fbpx
01 / 05
Underrated Industrialist, Josiah Wedgwood

Blog Post | Politics & Freedom

Underrated Industrialist, Josiah Wedgwood

Josiah Wedgwood was an entrepreneur, abolitionist, inventor, and in many respects the first modern philanthropist.

Summary: Josiah Wedgwood challenged the prevailing perspective on entrepreneurship, rising from humble beginnings to become an esteemed industrialists and advocates of Enlightenment ideals. Wedgwood’s story exemplifies the transformative power of entrepreneurship, philanthropy, and innovation, reshaping not only the economy but also societal perceptions of wealth and social responsibility.


This article was published at Libertarianism.org on 12/18/2023.

We use and encounter the word “entrepreneur” constantly in our daily lives. Entrepreneurs are an indispensable part of the modern economy, but for much of the Western world’s history, aristocratic elites looked down on merchants as crass money-​makers. A long tradition stretching back to antiquity enforced the aristocratic view of property ownership and agriculture as the only honorable ways of making money. But in the 18th century, things started to change dramatically.

At the forefront of change was Josiah Wedgwood, a man born the child of a potter, who ended his life as an esteemed industrialist, a trendsetter for English society, and an advocate of Enlightenment ideals. He is also one of first examples of the entrepreneurial philanthropist in the modern sense, using his profits to build schools, homes, and improve the working conditions of his employees. Most famously, he was a staunch advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Wedgwood’s Upbringing

Josiah Wedgwood was born on the 12th of July 1730 in Burslem, Staffordshire. He was the eleventh child of Thomas and Mary Wedgwood. Wedgwood’s family, while not poor, was not particularly rich either.

Wedgwood’s father and his father’s father had both been potters. According to all conventional wisdom, Wedgwood would follow in his ancestors’ footsteps and earn a similarly modest living. Though there were many potters in his hometown of Staffordshire, potters only sold their wares locally. To sell to London was rare; to sell abroad was unheard of. Staffordshire was not the cosmopolitan center of the United Kingdom. By the end of Wedgwood’s life, this all radically changed.

From a young age, Wedgwood showed great promise as a potter, but at the age of nine he contracted smallpox, permanently weakening his knee, meaning he could not use the foot pedal on a potter’s wheel. But Wedgwood took this tragedy in stride despite his young age. While healing, he used his spare time to read, research, and most importantly, experiment. Instead of making the same pots his family had always crafted, he dedicated himself to innovating.

Combining Science and Faith

After his father’s death, Wedgwood’s mother took charge of educating her son imparting to him a deep appreciation for curiosity. Wedgwood came from a family of English dissenters, Protestants who broke off from the English state-​supported Anglican church to start their own religious establishments. Specifically, Wedgwood and his family were Unitarian: they emphasized the importance of humans using reason to interpret scripture. Unlike many of their contemporaries, Unitarians did not see science and religion as conflicting ways of viewing the world but complementary. Because of this attitude, Unitarians were often found defending freedom of speech and conscience as indispensable rights for political and religious life.

Where Unitarians split most noticeably from the established Anglican church was their view of Original Sin. Growing up, Wedgwood was taught that the world could be made a better place through human effort. A modern observer views progress and making the world a better place as a common aspiration, however, few of our ancestors believed there was such a thing as consistent material or moral progress. It is easy to see why, given that belief system, most people were content to work the same job their father had using the same tools that had been used for hundreds if not thousands of years.

The Beginnings of a Business

At the age of 30, Wedgwood began his own business in Staffordshire at his Ivy House factory. Because of England’s vast colonial territories, tea and coffee were making their way to England in larger quantities. The emerging middle class began to frequent coffee and tea houses to converse with their peers, dramatically increasing the demand for pottery. Wedgwood observed an increased demand for pottery, but also an increased demand for beauty and style in everyday items.

In Wedgwood’s early days of business, elaborate designs were not popular; what was demanded was the pure simplicity of materials like porcelain. Porcelain, however, was in short supply and extremely fragile. To remedy this, Wedgwood began developing cream glaze that would give earthenware the appearance of porcelain with none of the downsides. After conducting over 5,000 painstaking tests, Wedgwood perfected what came to be known as creamware, something few of his competitors replicated.

