Noah Smith cuts through a popular political narrative by exposing a dangerous contradiction: the attempt to sacrifice economic prosperity in the name of spiritual renewal is not just flawed economics, it is historically illiterate. While the current administration and its allies argue that reducing trade and immigration will restore community, Smith demonstrates that the very material abundance they claim to despise was the engine that built the strong families and religious communities they now mourn.
The Real Stakes of the GDP Debate
The piece opens by identifying a strategic shift in political rhetoric. Smith observes that right-wing figures are adopting arguments traditionally used by European leftists to justify degrowth, but with a different end goal. "Free trade usually raises GDP," he writes, noting that when restrictions on trade or immigration are proposed, the immediate objection is always that it will make America poorer. To bypass this, the political right has borrowed a tactic: "So they want some way to neutralize this objection, so they can do things that will, in fact, make America poorer." This reframing reveals that the attack on Gross Domestic Product is not a genuine philosophical inquiry into human flourishing, but a political shield for protectionist policies.
Smith turns his attention to JD Vance, who has emerged as a leading voice of this new right. Vance argues that economic metrics fail to capture moral or spiritual realities, citing the difference between American and Japanese strawberries as an example of unmeasured quality. Smith concedes this is a valid technical point—economists struggle with hedonic regression—but criticizes how it is weaponized. "When I got back home, a friend asked me if I learned anything on my trip to Japan," Vance reportedly replied snidely, "Yes... Maybe economics is just fake." This dismissal of the entire field allows Vance to pivot from technical critiques to moral ones, claiming that economics has stepped into the vacuum left by declining Christianity.
We pretend there are scientific answers to questions of values. Take one of the major issues of the 2024 campaign... Should our trade policy be oriented around protecting domestic industries and jobs or around ensuring a short-term supply of cheap consumer goods?
The danger here is the false dichotomy presented: that we must choose between "base consumerism" and spiritual elevation. Smith points out that this argument ignores the reality that overwork often boosts GDP at the expense of family time—a concern shared by the center-left, which has long fought for policies like the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to reduce economic output in exchange for quality of life. However, Smith argues that Vance goes too far by conflating all material comfort with spiritual decay.
The Opioid Fallacy and Historical Amnesia
One of the most glaring errors Smith identifies is the claim that the opioid crisis represents a failure of GDP to capture societal misery. Vance suggests that the flood of synthetic opioids coexists with economic abundance, implying that the money spent on drugs adds to the GDP while destroying lives. Smith dismantles this by citing hard data: "Over-prescription of opioids has clearly reduced GDP, by a massive amount." He notes that while selling painkillers generates revenue, the trillions lost from addiction, labor market destruction, and premature death far outweigh those gains. According to Council of Economic Advisers reports, the annual economic cost of the opioid epidemic was estimated at about $700 billion in 2018 alone.
The core of Smith's critique is that Vance conflates correlation with causation. The argument that "creature comforts" like large houses and SUVs cause loneliness ignores the historical record. Smith points to the mid-20th century, a period of rapid GDP growth, as the era when American social solidarity was at its peak. "It was during this time that Americans got many of the 'creature comforts' that Vance despises," he writes. The 1950s and 60s saw a tripling of GDP per capita alongside soaring church attendance and fertility rates.
If you like the kind of society we had in 1960, you can't ignore the story of how we got to 1960. The answer was 'economic growth'.
Smith draws on research from Works in Progress to explain why this correlation existed. Advances in household technology—washing machines, refrigerators—and medical progress that drastically reduced maternal death rates made raising children easier and safer. "Parenthood rapidly became much easier and safer between the 1930s and 1950s," he notes, arguing that economic growth was not the enemy of family life but its prerequisite. A counterargument might suggest that modern technology has introduced new distractions that erode community, but Smith's historical data suggests that material progress and social cohesion can rise together.
The Policy Trap: Protectionism vs. Reality
Finally, Smith addresses the specific policy prescriptions of the administration: trade protectionism and immigration reduction. The theory is that bringing back manufacturing jobs will restore male status and family stability. However, Smith points to a stark reality check regarding recent executive actions. "Trump's trade policy doesn't actually increase the number of good manufacturing jobs," he writes bluntly. Data shows that manufacturing jobs have declined since the administration took office, partly because tariffs raise the cost of intermediate goods for U.S. factories.
This exposes a fundamental disconnect between the political narrative and economic mechanics. The administration argues for suffering material deprivation to achieve spiritual goals, yet the proposed methods actively harm the very sectors they claim to protect. Smith concludes that there is no evidence suggesting that forcing Americans into poverty—reducing GDP to levels seen in pre-modern societies—would restore high fertility or strong communities. In fact, the only countries with such high birth rates are those where infant mortality remains dangerously high and women lack basic literacy.
If you step away from the glory of economic statistics, so much of American life has gone wrong... We use that GDP as a yardstick for our broader society, which is why it's possible for false prophet economists to argue the American Dream is healthy even as suicide and addiction rates soar.
Smith argues that this quote captures Vance's emotional truth but misses the economic reality: the solution to these crises isn't less GDP, but better management of growth. The idea that we must choose between a wealthy nation with social problems and a poor nation with strong families is a false choice. As Smith notes, modern Europe lacks many "creature comforts" yet suffers from even lower fertility and weaker religious adherence than the U.S., disproving the theory that materialism is the sole cause of spiritual malaise.
Bottom Line
Noah Smith's strongest move is dismantling the historical revisionism at the heart of the anti-GDP argument, proving that American social cohesion flourished precisely when economic growth was most robust. The piece's greatest vulnerability lies in its assumption that policy can easily replicate the specific conditions of the 1950s without addressing modern structural shifts in the labor market and family dynamics. However, the verdict is clear: sacrificing economic prosperity for a return to tradition is not only an ineffective strategy but one that actively undermines the material foundations necessary for family stability.