If asked to explain why poor nations are poor and rich nations are rich, you’d probably be able to list of any number off contributing factors:
- An abundance or lack of natural resources
- Free enterprise vs. planned or dictatorial economies
- Exploitation by stronger nations via “free trade”
- Much more controversially, you might cite education or differences in tested IQ averages.
What you likely wouldn’t cite is the most basic of social structures: marriage, or the relationship between men, women, and families within the society. But that’s exactly what George Gilder argued is the most fundamental cause of either poverty or prosperity within a society. And whether you agree with it or not, it’s a fascinating argument.
In fact, the book in which Gilder published this argument, Wealth & Poverty, became a New York Times best seller and declared a Capitalist (and specifically a supply-side capitalist) manifesto that became an intellectual cornerstone of conservative ideology during the 80s. In a very brief nutshell and a very loose paraphrase/summary, here’s part of what Gilder claimed:
Men are brought to responsibility and maturity through marriage and fatherhood. It is their commitment to family that changes them – and in turn changes the society around them – from operating on a short term and wasteful timescale – to a longer term, providential, and ultimately prosperous mindset. When you break up the family and you let societies’ tenor and tempo be dictated not by intact families, but by unattached males, you end up with incredible waste, entrenched poverty, and a cycle of un-fathered children becoming absent fathers (or single mothers) themselves.
Not the most politically correct train of thought, for sure. But I think anyone would see the nascent “family values” platform being built upon that argument.
And while Gilder’s broad outlines don’t necessarily hold true for all individuals, most people personally know more than a few perfect examples of what Gilder terms “unattached males” – the kind we all hope will grow out of it and into some kind of solid relationship.
Actually, at the beginning of my novel, The Last Train from Paris, my hero fits this mold painfully well. Jean-Luc is an unemployed artist, womanizer, and, well, something of a rogue (albeit a good-natured rogue). He actually makes fun of his friends for holding down a job in almost the same breath in which he flaunts his latest sexual conquests.
Then, following Gilder’s pattern, he is brought to maturity – and economic maturity as well – through the influence of the women in his life. At first it is the tears of his landlady and de-facto mother, Madame Cordier, which motivates him to get a job. This scene even forms the basis of a whole chapter: “Madame’s Tears.”
Later, it becomes the love of Natasha, the love of his life, actually, which forces him to grow still more responsible, not only to his immediate family, but to the greater good of his country as well – that never would have happened without Jean-Luc moving out and away from his unattached bachelor days.
I can see why some people might think this sounds a bit too conveniently conventional, but is it too far off to say that every good man actually needs a good woman in order for him to become a good man? That men need a partner to put away his more impulsive and notional pursuits in order to build something more permanent and lasting?