Increasingly known for his high-​quality products, Wedgwood was invited to participate in a competition with all the potteries of Staffordshire to provide a tea service or set for Queen Charlotte. Knowing this was a crucial opportunity, Wedgwood went all-​in on creating a creamware set, even painstakingly using honey to help stick 22-​karat gold to his pure white creamware. Wedgwood won the competition and was made the Queen’s potter. Wedgwood was light years ahead of his competition when it came to marketing and branding, and from this point onwards, all of the company’s paperwork and stationery boasted the royal association.

Wedgwood and the Consumer Experience

Wedgwood established showrooms in London to sell his wares. In the 18th century, most stores were cramped and dingy places. Wedgwood also pioneered a range of services we expect as standard today, including money-​back guarantees, free delivery, illustrated catalogs, and even an early form of self-​checkout. More than any of his contemporaries, Wedgwood focused on perfecting the retail experience. His showrooms were immediately popular, establishing his reputation throughout London, Bath, Liverpool, Dublin, and Westminster. Some showrooms were so popular they caused traffic jams with long-​winding lines stretching through the street.

The Division of Labor and International Markets

The increasing demand led to Wedgwood being so successful he founded a new factory in 1769 named “Etruria” after the Etruscans of ancient Italy. Here Wedgwood dreamed of becoming “Vase Maker General to the Universe.” Despite being named after an ancient land, it was arguably at the time the most modern industrial space in the world. To minimize mistakes, Wedgwood broke down the process of making earthenware into a series of smaller tasks. Like the contemporaneous Adam Smith, Wedgwood observed that the division of labor dramatically increases productivity. As an employer, Wedgwood was an exemplar of humane business. Knowing the hot conditions of factories, he attempted to develop a form of air conditioning. He paid his employees well and provided cottages for his workers around Etruria.

With his modernizing practices, Wedgwood brought artistic perfection to an industrial scale. Though many of his popular products were initially purchased by the aristocracy, he eventually reduced the prices to appeal to an increasingly broader market. Wedgwood noticed that a high price was necessary to make the vases esteemed ornaments for palaces, but once aristocrats popularized his products, he would then reduce the price accordingly. Everyday people began to drink from mugs and decorate their homes with vases that for centuries had been exclusively owned by aristocrats.

Wedgwood had transformed Staffordshire from a town that nearly always sold their produce locally to a place that supplied goods for the whole nation. But Wedgwood saw the potential for further expansion abroad. Wedgwood began to ship to Europe but then rapidly expanded across the globe to places like Mexico, the United States, Turkey, and China. By the 1780s, Wedgwood was exporting most of his products abroad. Though during this period of his life business was booming, Wedgwood’s smallpox afflicted knee worsened, resulting in his leg being amputated without anesthetic and replaced with a wooden prosthetic. Seemingly unbothered, Wedgwood Christened the event “St. Amputation Day” and resumed work.

Business for a Good Cause

As Wedgwood shipped more goods abroad, he increasingly frequented London’s port, the largest slave-​trading port in the world at the time. Wedgwood saw the whip-​scarred bodies of enslaved people being shipped in from abroad. Wedgwood abhorred slavery, not only because it was immoral, but because for Wedgwood, it was not befitting of the national character and the esteem Britain ought to hold as a free nation. At its inception, in 1787 Wedgwood joined the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade.

He campaigned against slavery by using his craft to create mass-​produced cameos of a black man in chains on his knees against a white background with an inscription beneath reading “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?” Wedgwood gave away these medallions free of charge to abolitionist groups, even sending medallions to Benjamin Franklin, then to the president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Franklin praised his medallions, saying their effectiveness was equal to the best written works against slavery. Gentlemen had this image inlaid in their snuff boxes, and ladies wore it on bracelets and hairpins.

A friend of Wedgwood and fellow abolitionist wrote of Wedgwood’s medallions, “the taste for wearing them became general, and thus fashion, which usually confines itself to worthless things, was seen for once in the honorable office of promoting the cause of justice, humanity and freedom.” Wedgwood saw how fashion could be a vehicle for political change. His medallions perfectly captured the message of the abolitionist cause, two hundred years before the advent of the t-​shirt, today’s preferred method of displaying one’s political affections.

Wedgwood was not only a master craftsman, an industrialist, and an activist: he was also a scientist. In 1765, he joined the Lunar Society of Birmingham, a group of industrialists, scientists, and philosophers who met during the full moon because the light made the journey at night easier. Members included people such as Joseph Priestly and Matthew Bolton. In 1783, Wedgwood was elected to The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge by inventing the pyrometer, a device used to measure the high temperatures of kilns while firing pottery.

