18: Conclusion: Strange New World
Malthusian theory explained economic activity prior to the industrial revolution, and the evidence fell neatly in line across most societies and times, but industrialization completely invalidated Malthusianism, and economists are still struggling to find a model that can as efficiently explain the industrial world - or, in some instances, are struggling to adjust or argument the Malthusian model to accommodate the strange new world of postindustrial economics. Meanwhile, common perception of economic issues, such as "why are some rich and others poor?" seems to be clouded with speculation and a general sense that it's a matter of luck.
In the present book, the author has attempted to explain the ways in which economics has changed since the Malthusian era, at least in nations and societies that have escaped its trap, and have identified some of the factors that led, and should continue to lead, to economic growth. But even if the hypothesis is correct, many of the details remain speculative and require more investigation to explain the variations in modern economies.
Moreover, understanding the differences between wealthy societies and poor ones provides no "economic medicine" to cure the problem of poverty. We can observe the process by which the some nations have developed industrial economies whereas others have not - and we can also observe that attempting to cajole or force other economies to follow the same path has not resulted in much success, and how gifts from the developed world, with the best of intentions, only seem to have done further harm.
The author strays into the notion of immigration - how people from low income countries are able to achieve enormous gains for themselves and contribute to the productivity of high-income countries - and how ironic it seems that the developed nations spend inordinate effort and resources attempting to keep them out.
The author takes a long side-trip into studies of happiness - the recent finding that people in wealthier economies are not significantly happier than those in undeveloped countries. Specifically, once a person has sufficient income to satisfy his basic needs, he is not happier for having more. This begs the question: why do we bother to pursue the material welfare of poorer countries?
It's also noted that, for some, happiness is not in having things, but having more things than their reference group - of being better than others. Conversely, misery is not the lack of things, but having less than others. There is some suggestion that the medium of television spreads unhappiness, showing people in poor economies the lifestyles of those in wealthy economies (and even those in wealthy economies are shown people who have even more), creating dissatisfaction among people who might otherwise be happier with what they have, and not considering what they do no.
The author lurches back on point for the last paragraph, sort of, by suggesting a person can't consider themselves to he "truly intellectually alive" unless they have considered the mystery of how we arrived at our present affluence and why it is so difficult for poorer societies to advance.