Should we abolish the Profession of Economics?

Poor old Economists! Back before the financial crash they seemed to run the world. They certainly seemed to staff half of all the Banks, Governments, Political parties and NGOs across most of it. Peace and order are what you want, they told us. Free markets, the lowest possible taxes, the lowest possible barriers to the free flow of goods, capital and movement. In this they were essentially following the doctrines of Adam Smith whose Wealth of Nations [1]was the founding principle of their Science. And rightly so: because it all seemed like pretty good advice at the time, didn’t it?

Trouble came on two fronts. The first is causal. The really profound shifts in human wealth are created by new discoveries in Science and Technology. (LSS passim) At the very time that Smith was writing his masterwork, technologists like James Watt were creating new machines of such fundamental power that they absolutely transformed the wealth of the nations that adopted them. However much you argue about taxes, multipliers and currency reserves, none of this can hold a candle to the economic leap unleashed by Maxwell’s equations or the work of Watson and Crick in Biotechnolgy. Goal down to the economists. Even worse these days: no one is listening to them. Intellectually, their prescription of how to get to a better life is impeccable. But in a world inhabited by Homo sapiens, the ethnic identity card will always trump the economic prosperity one. It’s a point we have often made here: and the evidence for it has been overwhelming ever since 2016. Are the poor practitioners of the “dismal science” doomed like so many Cassandras [2] to ever prophesy the truth-and be for ever ignored? Economists nil, Humanity 2 : game over?

But before we really go on to call for the abolition of a profession which has actually nurtured some of the brightest minds in History (Ricado, Keynes, Hayek, Stiglitz………) remember this. The technological changes we talked about take many years, decades even, to be fully adopted. Meanwhile, there’s still and economy to run, so you are going to need a few experts who can tell you what is happening here and now. Who can provide a reality check tell you that adopting ethno-nationalist and populist policies are never good for the long term health of an economy, however good they feel at the time. If you want some detail, this report contains abundant evidence[3] We prefer to offer the example of that Uber ethno nationalist Adolf Hitler: his policies didn’t exactly lead to prosperity much for anyone, neither at home nor abroad, did they? Perhaps we really need more economist not less. Especially in countries which are now adopting ethne nationalist solutions with relentless enthusiasm

[1] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by R. H. Campbell, A. S. Skinner & W. B. Todd. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. ISBN: 978-0865970069 (two‑volume set).

[2] Aeschylus The Oresteian Trilogy Penguin 1959

[3]Funke, Manuel; Schularick, Moritz; Trebesch, Christoph. “Populist Leaders and the Economy.” American Economic Review 113(12) (2023): 3249–88. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20202045.

#economics #populism #science #technology #finance #wealh #identity politics #adolf Hitler #tariffs #immigration #history

Alfred McCoy on the Decline of the American Empire: a truly thought provoking piece

Every so often someone comes along with a piece that seems to capture our thinking, give words to what we have been trying to say, only does it much better than we ever could. Such is today’s showcase article: After America: The Causes and Consequences of US Global Decline by Alfred W. McCoy for the Fair Observer.[1] Clear and succinct, it’s an easy voyage across a vast range of time, empires and continents, and you should read it. So magisterial that we cannot summarise it in this short space; but we hope the following, our personal takeaway, will at least whet your appetite for what is a masterclass in history, and a guide to where it may dump us all next.

In McCoy’s analysis, the American Empire rose to final geostrategic dominance in 1945. Its essential strength lay in manufacturing and energy, which was translated into power via its easy dominance of world finance through such diverse means as the IMF, dollar supremacy and other instruments large and small. Its essential strategic act was to dominate the Eurasian landmass (still the overwhelming centre of world population and production). This was achieved by the plantation of subject allies (NATO at one end, Japan and Taiwan at the other) coupled with unrivalled suzerainty over the world’s sea and air communications: a final culmination of the doctrines of Mahan, another Alfred, who had midwifed much at this empire’s birth.[2]

Generally speaking, 1945–2025 seems to be a good run by contemporary imperial standards. Like other empires, U.S. hegemony waned slowly: the rise of large economic blocs such as the EU, ASEAN and MERCOSUR would gradually erode America’s relative position. But the empire which Donald Trump inherited in 2025 was not only largely intact; it seemed actively to be addressing some of the causes of its decline. Chief among these were energy technologies. For just as the British Empire grew great on coal and steam, to which totems it became wedded, so the American fuel of choice was oil and combustion engines. China saw this and began to prepare for the coming age of green renewables, which are both safer and cheaper than planet‑destroying hydrocarbons. And while America had wasted trillions on futile wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran, China cashed in its IOUs to build the inexpungable Belt and Road across the crucially contested landmass, relegating its rival imperium to a peripheral role.