Death and Legacy

After a life dedicated to his work and the betterment of the world, Wedgwood passed away on the 3rd of January 1795 at the age of 64. The name Wedgwood became synonymous with excellence in pottery, and remains so today.

Throughout Western history, aristocrats, nobles, and other elites often peddled a narrative that prosperity was achieved through familial ties of property ownership and military prowess. People like Josiah Wedgwood challenged this narrative by showing a new path for the Enlightened industrialist and philanthropist. Instead of making his fortune from familial connections and war, Wedgwood showed the peaceful path to wealth by simply fulfilling consumers’ desires. His marketing practices were light years ahead of his time, and his penchant for building a distinct brand through advertising and high-​quality goods was an unprecedentedly modern strategy at a time when the wealthy still wore powdered wigs.

Wedgwood used his wealth to benefit the world by treating his workers with dignity while advocating for humane causes like the abolition of slavery. Stories like Wedgwood’s counter the anti-​capitalist narrative of the corrupting tendencies of private enterprise, showing how business can be humane, cosmopolitan, and most importantly, for Wedgwood, beautiful.

Blog Post | Economic Freedom

The False History of American Capitalism | Podcast Highlights

Economist Donald Boudreaux joins Marian Tupy to discuss important misconceptions about American economic history and why it’s crucial to set the record straight.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Today, I have with me Don Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University. He has a new book out, co-authored with the former senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, called The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism. It’s a fantastic read, full of information and killer arguments.

We’re going to discuss that book today. But first, Don, why is the study of economic history important?

What we think we know about the past determines how we assess the present.

For example, if we think that in the past, a certain monetary policy did this or did that, that’s going to affect how we think monetary policy should be conducted today. So, in order to make good decisions in the present, we have to do our best to understand how various policies worked out in the past. That’s what we try to do in the book.

Let’s jump in and tackle trusts, or as we call them today, monopolies. We often hear about the power of monopolies in today’s America, but let’s go back to the 19th century. What was the trust problem, and what was the solution meant to address?

Some of the first original research I did as a young scholar was looking into the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. I had a colleague, Tom DiLorenzo, who, in 1985, published a wonderful paper on the origins of the Sherman Act, 95 years after its enactment. Astonishingly, no one in that near century-long period had ever bothered to check what had actually happened to the prices and outputs of the industries that were supposedly monopolized. So, Tom looked at these data and adjusted them for deflation—there was a deflationary period from the end of the Civil War until the early 20th century—and found that in the decade leading up to the Sherman Antitrust Act, the prices of the outputs of these allegedly monopolized industries fell faster than prices in the economy as a whole. Likewise, the outputs of these industries rose faster, and in most cases, multiple times faster than the output of the overall economy.

This is inconsistent with the monopoly story. Monopolies are supposed to raise prices, not cut prices. In reality, there was no monopoly problem in the 1880s; there was a competition problem. We had, for the first time, a fully transcontinental economy, thanks to the railroads and the telegraph, and soon thereafter, the telephone. So, a lot of firms could now take advantage of economies of scale. John D. Rockefeller in petroleum refining, Gustavus Swift in meat slaughtering, James Buchanan in tobacco manufacturing, and so on. And these firms did grow large, but “large” is not an appropriate definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a firm that can suppress competition, raise prices, and suppress output. These firms did the opposite. They grew big, but they grew big precisely by being so efficient that they could lower their prices and expand their output.

Now, whenever this happens, other producers complain. And in the 19th century, the complaints came disproportionately from local butchers and local cattle raisers. Before the railroad and refrigeration, slaughtering took place locally. So, when the first meat packers set up shop in Chicago and began centrally slaughtering livestock and shipping the meat out across the nation by refrigerated railroad car, they destroyed an age-old line of work. These local butchers and independent cattlemen raised hell, and local politicians listened to them, villainized these firms, and attacked them with antitrust statutes.

Frankly, these early antitrust statutes, and the subsequent ones, were not intended to address what was truly perceived as a problem of monopoly. They were aimed at placating disgruntled producers who had been outcompeted by larger, more efficient, and more entrepreneurial rivals.

You mentioned the D word, “destruction.” The destruction of local butchers by big, centralized butchers. Is that a good thing?

Well, economic growth requires that resources move from where they are less productive to where they are more productive, so change is inevitable if you want economic growth.

Some people might naively say, “Well, look, we’ve had enough growth, let’s just stop now,” and try to freeze everything in place. Now, I’m sure almost everyone alive today is very happy that our ancestors did not settle for the level of economic activity that existed when they were alive. You and I would not be talking over Zoom, and web designers would have eight legs.

