6 ideas
If every past generation has been better off than the one before, there is no principled reason to expect that trend to reverse now. The burden of proof falls on anyone who predicts decline in the face of a consistent record of advance, and pessimism that ignores this record is prejudice rather than reasoning.
Romantic critics compare present hardship with an imagined past of cottage contentment, not with the documented past of famine, disease, and short lives. Checking the idealized past against records such as mortality figures shows that ordinary people now live longer and more comfortably than their ancestors did.
National wealth grows through the prudence, energy, and industry of individuals pursuing their own interests. Government contributes most by keeping order, protecting property, and letting people alone, while trying to direct economic life does more harm than good.
A paternalist state assumes that officials know better than individuals how to spend their money, run their trades, and live their lives. Rulers have no special wisdom or virtue that would justify this, and concentrating such power in them multiplies their errors instead of correcting them.
The Romantic critic judged factories inferior to rose-covered rural cottages because the cottages looked prettier. The case warns against judging welfare by visual charm instead of outcomes.
When moral feeling and measurable outcomes disagree about whether people are better or worse off, defer to the numbers: wages, death rates, relief rolls, and consumption. Vivid impressions and literary eloquence are poor guides to aggregate welfare, and policy based on them will misdiagnose problems.