We think it is unfair to blame Trump and his acolytes for all that has gone wrong: the trajectory of their empire had long since been sent downwards by the decisions of others a quarter of a century before. But in our opinion the stubborn disregard of clean technologies has squandered a precious opportunity for further decades of leadership — and handed that in turn to a power likely to be far less sympathetic to Westerners in general and certain chosen allies in the Middle East and elsewhere. But once again — read the article, we implore you.

[1]After America: The Causes and Consequences of US Global Decline

[2]Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1890.

The reflections above represent our own reading of Alfred W. McCoy’s article “After America: The Causes and Consequences of US Global Decline.” They are offered as fair comment on a work of public interest. Any interpretations, analogies, or historical parallels are our own and should not be taken as McCoy’s views unless directly attributed to him. Readers are warmly encouraged to consult the original article to appreciate the full nuance of his argument.

#USA #China #energy #renewable technologies #history #economics #geostrategy #communications #iran #iraq #oil

Alternatives to a World Government#2: the deep, deep problem with a consumer society

All our breezy prescriptions for a World Government will fail miserably if they don’t address the same problem that the Governments of the Nations are grappling with. And one of the biggest is the widening gap between People and Rulers. Almost within days of arriving in office, the government of our poor namesake Sir Keir Starmer found itself plagued by a deep and inveterate hostility from the voters.

Those same voters demand endlessly lower taxes, then complain bitterly about potholes, weak defence and the lack of capacity in the prison system. They demand an end to red tape and regulation while simultaneously clamouring for restrictions on immigration, the sale of certain drugs, and the use of the internet by minors. Where has such demanding — and self‑contradictory — behaviour come from?

One possible source, we wondered (and at first this was mere speculation), is consumer society. For decades people have been born and raised in a milieu that specialises in gratifying their capricious wants: for sweet foods, for psychologically active substances, and for ever faster ways of travelling towards the next traffic jam. We do not blame companies like Amazon, Netflix or Deliveroo; they have simply perfected trends in a culture a century in the making.

So we asked: do people now demand the same instantly gratifying solutions from politicians that they expect from fast‑food companies?

Readers will be glad to know that help arrived from a much deeper thinker. We came across the work of a remarkable philosopher, Luke Yates, whose book was published in that far‑off year of 2022. Modern society, Luke argues, is based on consumption practices: convenience, speed and instant gratification. If this is how people come to perceive politics, then our outlook is dire indeed.

For, as those of us in the — er — more reflective- elements of the population have known for centuries, politics isn’t like that at all. Its word‑cloud comprises such elements as slow, procedural, available resources, nuance, evidence and above all: choose options. To expect any politician, world emperor or local councillor to wave a magic wand and solve all is to chase mare’s nests and even, dare we say it, bark at the Moon.

Which leads us to a third, depressing metaphor: dead ducks. For if Luke’s thesis is even halfway reasonable, our plan for a World Government will solve absolutely nothing at all.

Oh well. We tried.

Luke Yates (2022), How everyday life matters: everyday politics, everyday consumption and social change, Consumption and Society, 1(1): 144–169.

