George Monbiot on the arc of History

There’s a simple view of history as series of pageants. Kings fight glorious battles, heroes like Nelson and Genghis Khan kill lots of people, talented artists like Michaelangelo gaily paint frescoes of the male nude all over the walls of some slightly dodgy cleric’s new palace It’s interesting, it’s fun, it excites podgy old men who have never been in a war to dress up in funny costumes. There’s only one problem with it, in fact,

It’s bollocks.

Starting slowly at first, reading the works of much clever people like Professor Kennedy[2] [3] we realised that History is driven by deep slow moving inexorable forces: things like climate, infant survival rates and technology. Britain rose because it was the first to develop modern commercial and industrial processes. It fell when other countries started to do those things better. Rome succeeded, for a while ,because it turned the Mediterranean Sea into a single trading zone in an epoch when sail was the most economic means of transport. It fell when plagues and climate change so decimated its population that it could no longer defend the frontiers of that zone. Above all it’s demographics, economics and logistics that determine the fate of nations, not battlefield heroics.

It is in this light that we present this article by George Monbiot of the Guardian. [1] For it attempts to address this single determining factor, both in our lives-and those of the next four or five generations to come. It doesn’t matter if you love immigration, or hate it. Whether you thought everything would solved by a rising population or a falling one, (as we used to). See this more as advice from a wise accountant to a failing family firm “this much is in your coffers, therefore these will be your spending options” In world terms, the arc is very simple. The population will grow a little while longer. Then it will start to fall. Precipitously. All decisions on defence, finance culture, even our own little idées fixées like antibiotics and climate change, shall be made in the light of this simple, ineluctable fact.

We have followed Monbiot on many topics for years; his writings are always stark and cogent. We urge to you look him up and read more. But today, for now, we beg you to read this one, It should lend perspective like nothing else.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/12/europe-migrants-birth-rates-immigration-countries

[2]Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (New York: Random House, 1987).

[3] Kyle Harper, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017).

#history #population #demographics #immigration ##economics

Why taxes are good for you #5: No taxes= no economy

Let’s go back to part one of this series where our old friend Dave Watford is leaning on the bar of the Dog and Duck. Complaining how the government takes all his money in taxes and” if he ditnt ‘av ter pay no (expletive deleted) taxes his wife wouldn’t ‘av ter (expletive deleted) work at all!” It’s a widely held view, assiduously promoted by certain very well funded “think” tanks. In fact it’s the exact opposite of how a real economy works. Or exists at all. All the evidence suggests that without taxation, and the government to enforce it, there could have been no economy. Humanity would have frozen at the level of sheep grazers and dirt farmers.

It worked something like this Once there was a King somewhere in old Mesopotamia: and he invented something called an Urg, No one wanted it much at first. Until the King said: ”everyone has to pay ten Urgs a year in taxation. Which I will enforce.” Suddenly the Urg had value because-everyone needed it to pay the taxes. They started to work and trade to earn and swap all the Urgs they needed to pay the King. Who helpfully kept the whole process going by creating more Urgs which he issued to people in order that they could pay their taxes…….suddenly roads were built, trade networks flickered into life, and huge buildings like ziggurats started going up. “Ah!”. cry the detractors, “all these things were gong on before there was money!” It was Keynes who nailed this fallacy. Money is about much more than coins, and came much earlier, he said. Money is all about the network of obligations, debts and credits, which by their redemption make trade possible. The whole point of the king was to ensure that these contracts were enforced. Coins came much later in the archaeological record, as a convenient technological advance to the system. . The electronic banking of their day, if you like.[1] [2]

We’ve talked before how kings use taxes to pay for armies and policemen and courts and other things to keep its citizens safe. But below that level, they are even more fundamental to the very existence of an economy. Without them there would be no Dog and Duck bar for Dave to lean on. He would depend on home brewed beer and home spun clothes. And, as it was mainly women who produced all those sorts of things (they do most of the work in agricultural societies), think of this Dave:-she would indeed ‘av ter work, mate. Innit.

