoglu and Robinson's work is praised for its scholarship, it is criticized for its "relentless statism" and materialist assumptions.

The Leviathan vs. Spontaneous Order

Acemoglu and Robinson argue that modernity requires a "massive sea monster of a centralized State" (the Leviathan) that is "shackled" by society. Humanomics, by contrast, favors the "Absent Leviathan" or "spontaneous order," where collective activity meshes together through voluntary exchange rather than top-down direction. The neo-institutional model assumes that "structures" and "material incentives" run the show, while humanomics asserts that "liberty inspiring a flowering of human creativity" is the true driver.

The Error of "Max U Redux"

Neo-institutionalism is characterized as "Max U Redux" because it persists in modeling the human as a mechanical reactor to institutional costs and rewards. It ignores the fact that human action is creative and that the "Master Model of Spontaneous Order" is language, not coercion. By reducing all motivation to "predictable Max U," economists miss the fundamentally unpredictable and "gobsmacking" nature of the modern world.

| Model Component | Neo-Institutionalism | Humanomics |

|---|---|---|

| Motive Force | Material Incentives / "Rules" | Ideas / Liberty / Dignity |

| Social causation | Static Efficiency / Game Theory | Creative Innovation / "Sweet Talk" |

| Role of State | "Capable State" provides goodies | Voluntary cooperation through trade |

| Definition of Liberty | Provision of goods by Leviathan | "Adultism" / Liberty from interference |

The "Statist Nobel" awarded for institutional research is seen as an idealization of the state's role in expansion. This approach fails to explain how "trade-tested betterment" could emerge from property rights alone, especially when property rights have historically applied to slaves or government offices.

The "Abundance Agenda" and the Procedural Barrier

Modern liberal journalists, such as Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, have recently championed an "Abundance Agenda" to combat "chosen scarcities" in housing, energy, and infrastructure. This agenda sounds rhetorically similar to the McCloskeyan narrative, acknowledging that "to have the future we want, we need to build more of what we need".

The Fatal Error of More Government

However, the "Abundance Agenda" differs from the humanomics model in its prescribed solution. Klein and Thompson diagnose the failure of "proceduralism"—the endless catalog of rules and reviews that stall progress—yet they prescribe "better" government as the fix. They argue for empowered, enlightened policymakers to decide "what is best," whereas the Great Enrichment shows that abundance comes from decentralized "innovation released by economic liberty".

The Conflict of Values

The "Abundance Agenda" often collides with its own progressive priorities, such as equity, environmental protection, and labor rights, which are often the source of the very "proceduralism" they seek to overcome. McCloskey’s framework suggests that true abundance is not a rival to these highest values but their "precondition". An abundance of wealth does not corrupt moral life; it enables a greater capacity for tolerance and pluralism.

Conclusion: The Ethics of a Business-Respecting Civilization

The Great Enrichment is a historical fact that proves abundance is not a utopian dream but the natural result of human creativity unleashed by liberty. It represents an escape from millennia of grinding poverty, achieved not by the machinery of coercion or the routine of savings, but by a radical change in how we talk about each other. By dignifying the bourgeoisie and the process of trade-tested betterment, the modern world discovered a "spring" of growth that has already lifted billions out of misery.

Sustaining this abundance requires a renewed commitment to the rhetorical and ethical foundations of a "business-respecting civilization". We must resist the clerisy's delight in pessimism and the neo-institutionalist's obsession with state-driven structures.

Economics, properly understood as "humanomics," is the study of how a society of "non-slave adults," grounded in virtues like courage, hope, and love, can continue to invent its way into a future of plenty.

The news is very, very good: as long as we keep our ethical wits and preserve our liberty, the enrichment will continue to spread worldwide.