#world government #luke yates #consumer society #politics#economics #culture

Alternatives to a World Government #1: the deep disease of inequality

Get the diagnosis right, or the ill will never be cured. Thus far, our LSS remedy for the current malaise– economic stagnation, mass migrations, ecological collapse, the utter alienation between rulers and ruled–is the institution of a World Government (LSS passim). But that is a Historian’s diagnosis. What if other viewpoints understand the problem better? If they are right and we are wrong, then our World Government will surely fail. Let’s look at some other possibilities then, starting with our number one candidate: economic inequality. And our Witnesses for the Prosecution, as t’were, are firstly, Thomas Piketty [1] [2] and secondly Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

In Capital in the Twenty‑First Century and Capital and Ideology, Piketty shows that when the rate of return on capital outpaces economic growth — — wealth concentrates faster than societies can redistribute it. The long arc of history is one of repeated “regimes of justification” for inequality, periodically interrupted by shocks (wars, depressions) that force elites to accept progressive taxation and broader social investment. Since the 1980s, most advanced economies have dismantled the egalitarian tax and welfare structures built after 1945, allowing inequality to surge back to levels last seen in the Belle Époque. This produces political fragmentation, democratic fatigue, and a sense that the social contract has frayed. For Piketty, rising inequality is not merely an economic issue — it is a political destabiliser.

Wilkinson and Pickett’s research focuses on the psychosocial consequences of inequality. Their central claim is that what matters for social wellbeing is not absolute wealth but relative position: societies with high income inequality exhibit higher rates of mental illness, mistrust, violence, poor health outcomes, and weakened community life. Inequality, they argue, acts as a chronic stressor, pushing individuals into status competition and eroding the sense of shared fate that healthy societies require They show that wealthy but unequal societies suffer from social pathologies that cannot be explained by poverty alone. Inequality corrodes the emotional infrastructure of everyday life — the ability to trust neighbours, feel secure, and imagine a common future. In their view, rising inequality is not just a symptom of malaise but a generator of it.

So any World Government that does not tackle these deep anomies would either become a castle built on sand, or quickly degenerate into a tyranny defending the same arrangements which have brought the Nations to this present sorry pass. Not an easy argument to overcome, especially when we thought we had it all worked out. And guess what, gentle readers-more demolitions will be inflicted in upon us in the next few episodes of this new series : don’t miss it!

[1]Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty‑First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

[2]Piketty, Thomas. Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

[3]Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Allen Lane, 2009.

[4]Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well‑Being. London: Allen Lane, 2018.

#inequality #economics #history #world government# #politics #society #government

Heroes of Learning: The Master Kong (that’s “Confucius ” to you and me)

The most grievous defect of our Heroes of Learning series is that up to now, it has focussed almost entirely on subjects and thinkers from the Western Tradition. Which defect grows from our immersion in a cultural and educational system which has assumed that only Westerners ( and those being, largely, white men) have anything worthwhile to say on matters of philosophy and governance. A conceit cruelly exposed by current developments, especially in nations which have long nurtured independent traditions. Time then, with our world readership to look at other systems and thinkers. And we can think of no better place to start than The Master Kong(“Confucius” in the western tradition) who lived in the China’s Spring and Autumn Period probably between about 551 and 479 BC, making him a near predecessor of such western sages as Plato and Aristotle.[1]

Unlike those refined thinkers, Kong spent a lifetime in the dangerous hurly burly of government service, experiencing wars, coups and even a period of exile. It made him ask above all ”what is the basis for a stable social order? How can the state be made harmonious with the people?” To westerners all the way from Plato through Enlightenment philosophers to moderns such as Rawls, the answer has always been: “ reform the laws; and: institute a just constitution.” But for Master Kong, no set of laws, no constitution can long survive the actions of a venal and unstable ruler. For centuries, westerners seemed to have the answers. But recent experience of leaders who mistake authority for wisdom, bureaucracies that reward compliance over candour, and publics that lose trust when officials and private corporations behave without integrity, have shown this arrogance to be profoundly mistaken. Confucius inverts all: he insists that the State cannot exist without ethical leadership, truthful counsel and restraint. His Analects[2] [3] (actually compiled by his followers after his death exalt character, duty and wisdom as the basis for this stable State. And that these virtues must first of all be prized and cultivated by the leader and his counsel, before any other men will follow them

These teachings have been rediscovered and re-invented many times, becoming interwoven into the warp and weft of Chinese civilisation. They still inform the actions and thinking of leading statesmen to this day. The world has need of harmony and just order now. The prizes of attaining them are almost within grasp. The penalty of failing to do so will be lethal indeed. Has the world still time to learn from The Master Kong?