[1] The History Of Taxation In Ancient Civilizations: A Comprehensive Overview Of Early Fiscal Systems And Their Impact

[2] The Shocking Origins of Money Hidden in 1,000-Year-Old Artifacts

[3] Kelton, S The Deficit Myth John Murray 2021 see especially pp 25 et seq

#archaeolgy #economics #history #taxes #money #coins

Did St John predict the Fall of the Roman Empire 300 years ahead?

One thing we’ve always admired at this blog is someone whose predictions come true. Over the years we have praised seers as diverse as Edmund Burke, Gillian Tett, John Maynard Keynes and Rachel Carson, among others.(LSS passim) And one thing they all had in common: they called it before it happened which is not bad prophetting. To which illustrious company we would now like to add St John the Divine, the Patmos bloke, whose Revelations not only bookends to the whole Bible, it has generated no end of controversy and interpretation ever since.

Now we freely admit that St John doesn’t come across as a congenial fellow. A bit irascible and censorious, you might say. Not the sort of chap you’d invite round to your next dinner party to show off your latest bottle of Waitrose Claret. We suspect he even had a huge beard(always a warning sign) and the sort of scowl which instantly disapproved of conversations about holiday homes on Greek islands. But just pay attention to two of the things he wrote, around 95 AD while sojourning on one of them:

For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication… and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.” (Revelation 18 3)

Now follow it up with this little bon mot

Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18 4)

All written when the Roman Empire was at its most prosperous and powerful height. Which leads us to the works of two authors who have explained two of the greatest mysteries which have ever bedevilled our minds: why was Rome(Republic and Empire) so successful? And if so, why did it so undeniably fail, around about 400 AD? The first of these answers was provided by the great Professor RH Davis in his immortal History of Medieval Europe [1] It was the genius of Rome to unite all the peoples of the Mediterranean into a single trading block, in which therefore peace and prosperity flourished by the standards of the time. Hence all those parties of which St John so heartily disapproved. And the second was Professor Kyle Harper who so convincingly demonstrated that much of Rome’s Fall was due to terrible plagues, such as the Antonine and Cyprian which entered the Empire and spread so well because of the efficient trade networks it had engendered. Two strikes, and Rome was out.

So how did a miserable old git, sitting alone in his shack while the rest of the island partied, get it so right? Was he a diva at economics? Epidemiology? Was he just lucky? Or could it be, was it just possible he had it from Someone who knew for sure-and whispered in his ear? we leave you to judge.

[1] Davis, R.H.C. A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to Saint Louis. London: Longman, 1970.2nd edition Longman1989 see especially pp 3-7

[2] Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.

#St John the Divine #Revelations #prophecy #Roman Empire #History #epidemiology #climate change #economics

World Government: Great Idea or daft fantasy?

We’ve passed a little time this year discussing the idea of a World Government. In our series which began back in January[1] we looked at the basic idea. Many of the world’s problems, we opined, were transnational: mass migration, climate change and pandemics are only a few. Nation states were no longer big enough to solve these on their own, we said. Or rather, their existence precluded the solutions, in any reasonable time frame, which would permit human survival. We also noted the terrible danger of a World State[2] : that it could quickly engender an tyranny even more terrible than those of Robespierre or Stalin: and this time with no where to escape to at all.

We spent some time discussing the idea both in these pages and with friends and acquaintances. We received some surprising responses. Even some quite hardened nationalists and Europe-bashers thought we had a good idea, but that it was utterly unfeasible in any meaningful time frame. We think that they are probably right. For another trope of these pages has been the depressing tendency of humankind to divide itself in to mutually loathing groups, over issues both large and small. We have looked at the work of thinkers Like Amy Chua , Eric Kaufman and David Ronfeldt{3.4] We looked at studies like the Robbers Cave Experiment [5] which seem to provide the essential psychological underpinning to these writers’ ideas. All of the foregoing made us feel that our sceptics had the point, and that our Big Idea was, if not wrong, then at least hopelessly impracticable.

It is the to the credit of Great Big Ideas that even when wrong, they can point the way to fertile new investigations, if they are catchy enough. No one thinks Henri Pirenne said the last word on Medieval Economics, not Freud on psychiatry. But it was the achievement of these scholars to make their ideas so strong that they challenged further studies, if only because some were so eager to prove them wrong. It is in this spirit that we shall turn to looking at some questions we have raised. Is the Nation State, which has served us so well so far, really constrained ? Can people from different groups and identities not only sink them into a common cause but actually achieve something thereby? These will be some of the the in the months ahead. And while you are waiting, don’t forget: problems like antibiotic resistance, climate change and mass migration will be getting worse.