However, even if we all agreed to settle for our current level of prosperity, we would still need to allow economic change, because some things are beyond human control. Supplies of raw materials can dry up. Natural disasters can destroy factories. So, we always need people to be able to adjust to the facts on the ground. That flexibility, that entrepreneurial alertness and creativity, is inseparable from capitalism. If you try to freeze our economy in its current pattern, you’ll collapse it. We can either continue to move forward and embrace creative destruction, or we can collapse into destitution.

Yeah, that’s fundamental. There are, in Donald Rumsfeld’s famous words, “unknown unknowns,” and we want to be as rich and as technologically sophisticated as possible when those challenges arise.

Okay, on to the big one, the granddaddy of them all, the Great Depression. Can you steelman the anti-market position about what happened in 1929? What went wrong?

Yes. In the 1920s, a fundamental contradiction of capitalism reached its peak. The rich were getting richer relative to the poor, and rich people spend a smaller portion of their incomes than poorer people. By the late 1920s, you had an increasingly unequal distribution of income, and a smaller portion of that income was being spent. As a result, America’s factories were producing more than America’s factories could sell, and a terrible spiral took place. The factories started laying off workers, which further reduced the income of factory workers, who responded by reducing their spending, which further reduced economic output and employment.

All of this happened when Herbert Hoover was president. And as everyone knows, Hoover was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire. He was a do-nothing president. The Depression happened, and Herbert Hoover just sat in the White House and twiddled his thumbs, hoping this recession would go away. Then, of course, it got worse. By 1932 and 1933, unemployment in America hit 25 percent. Fortunately, the American people elected Franklin Roosevelt, who came to office with a whole bunch of really good ideas and smart advisors. They developed the New Deal, a system of relief programs, and we were able to start recovering. Finally, World War II comes along, there’s more government spending, and we get out of the Depression. That’s the myth.

That’s what a lot of American kids learn at school. But I suspect that you don’t quite agree with that interpretation of the Great Depression.

No, I don’t. Let’s start with the easy one: Hoover was not a do-nothing president or an advocate of laissez-faire. Hoover was the president who signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Hoover spent at a deficit during every year of his administration. In fact, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s campaign platforms was that Hoover was too big a spender. Hoover’s administration was the first time, really, that any sitting American president did much to combat an economic downturn. So that’s a complete fallacy.

There are other problems too. In the 1920s—and this is from research done by Simon Kuznets, a Nobel Prize-winning, very respectable economist—the distribution of income did not grow more heavily toward upper-income Americans. In fact, it became a little bit flatter in the 1920s. In terms of spending, the mythical theory says that there just wasn’t enough spending to buy what the factories were producing. But if you look at the data on consumer spending in the 1920s, it was off the charts. It was a boom time for Americans.

What actually happened, and here I’m quite conventional, was bad monetary policy. The Fed was created in 1913 to serve as a lender of last resort. Before the Fed was created, whenever banking crises would happen, they had private arrangements where bank clearing houses would get together and channel liquidity to the parts of the banking system that needed money. And these panics, as they were called, were quickly undone. But after the panic of 1907, people said, “Well, we can’t have this. Let’s get the government to take over this process.” And they created the Federal Reserve.

When the downturn began in August of 1929, the Fed should have stepped in to prevent the money supply from contracting. But the Fed just stood by, and from 1929 to 1933, the money supply contracted by over 30 percent. That is huge. Then, on top of that, you have the hyperactive Hoover, who administered a historically unique level of economic intervention. And then it gets worse under FDR.

The big problem was what the economic historian Bob Higgs calls regime uncertainty. Hoover and Roosevelt became increasingly hostile to businesses and investors throughout the 1930s. Basically, they scared investors off. Well, if you want economic recovery, you can’t scare investors off. You can’t threaten their property rights. You can’t threaten to tax away their earnings. You can’t threaten to control prices. All of this was being done. Roosevelt became a little more friendly to businesses when he needed them to cooperate in the war effort, but there was still concern that after the war, Roosevelt would return to his increasingly anti-capitalist stance. But of course, Roosevelt died in April of 1945, and Truman, for all of his imperfections, was a businessman, and he was perceived, quite rightly, as much less radical than Roosevelt.

