If I were to speculate, I'd say that we're in an atmosphere where cultural innovation is akin to a technological advantage. The free society is stronger. In Th

If I were to speculate, I'd say that we're in an atmosphere where cultural innovation is akin to a technological advantage. The free society is stronger. In The Splendid Exchange, William Bernstein argues that a tremendous technological advantage that the Dutch had over the British at one period when both countries competed in trade for spices was that the Dutch financial markets were far more sophisticated. They had voyage derivatives, the ability to buy into a 1/128th share of the voyage's earnings, payments to zielverkoopers (recruiters - sometimes of a predatory sort) that entitled them to a cut of the men's wages as they were earned, derivatives on the zielverkooper contract (the transportbrief), and so on. These financial devices were just as effective as actual technological devices to present an advantage over British trade, a contributing factor to the VOC's success at the time. Analogously, I'd speculate that societies with a high adherence to tradition keeping women at home, or where a person's increased ability cannot increase the likelihood of career success because of a caste or similar system, have built-in limiters on their economy. The free society has a cultural device just as strong as its technological devices: one is closer to allowing one's ability to determine one's success than ever before. I believe the evidence shows that richer, well-fed children grow into smarter people. But while it does that, it only shifts the bell curve to the right. Even the poor can have those with the ingredients to be very smart. And when one discards those people, or condemns half one's population to work at below capacity, one's economy operates below capacity. And that economy will be less able to support the population. The free society will out-compete that economy.