It will sound odd -- it is odd -- to insist that there's a grand economic lesson in this fuss over whether trans-women (that's male to female conversion) should be allowed to play chess in the women's competitions. Yet it is true, there is a grand lesson here. The one between the people who try to decide everything by those ivory tower theories and those who actually look out the window at actual evidence.
The point in contention is whether trans-women should be allowed to play chess in the women's section. Well, maybe. We can see the argument either way. Sure, there's an obvious difference between male and female physiques so therefore we might need to make a difference in certain sports. In equestrianism it's people’s skill and the physique of the horse that matters -- men and women have competed on equal terms here for decades. While in some lunatic games like rugby, men may seriously injure women -- so, no male physiques in women's rugby.
But that's to appeal to actual evidence. Which is exactly what our example of chess does for us. Some are insisting that men and women are mentally equal therefore banning trans-women from female competition is transphobia. Others are pointing out that the best female performance in chess was from Judit Polgar, who did manage to get into the World Championships last 8 -- where she came last. A stunning player, who would eat you and me for breakfast while still chewing her toast -- but not, really, up there at the very tip top.
So, is chess one of those things where there is a male and female difference? Thus far the evidence seems to be, yes. So, should we allow those with that male benefit to compete in the special section we've set up for those without it?
And that's not, actually, the economic point we should take from this at all. Rather, it’s that some are arguing from morals and ethics, while others are arguing from evidence. Who plays chess with whom is not at all the point to take from this.
It's entirely easy to insist that capitalism and free markets are unfair. Why should people who just have money get money? Prices should reflect need, not something as silly as scarcity! If we constrain ourselves to purely ethical arguments about how the economy should be organized, maybe that has some weight. As also might the other ethical arguments, that people should be allowed to keep the results of their own efforts and so on.
But then there's also that looking out the ivory tower issue to consider. No socialist -- fair by some definitions of equitable -- society has ever gotten rich. Not a single one. Never in all of human history. It's also true that not all free market and capitalist societies have gotten rich -- but the universe of those that are rich is entirely populated by those who used that method to get there.
It's also true that it's possible to have a more equitable society while still getting and being rich. The Nordic social democracies are good examples. But detailed examination shows that they are more capitalist, more free market, than the US and UK. They have more redistribution after that more intense capitalist experience, true. But then that's the evidence that we've got.
This is then the similarity between the trans chess furore and the economic discussion. I don't know about chess -- know in the sense of having the definitive answer -- but I can imagine that there is a sex difference and therefore we have different competitions. I'm entirely willing to be persuaded the other way too. But what I do know is that standing upon ethical positions isn't going to solve this for us. It's necessary to look at the actual evidence.
As with economics. Sure, we can shout about the ethics of different systems but we do need to go look at the actual outcomes too. Capitalism and free markets - sure, perhaps modified by redistributive taxation -- is the only economic system that has performed that task of making the average guy in the street rich. That's evidence. Now, whether we should be pursuing riches or equality, that's morals and ethics. But we do need to distinguish between the two so we can make our decision.
Me? We're all going to be equal in the grave so let's use the system in this life that makes us rich. Sure, feel free to disagree with my ethics -- but you can't disagree with my facts because reality is, well, it's reality, d'ye see?
Tim Worstall is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London.
