The Hockey Stick of Human Prosperity

Course

On a timeline of human history, the standard of living resembles a hockey stick – flatlining and then skyrocketing in just the last few centuries. How can specialization and trade help explain the astonishing growth of productivity and output in such a short amount of time—after millennia of famine, low life expectancy, and incurable disease?

In this series, Professor Don Boudreaux explores the question economists have been asking since the era of Adam Smith – what creates wealth? On a timeline of human history, the recent rise in standards of living resembles a hockey stick – flatlining for all of human history and then skyrocketing in just the last few centuries. Without specialization and trade, our ancient ancestors only consumed what they could make themselves. How can specialization and trade help explain the astonishing growth of productivity and output in such a short amount of time—after millennia of famine, low life expectancy, and incurable disease?

Download
Options
Translate Practice Questions

Contributed Content (0) and Suggested Materials (3)

Ask a Question

 
user's picture

We don't have to do "one job," but we're much more productive and therefore paid more if we specialize. And likewise, we don't need to be helpless. We are free to learn how "provide for ourselves" if we so choose.

user's picture

Read Charles Handy's "The Elephant and the Flea: Reflections of a Reluctant Capitalist". In it he talks about a new economy that began emerging in the 80s and really began to grow in the 2000s where the majority of people make their living thru multiple means. His question to workers of corporations is along the lines of "do you want to trade freedom for security (i.e. sell your time to an organization) or give up security for freedom (i.e. freelance, entrepreneurship...)?" I'd say a balance of the two is best, esp if you are raising a family with little children.

Please register or login to answer a question
 
user's picture

As I'm not a petrochemical engineer, I can't guess at all the costs, but in the case of carbon dioxide and the variable effects reaped from global warming, the costs could very well be paid quickly and returned as benefits to the same people who paid for the petrochemicals.
Consider natural gas extracted from North Dakota and burned in Iowa. The products of that combustion are mainly heat, of which some is wasted, water, and carbon dioxide, which in turn is taken up in the carbon cycle by Iowa corn fields.

Please register or login to answer a question
 
Please register or login to answer a question
Please register or login to ask a question