The Bourgeois Virtues - Ethics for an Age of Commerce (Deirdre McCloskey, 2006)

I don't know quite how to characterize this book, but it certainly gave me all sorts of ideas (including many I hadn't really put together before).  About 500 pages, and I found it ok to skip/skim a bit - without derogation of the whole.  It's part of a longer series of books, and I think I should pursue more.

In this book, McCloskey notes something odd:  the merchant/bourgeoisie class regularly exhibits the classic and Christian virtues while simultaneously generating the wealth that pays for kings (or "governments", as known today), priests, artists and professors - yet is universally reviled by these groups, to the point of cliche.  McCloskey points out that this trend took root following the intellectual-led revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848.  When I think about it - Balzac, Dickens and the rest did delight in portraying the bourgeoisie as venal, grasping, etc.  Not to mention Marx et al.  And this trend has continued - almost like an accepted truth that is badly in need of being un-accepted.

(In a related vein, Larry Ribstein sometimes blogs about Hollywood's portrayal of businesspersons as almost invariably evil - he can't really explain it - speculates that the "artists" believe themselves to be the new religion/priesthood (certainly a trend since the Romantic era), and resent that movies can't be made without the funding from the low-class, money-grubbing businesspersons.  Perhaps it's the same effect as discussed in this book?)

How odd - the university community of professors and students overwhelmingly comes from bourgeois or aspire-to-bourgeois roots, and overwhelmingly return to a bourgeois lifestyle after graduation - and lives largely off bourgeois profit while in the university cocoon - and all the while revile the bourgeoisie.  

McCloskey converted to Christianity at some point in her adulthood, and doesn't make any attempt to disguise this. To her credit (Christianity not essential to the narrative, but what are referred to as the "Christian" virtues do apply outside Christianity; I prefer authors that are upfront about this kind of thing).

Some ideas:

1.  How capitalism has generated the wealth that has improved the lots of the poor - in a way that no other system has come close to accomplishing.  And is reviled for it.  Perhaps due to envy - since it is absolutely true that successful capitalists end up with more wealth than the average person.  Yet no system of kings, priests, government handouts or artists has ever come close to doing more for the poor.  Should these systems - demonstrably less effective on behalf of the poor, and certainly ineffective in achieving "equal" distribution - be favored because wealth in a capitalist system doesn't end up perfectly equally distributed, either?  See #6 below.

2.  The "evil" of profit - listen to our current president's tiresome harangues, repeating the conventional, unthinking "wisdom" - yet without "profit" - how would anything ever be paid for?  I think this has been demonstrated repeatedly.  Where would the funds come from that have raised living standards to the benefit of all (well, at least "all" who live in societies that encourage bourgeois behavior - forget communist and other state-dominated systems, for example) in the last couple centuries (or whatever measurement period applies)?

3.  The notion that persons of "noble" blood would never grub for money or hold a job - no, they earned their wealth simply by force of arms, or by inheriting wealth taken by force of arms by their ancestors.  Yet this is constantly portrayed as "honorable"!  Why?  The indolent gentlemen who disdains work and profit-seeking - worthless yet revered for so long - how was this character's positive image created and maintained for so long?  The violent conqueror of new territories - this behavior also is revered!

4.  Businesspersons do not stay in business for long unless they abide by the traditional virtues.  They can't take wealth by force, as "nobles" did and modern governments do.  They can't take wealth by "appeals" to "charity" or threats of damnation - as religions do. They thrive via voluntary exchanges - not by force.

(Can I dispense with the disclaimer that businesspersons often are dishonest, especially those looking for a quick hit rather than a long-term enterprise?  Yes, it's anything but a perfect system.  That this occurs does not disprove the benefits to society of pervasive bourgeois virtues.)

5.  The notion that artists - like the nobility - are "above" grubbing for profit.  Fine - many wonderful things are created.  But:  who finances this?  What society could indulge in serious art unless some producers generated the wealth to support it?

The crazy notion that heroes like Achilles embody the highest virtues - but this is just courage without prudence, temperance, etc. - where would that leave a society?

6.  That making profit in a capitalist system is not - notwithstanding the NY Times writers and all the other purveyors of conventional wisdom (including vote-chasing politicians) - a zero sum game.  The economy is not like a room in which a parent places two kids with 10 toys, and the stronger kid prevails at the expense of the weaker.  Voluntary exchanges typically make everyone better off, i.e. they all participate in the "profit", if at different levels.  Compare the noble requiring the peasant to turn over a big chunk of his crop (or a government expropriating assets) - much closer to zero-sum.  (Even recognizing that the peasant may have gotten some protection against others who sought to steal from him.)

7.  So many economists have gone off the rails - looking at "prudence only".  The virtues need to go beyond this - justice, temperance, and courage.  The three Christian virtues round out the group:  hope, faith, love.  You can't explain human behavior with "prudence only". 

8.  That other disciplines (in addition to economics) look to reduce behavior to a single overriding principle.  Utilitarianism. Or to reduce it to an exercise in pure reason (sound familiar from undergrad philosophy?) divorced from common sense observation of the complicated impulses of actual humans.  The ancients had it right - a blend of multiple virtues is involved.

9.  Look at the countries that haven't developed or permitted an active bourgeoisie class - have the poor (or any other class, setting aside government rent-seekers) ever been better off in these societies that were "cleansed" of the evil profit motive?

10.  Today's glorification of "non-profit" organizations - many of which merit skepticism.  Any organization not facing market discipline is in dangerous territory.

The seven virtues make a lot of sense.  Demonizing the bourgeoisie doesn't - unless you're a Huey Long type pursuing power, or a rent-seeker feeding off the Huey Longs (invariably in the name of the "little guy").