[1] Confucius – Wikipedia

[2]Confucio – Analectas, trad. Anne‑Hélène Suárez Girard, Editorial Trotta, Madrid, 2012.

[3]Edward Slingerland – Analects of Confucius: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries, Hackett Publishing, 2003.

#master kong #confucius #china #civilisation #order #law #governance #state #anarchy #politics

Friday Night: Canadian Cocktails

“Canada : it’s a country where scale, sanity, and scenery all conspire in the traveller’s favour. You get cities that hum without overwhelming you — Vancouver’s ocean‑and‑mountain glamour, Montréal’s café‑soaked charm, Toronto’s multicultural thrum — and then, ten minutes later, you’re in a forest so vast it feels like a thought experiment. Lakes the size of small nations, wildlife that treats humans as mildly interesting background noise, and a national temperament that is unfailingly polite without being saccharine. For the holidaymaker, it’s the rare place where you can have adventure without chaos, wilderness without hardship, and culture without crowds.”

All of the preceding has been recently confirmed by first hand reports which have just reached us. In fact, the two travellers concerned (plus wives) so very much enjoyed the place that we thought we’d salute their achievements by penning a hymn of praise to Canadian cocktails. And to save time we are going to link you directly to some brilliant experts called My Bartender [1] who have compiled a list of no less than eight (count ‘em- eight!) delicious recipes, including how to make them, how to serve them, and above all how to enjoy them, whether you are touring the Maple Leaf Land itself, or sitting somewhere altogether more cramped like these sweaty offices in Croydon. Read their outpourings now to learn more about the eponymous Canadian Cocktail, the Maple Leaf (how Canadian is that?),the Canadian Maple Leaf old fashioned(answer: even more so) The White Canadian (must be good up on the snows of Baffin Island) The French Canadian (we say “oui” to that), JP Wisers Apple Jam’n (sounds as if it could soothe the savagest sasquatch) The Strawberry Sour(ditto a bear) and finally the Canadian Caesar( not to be confused with the American Caesar-he is become so tiresome lately)

And we hope that by sipping just one of the above you you will get some taste of this glorious country which our correspondents enjoyed so very much

By the way: do not really attempt to soothe actual bears with cocktails. They have their own views on mixology and tend to become prickly and stand offish at even small frustrations

_{Thanks to P Seymour and G Herbert}

[1] 8 Best Canadian Cocktails to Drink

#cocktails #canada #travel #rocky mountains #holidays

Brexit: how two Rights made a wrong

Photo by Duu0161an Cvetanoviu0107 on Pexels.com

Brexit could have worked. Read those words slowly, from an honest Remainer. Because as some of us always knew, there were pragmatic arguments from the other side, which we feared greatly, because they were exceedingly strong. So how is that most successful political project in recent British History now seems to have fallen so flat? Why, ten years on, do the memories of Brexit feel far from triumphant? We repeat, so that no one gets us wrong: Brexit could have worked. And this is why we think it didn’t.

The overarching problem was that the Leave coalition was built from two groups who wanted entirely different futures. Both were impeccably Right Wing. Both were possessed a vision of a future that could well have worked. But both pressed the same “Brexit “ button for opposite reasons. Because they belonged to two quite different right-wing tribes. One tribe, The Free‑marketeers dreamed of a Britain unshackled from Brussels, a nimble “Singapore‑on‑Thames”: low taxes, light regulation, capital flowing freely, goods moving frictionlessly, and a labour market kept competitive by high mobility. Their model required openness — to investment, to trade, and, crucially, to people. What can be more red tape than Immigration controls? But it might have been very, very prosperous.

The other half of the coalition wanted the exact reverse. The Nationalists imagined their Brexit as a chance to pull up the drawbridge: to instigate tighter immigration rules, more insulation from global competition, to achieve a more interventionist state protecting industries and communities. Some were driven by economic insecurity, some by cultural anxiety, and yes — some by outright hostility to outsiders, seeing Brexit as a way to begin a purge of “foreigners” from public life. Their model required barriers, buffers, and a powerful State willing to police identity as much as borders. It was a vision of national retreat, not global acceleration. But it might have been very, very stable.

