Jason Hickel is out there again, trying to prove that it was capitalism and markets - through colonialization and oppression - that caused the poverty of the past. Before that all were Breughel peasants straight out of a painting, dancing happily with their abundant harvests.
The aim of this is to prove that capitalism causes - actively creates - poverty and that therefore socialism works. Of course.
The new paper. And as they say it depends upon the earlier one here. The major claim is:
The rise of capitalism from the long 16th century onward is associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality.
All adults should admit that our economic numbers over this time period are estimates, derived from proxies. We know they’re not accurate even as we somewhere between hope and insist they’re around and about right. But perhaps they’re not? Possibly Professor Hickel has done us a great service by calling attention to their failures? At which point, abacii out and let’s try to get them right this time then, eh?
Well, possibly. Though first we should get all Worstall on the Hickel Thesis. Which is to accept the workings and the thesis. Then ponder what should also happen if it is all true. The absence of that other thing which must - that is, must - also happen would show that there’s some problem in those workings.
That thing which must also happen? The population must shrink. Because that’s what below subsistence means. Hickel himself uses it, a family of four can survive. Thus two adults can raise two children who then go on to have children - the very definition of what is necessary for the population to remain of stable size.
Actually, we need more than this because of child deaths, infertility and so on but two make two make two on average is necessary for that stable population size. And that is also the definition of subsistence income. One below subsistence is one where the population is not even replaced. That is, population must fall.
No one at all doubts that for periods the general population was below subsistence, we do have periods of falling population. Similarly, no one at all doubts that parts of the population were below subsistence for long periods of time. London’s population never did replace itself for centuries, it always did depend upon immigration - but for reasons of disease more than poverty.
But Hickel’s claim is that in general the population was below subsistence for the centuries from the beginnings of capitalism - that long 16th century - up to the 1880s in N Europe and well into the 20th century in Asia and other parts.
Well, that’s easy enough to test. If that is true the global population must have declined over that time period. Because that’s just what the mass of people living below subsistence means.
Ah. Global population quintupled over this time period. As did the population in Asia. As, near enough, did the other measured subsets, that in Africa, the Americas and so on. It is not possible to have 5x the population if everyone has been living below subsistence for those centuries.
Therefore the Hickel Thesis is wrong. The true intellectual masochists can worry about why he’s wrong, where the short circuit in his abacus is, and the rest of us can muse over the errors of allowing the anthropologists to do numbers and then go do something more interesting.
When’s the footie then?