[1]LSS 1 8 25, 14 1 25 et al

[2] LSS 22 1 25

3 LSS 16 8 20

4 LSS 10 3 21

[5]LSS 1 4 25

#world government #nation state #economics #politics #tribalism #amy chua

Why Taxes are good for you #3: look what happened to China

One of the great disadvantages of low taxes is that you end up getting conquered. As China learned at terrible cost. In the eighteenth century Qing China had been one of the greatest states in the world:, rich and populous, with booming trade, advanced techniques in agriculture, and envied craftsmanship Taxes were low, less than 5% of GDP it is estimated. So was military spending. And there was the problem. For nations in the west, like Britain for example, ran at much higher tax burdens, perhaps 15-20% GDP. With the result that they could pay for vast armies and fleets which captured all the world’s sea lanes and trade routes. It’s true that the most advanced western thinkers were classic Liberals like Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, who loudly proclaimed the virtues of low taxes and a minimal state. It was just that no one serious paid any attention to them. The result that these fleets and armies were eventually flung against China. The resulting Opium Wars were not only one of the most terrible crimes in History, they disgraced and destabilised China until 1949.[1] [2]

It was a lesson the British themselves had to relearn after the rise of Hitler forced them into frantic re-armament after 1937. After nearly two decades of orthodox economics like the Gold Standard and low taxes, suddenly the latter began to rise. Fast. All those Spitfires and cruisers and radar had to come from somewhere. So in 1938 the standard rate of income tax was raised to 27.5% (5s 6d in the pound) to help fund rearmament. A 41% surtax applied to very high incomes (over £50,000 annually), targeting the wealthiest. Other hated impositions like death duties and PAYE *were imposed. And -despite what it says in the Daily Mail-it worked. Not only was just enough done to survive the perilous summer of 1940, by 1944 Britain was the most fully mobilised of all the wartime economies. Pride indeed.

Yet there is a little irony at work here . It is our lived experience that those who most loudly proclaim the greatest patriotism are also those who would avoid paying taxes wherever and when ever possible. It is their right to say such things. But ours also to at least doubt the sincerity of a patriotism which will not pay to uphold that which it professes to adore.

_{*Pay as You Earn}

[1] Thomas Piketty Capital and Ideology

[2] David Ricardo Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

#taxation #economics #liberalism #free markets #imperialism #opium wars #china #britain

Mobile Crisis Construction-a truly ingenious solution to an age-old problem

Photo by u0404u0432u0433u0435u043du0456u0439 u0421u0438u043cu043eu043du0435u043du043au043e on Pexels.com

Have you ever wondered what happens at a disaster scene or a battlefield after the cameras are turned off and the media circus has rolled on elsewhere? Do all those mounds of rubble and broken buildings suddenly disappear? Do all those dreadfully traumatised survivors go home to a nice cup of tea? You know as well as we do that the physical damage of war can take years, decades sometimes, to clear up. Which means a lot of people could be homeless or living in primitive tents and shanties for a very, very long time.

Until now. Because our researchers, bless them have come across a truly remarkable charity called Mobile Crisis Construction.[1] Who saw the need to provide solid, decent and healthy homes for all these pitiful victims as soon as possible. And what struck us here at LSS, humble researchers and Senior Management alike, was the astute simplicity with which they have gone about it. “You’ve got all that debris at the site”, they reasoned” all that broken brick, glass, etc. That’s not rubbish, that’s a raw material, mate!” So the first thing they do is move in a special mill which crushes it all up into a useable powder. Next the powder is put into a special oven and baked, on site, into bricks. Not just any bricks but ones with special grooves and sticky out bits on them so that anyone can run up a decent wall-after a bit of training of course. Their website is a trove of impressive statistics but here’s one for starters: they estimate that they can knock out enough bricks to create one school, or five large houses in a week[2]

Now gentle readers, we guess you have already spotted the true genius in their idea. No more supply chains! No more lorries carrying all those materials, skilled labourers and all the bureaucracy and red tape that goes with it. Instead, they take the factories to the site. You know we love inspired new solutions to ancient problems here (LSS passim). But this surely has to be one of the simplest and best so far? We wish this new venture every success and we hope you will too. Because all the suffering people of the world deserve something better.

