Three cheers for Adam Smith, inventor of the world’s most effective contraceptive.

World Average GDP per Capita

You may remember Adam Smith as the 18th Century inventor of capitalism. You’d be right. But he also solved the problem of over-population. Capitalism is the greatest creator of wealth in history and wealthy families and nations have lower fertility rates. 

Let’s take the wealth side first. Think of Singapore versus Venezuela. Singapore has zero natural resources and Venezuela sits on one of the greatest oil reserves in the world. Or consider North versus South Korea. Or the People's Republic of China versus Taiwan. Or, in its day, East versus West Germany. 

 Capitalism beats a state run economy every single time. No contest.

Now, about those fertility rates. Look at the chart of U.S. birth rates in relation to income. Pretty obvious. The richer the family, the fewer the kids. It doesn’t matter why, the indisputable fact is that higher income, lowers the birth rate.

Does this relationship hold internationally? It does. Our indisputable fact went global: the higher the gross national product, the lower the birth rate.

Put these two observable phenomena together and you solve the Left’s most emotive fixation: global population control. Yet they reliably turn their back on capitalism because they distrust a system that makes some people richer than themselves. If the sustainability of Earth is an existential threat, then why discard obvious solutions? Many Leftists don’t think, others naively follow the catechism, but some purposely craft rationalizations for irrationality. 

Take population control: instead a real answer to their obsession, they promote every form of non-propagational sex, rabid feminism that separates men and women, people bunched up in tiny living quarters unfit for a family, ridicule of female homemakers, family dissolution, government dictates of family size, and when all else fails, they demand contraceptives and abortion for perverts who insist on an archaic relationship.

I sometimes wonder if anthropophobia is why Leftists frequently defend Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and other tyrants who impose ruthless forms of population control. (Hitler seems to be the only socialist they refuse to give a pass for murdering his own populous.)

Try Googling “birth rates versus GDP.” You’ll get hits on studies, papers, and programs to reduce population in order to increase wealth. Backward. They’re convoluting cause and effect. Why? Because they loathe capitalism. It’s not allowed in their toolbox. So, without thinking, they flip cause and effect. In the Leftist’s world, there are many cures worse than the disease. For example, they hate carbon dioxide, but lose their stuff if carbon-free nuclear energy is mentioned. If the means are blasphemous, the end remains delusive. 

Leftists cannot accept that the surest path to population control is to promote capitalism in every corner of the world. In fact, capitalism cures pollution, hunger, housing, illness, and even throws a monkey-wrench into totalitarianism. Just ask the Pilgrims. They got all that stuff for the first Thanksgiving after they tossed socialism in the ash heap.

But the Left won’t alter course. They remain bound to an ideology that promises a dreamland … but never delivers. 

Don’t blame them. They can’t help themselves. It’s in their nature.

Capitalism beats socialism ... every time

Socialism takes from people who produce to give goods and services to the "less fortunate." It is done under the premise of fairness. Everyone should benefit from the largess of the wonderful world that surrounds us all.

The prior paragraph may sound appealing, but there are three fatal errors embedded in the premise.

1. Fortune has little to do with income

2. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder

3. The world is dangerous, not wonderful.

The term “less fortunate” makes it sound like success depends on luck. Except, what happens to “luck” under a socialist system. Under socialism, scarcity is the order of the day. Even commodities like toilet paper are in short supply. If “luck” brought all these goods to market under capitalism, why doesn’t “luck” deliver the goods under socialism?

If a person produces something through brawn, wits, or practiced skill, that person believes that fairness dictates that they should be able to keep what they produce. It doesn’t matter whether that “fortunate” person is a plumber, entrepreneur, or NFL player. Socialism sees fairness differently. People with more must give their “fair share” of what they produce to others. The recipient probably thinks it’s fair, but producers feels abused.

Advanced societies live in a wonderful world, but its wonders are due to capitalism. Our hardscrabble world offers no “largess” free for the taking. Before Adam Smith, the hoi polloi found food scarce, work backbreaking, bug-ridden shelters unpleasant, support systems nil, and life short. That was the world before capitalism. In fact, that’s the world today in the underdeveloped world. Life is harsh without capitalists to scrape the burrs off.

Those who can’t demand more than minimum wage want to believe that their problems result not from sloth, but from ill fortune, theft, or a rigged system. Socialism appeals to the indebted, the lazy, and the unskilled. For a period, socialism works, but socialism soon converts the productive into the skillfully lazy. Everyone is equal, but equally without. Except for the commissars and their friends and family. They live well. You see, socialism is really about trading places. The politically powerful trade places with the people who used to build stuff, create nifty things, or get it to market. The operative phrase in that sentence is used to. They no longer own the product of their sweat or wits, so they live off their already accumulated wealth, move, or cozy up to the state. Thus, no toilet paper.

Whenever capitalism and socialism are pitted against each other, capitalism always wins. Wherever and whenever free markets are allowed to reign, people are better off. All the people. Inequality grows, but inequality grows under socialism as well. The difference is that the socialist ruling class disguise their lifestyle while under capitalism, the rich revel in it. Why does capitalism work so much better than romanticized socialism? I can explain in one word.

Rewards.

That’s why capitalism wins. Always. Rewards for hard work. Rewards for being clever. Rewards for endless training in a sport or performing art. Rewards for taking risks. Rewards for developing skills needed by society. Even rewards for showing up on time.

Socialism? Not so much. Under socialism the only rewards are for exercising raw political power or being connected to raw political power.

That’s why socialism sucks. Big time.