Higgs dates the end of the Great Depression as immediately after the war, 1946 or 1947. The war years, we can’t say much about. You’re conscripting people into a military, so unemployment looks low, but that’s not the result of an improved market economy. Prices are controlled. Wages are controlled. Certainly, the standard of living of ordinary Americans back home was falling. So, if you define the end of the Depression as a return to high and rising living standards for ordinary people, you don’t get any evidence of that until the years immediately following the end of World War II. So, the New Deal didn’t cure the Great Depression. If anything, it extended the Great Depression throughout the 1930s. If we’re going to actually rely on data, we must say that the Depression only ended after the end of World War II.

Now on to the final topic, the Great Recession.

The mainstream explanation is that financial deregulation created the housing crisis. Greedy, mustache-twisting bankers lent money to people who they knew couldn’t repay the mortgage loans, which anybody with common sense would know is not a good banking strategy.

In fact, what happened is that starting in the early 1990s, the government became intent on increasing the rate of home ownership. So, the government wanted banks to extend mortgage lending to people that they otherwise wouldn’t lend to, but the banks didn’t want to lend money to people who were unlikely to pay them back. So, the federal government said, look, Fannie and Freddie, increasingly large shares of your portfolio have to be made up of subprime mortgages, or we’re going to do all kinds of nasty things to you.

Say you’re a bank in Omaha, Nebraska, and someone comes to you to borrow money to buy a house. In the past, you’d say, “Sorry, you don’t have 20 percent to put down, and you don’t have a high enough income. I’m not going to lend you the money.” But now, Freddie comes by and says, “I really want to buy some subprime loans from you, so if you make some subprime loans, I’ll buy them from you and relieve you of the risk.” So, when that same borrower comes back, you lend them the money and sell the mortgage to a government-backed firm. Now you’re off the hook, but that bad loan is still out there. The result was that increasingly large numbers of house mortgages were held by people who couldn’t afford to repay them, and so any decline in economic activity, and certainly any decline in housing prices, would put a lot of the homeowners under water, and that is what eventually happened. The house of cards collapsed.

One final question: Why don’t bad ideas die?

There are at least two reasons.

First, if you show me a bad economic idea, I will show you a special interest group that benefits from it. This is what Bruce Yandle called the “Bootleggers and Baptists” idea: when you have a sincere but mistaken belief backed by venal interest groups who stand to gain materially by the maintenance of those beliefs, those beliefs become entrenched.

The second reason is that bad ideas are usually easier to grasp than good ideas. Good ideas tend to involve one or two steps of reasoning beyond the bad idea. And so, to push out bad ideas and replace them with good ideas requires good education. So, all the things that we’re doing, all the blogging and podcasting and tweeting.

It’s a struggle to present good ideas, but we have no choice. We have to keep doing it. And history shows that, if you’re effective at it, you can sometimes push bad ideas aside and replace them with good ideas. But it’s a never-ending battle. It’s not like the bad idea is defeated and then it goes away forever. It’ll always lurk. So, we always have to be at the ready to challenge it with good ideas. And we have to be very patient.

The Human Progress Podcast | Ep. 64

Donald Boudreaux: The False History of American Capitalism

Economist Donald Boudreaux joins Marian Tupy to discuss important misconceptions about American economic history and why it’s crucial to set the record straight.

ABC News | Treatment of Animals

FDA Approves 12-Month Flea Treatment for Dogs

“Dogs across the U.S. could soon get longer-lasting protection against pesky parasites thanks to a new treatment approved by federal regulators Thursday.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to Bravecto Quantum, the first-ever flea and tick preventative that can protect dogs for up to 12 months with a single injection. The treatment is approved for dogs and puppies 6 months and older.

The new shot is an alternative to treatments that usually need to be given every month or every few months.”

From ABC News.

Al Jazeera | Capital Punishment

Vietnam Ends Death Penalty for Crimes Against the State, Drugs

“The state-run Vietnam News Agency reported on Wednesday that the country’s National Assembly unanimously passed an amendment to the Criminal Code that abolished the death penalty for eight criminal offences.

Starting from next month, people will no longer face a death sentence for bribery, embezzlement, producing and trading counterfeit medicines, illegally transporting narcotics, espionage, ‘the crime of destroying peace and causing aggressive war’, as well as sabotage and trying to topple the government.

The maximum sentence for these crimes will now be life imprisonment, the news agency said…

The death penalty will remain for 10 other criminal offences under Vietnamese law, including murder, treason, terrorism and the sexual abuse of children, according to the report.”

From Al Jazeera.