[1]https://www.crisisconstruction.com/about-us/

[2]https://crisisconstruction.org/solutions/rapid-response-construction/

#war #refugees #construction #aid #housing #bricks #building #emergency

Heroes of Learning: Svante Pääbo

It’s hard to remember how different human evolution was before Svante Pääbo and his transformative discoveries in genetics. There were some bones, but they were bit few and fragmentary. People argued interminably over them like so many medieval nominalists and realists. There were tools, and heroic studies of the scratches thereon. People spent lifetimes following various primates in and out of the rain forest: but it is hard to say whether a chimpanzee is really like a human ancestor, or a baboon is : or is not.

Then in 1997 at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Svante Paabo announced a breakthrough: the actual DNA from inside the mitochondrion of a real (dead) neanderthal. For the very first time here was something tangible, data rich, and available for statistical scrutiny. Now we knew who we were, and who they were. As if that were not enough, in 2009 his team announced a whole Neanderthal genome. Then came immortality: on the floor of a cave in distant Siberia came a tiny bone which Pääbo showed to be a third type of human: the Denisovans. The utter. twisted, anastomosing complexity of the modern human story became clear: and with it the implication that it had always been thus. Giving him the Nobel Prize in 2022 must have been the easiest decision since that monkey in 2001: a space odyssey thought a horse skull might be a good place to land a good thwack.

But the real significance of Svante Pääbo lies deeper. It’s in the observable phenomenon that every so often some genius comes along and turns a field upside down. That every debate, however heated and angry, will one day become futile as more gets found out. It’s like that in all sciences, and a good many non sciences too. The biggest mistake any of us can make is to think we have all the answers. Thanks Svante Pääbo for showing there’s always something new around every corner.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo

#genome #dna #human #neanderthal #anthropology #evolution science

Fear, despair and loathing as the last drops of 20th Century Politics drain away

If ever there was a journalist whom we have learned to take seriously, it is John Harris of the Guardian. He it was, along with film-maker John Domokos , who first went round the people in the heartlands of Britain in the 2010s. And thereby revealed the depths of bewilderment, rage and despair that now lurk ubiquitously just below the surface of our national life. “Anywhere but Westminster” they called their work, revealing the deep cleavage between the formal politics of governance and the real feelings of most voters. His article which we riff on for you today, gentle readers is a neuralgically painful contrast between the increasingly empty rituals of the nation’s leaders and an ever more bloody-minded and fractious populace. [1]

Being a thoughtful sort of chap, Harris goes deeper. suggesting that this explains the sudden rise in the fortunes of formerly small parties such as the Greens, Reform, Plaid Cymru and the others. And the agonising decline in the fortunes of those two stalwarts of 20th Century British politics, the Conservative and Labour Parties. He cites the obvious causes- a stagnated economy, changing identities and “the failures of the various administrations that have run the UK since 2008” And this:

The essential point was made a few days before Reeves’s speech by Luke Tryl, the UK director of the thinktank and research organisation More In Common, and someone with an incisive understanding of where we have arrived. “I still don’t think enough people realise how much traditional mainstream politics is in the last chance saloon, in no small part because it can’t be trusted to deliver what it promises,” he said on X.

Why has every single administration failed to deliver the things people want? Governments in the last century used to deliver quite acceptable levels of health, defence, housing and so on.. Here we move beyond Harris (we never put words in others’ mouths) to our own speculations, touched on in our blog Pity poor Rachel Reeves, LSS 23 10 25, and earlier ones in this vein. Remember how we said every nation state, even the richest, are plagued with such debts and poor economies that they no longer have any room to seriously mitigate the lives of their citizens? That the combined weight of investment capital, expressing its power in things like bond and currency markets, could stymie the efforts of any finance minister? Could it therefore be that the Nation State, which has hitherto served us so successfully, is no longer an effective vehicle to manage the the lives of its citizens? It is a terrifying conjecture: for we have no idea of what may replace it. But one thing we do remember: read everything you can lay your hands on about the collapse of Yugoslavia, and what followed.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/09/21st-century-politics-labour-tories-turbulence-green-party-reform

#nation #country #politics #governance #finance #currency market #bond market #populism

Steve Schifferes Part 2: where the next crash might come from-and the chilling consequences

Photo by John Guccione http://www.advergroup.com on Pexels.com

Our earnest recommendation of the second part of Steve Schirreres’ excellent diptych of articles for The Conversation

As Britain declined after world war one, no other power replaced it with the necessary financial, military and cultural power necessary to avert the political and financial instability that followed. The result was revolution, boom, crash and depression, leading rapidly to the Second World War. “Ah!” we hear you say, “Ah! That could never happen again. Look for example how well the world did to wriggle out of the consequences of the financial crash of 2007-2008!” But that, gentle readers, is to beg the question. For back in those days the world had two shots in its locker which are now fully fired. First, a spirit of co-operation among the great powers which let them co-ordinate rescue plans quickly: and the trust to make them stick. (Schifferes is rather good on this, having had a ringside seat) Now Mr Trump has declared that he will only ever consult American national interest. He may have valid domestic reasons for taking this line; but it will make any recovery from a future recession very much harder indeed.

Secondly, the America of those days still had deep and unrivalled capital markets, which enabled its Federal Reserve to act as a lender of last resort to the whole world. And this is where Schifferes gets really interesting. Firstly he details deep worries about the long term stability the US Bond market and the dollar. Remember- a hegemon needs both bonds and a currency to ensure global stability. Combine this with the threats to the US Stock market( a concern to many commentators at the time of writing) and you have not only the elements for a perfect storm, but no obvious lifeboat to climb into when it strikes.

If you want to know how the world really works, and get some glimpse of where it might be heading, then these articles are a must read. And remember- next time you get cross because the train is late, or service slow in your local restaurant: these troubles may be slight compared to what is coming down the line.

[1]https://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-globalisation-why-the-worlds-next-financial-meltdown-could-be-much-worse-with-the-us-on-the-sidelines-267920?utm_medium=email&utm_campaig

#economics #history #US Bonds #dollar #trade #globalisation

Is Globalisation over? Steve Schifferes worries what comes next

Recently the residents of the Canadian State of Ontario irritated US President Donald Trump by running a series of TV ads showing former President Ronald Reagan disparaging trade tariffs,. Why would such hero of the global Right have taken such a heterodox view? The answer is that Reagan thought that free trade was the best way to distribute prosperity as widely as possible. Under the hegemonic power of the United States of America of course. And he had good evidence for this belief, as Steve Schifferes makes clear in this article for the Conversation.

Schifferes is such a good writer. His sentences are always short and to the point, He keeps away from jargon. Which clarity allows him to range over the last 400 years or so of history tracking the rise and fall of the various powers-China, France, The Netherlands, Britain the USA all of whom aspired to the hegemonic position in world affairs. In the first of two such called The Rise and Fall of Globalisation: the battle to be top dog he comes to one overarching conclusion. Things go better, and the world grows when there is one such dog. The period of British dominance , roughly 1815-1914 was marked by ever closer union of world markets and ever greater flows of capital and people. The American hegemon, roughly lasting from 1944 to 2016 was a second such example. The great problem for the world was that, as Britain stepped down in 1918, the USA did not step up to the plate. Leading to two decades of deep economic and international stability that culminated in the most destructive war in History. This one we shall urge you to read, gentle readers. It not only describes, it explains.

And now? Populists everywhere not only proclaim that globalisation is dead, they actively seek to undermine it wherever possible. Tariffs, restrictions on free movement of goods and people, hostility to learning and science-all indicate the flow of history is one way. Yet populist nationalists can point to one overarching weakness in the globalists argument. The whole system when it worked, depended on the successful nationalism of one nation,the hegemonic power. Their nationalism was a good thing. From which many concluded “if nationalism is a good thing, we want some of it too.” So as the hegemon declines, as America now does precipitously, they will assert their own nationalisms more and more. World war Three anyone?

[1]https://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-globalisation-the-battle-to-be-top-dog-267910

#steve sciffereres #history #economics #trade #USA #war #globalisation