These two projects could not coexist beyond Brexit day. You cannot believe in the free movement of capital and goods while fleeing, like a child at bathtime, from the free movement of labour. Markets do not work that way. Block labour and capital simply moves instead; block people and goods compensate; block both and you get the stagnation we now inhabit. Brexit tried to fuse two rights — the right to globalise and the right to barricade — and produced a wrong. A decade later, the contradiction still sits at the heart of British politics, unresolved and unresolvable, because the country cannot be both fortress and freeport at the same time. Deep, deep down, the question is not about Europe, nor taxes nor even immigration rules: all are details It is What do you want to be going forwards?

‘I feel entirely vindicated’: three Guardian columnists debate Brexit and its legacy | Aditya Chakrabortty, Polly Toynbee and Simon Jenkins | The Guardian The Economic Impact of Brexit | NBER

#brexit #united kingdom #european union #economics #history #nationalism #free markets

Should we blame Alan Greenspan for everything that’s gone wrong?

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

As historians of the future pick through the rubble of America’s decline and fall after its supreme triumph in 1991, they will ask one plaintive question: “How was such a winning position thrown away so decisively — and so quickly?” There will be plenty of blame to go around, plenty of suspects against whom fingers will be pointed. But one name keeps coming up again and again: Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006.

Today, the case for the prosecution against “ol’ Al” is made loudly, cogently, and with devastating clarity by Robert Reich, US Secretary of Labor under Clinton and now a professor at Berkeley.

We really think you should read this [1] — especially if you have a home, a family, a community, and, most pertinently of all, a job where the salary has not risen significantly in twenty years or so. But for those pressed for time, Reich summarises what he sees as Greenspan’s masterpiece of misjudgement thus:

“If any single person was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008, it was Greenspan… the worst collapse since 1929… resulted from the deregulation of Wall Street that Greenspan advocated.”

“He pushed Clinton and Congress to repeal the Glass–Steagall Act, which since the 1930s had separated investment banking from commercial banking, thereby preventing banks from gambling with personal savings. He also argued vigorously against regulating derivatives — essentially financial bets on financial bets — that later proved to be weapons of mass financial destruction.”

Yet we ask: is the culprit really Greenspan? Or is it actually ourselves?

Greenspan was widely regarded by critics as an enthusiastic advocate of the ultra‑rich and the values they espouse: hierarchy, conspicuous consumption, obsessive individualism. Whether these are virtues or vices is a matter of debate — but they were adopted enthusiastically by wide sections of the population for decades, making the task of Greenspan and his Wall Street fellow‑travellers infinitely easier.

For the ultimate illusion they peddled was Common Sense: it makes sense to reduce the deficit, for what is a nation but a giant household? Well, it is a bit — but mostly it isn’t. So things like infrastructure, research, and health go into the “nice‑but‑we‑can’t‑afford‑it” ledger too many times, and slowly but surely decline acquires a momentous, unstoppable hegemony of its own.

So don’t just blame Greenspan — blame ourselves for buying into a system that puts that sort of man into that sort of job. And hope that future societies develop much more judicious HR policies.

[1] RIP Alan Greenspan: you were charming, powerful and wrong | Robert Reich | The Guardian

#business #economics #united states of America #alan greenspan #robert reich #finance #markets

Friday: Greek rosé wines corner

When we asked our team of researchers what Greece, and Greek culture, have given to the world, they came up with this:

Homer epic poetry Hesiod didactic poetry Sappho lyric poetry Pindar odes Aeschylus tragedy Sophocles tragedy Euripides tragedy Aristophanes comedy Herodotus history Thucydides history Xenophon history Plato philosophy Aristotle philosophy Socrates ethics Diogenes Cynicism Zeno Stoicism Epicurus Epicureanism Pythagoras mathematics Euclid geometry Archimedes physics engineering Eratosthenes geography Hipparchus astronomy Aristarchus heliocentrism Anaximander cosmology Democritus atomism Hippocrates medicine Galen medicine Herophilus anatomy Ptolemy astronomy geography Phidias sculpture Praxiteles sculpture Polykleitos sculpture Ictinus architecture Callicrates architecture Mnesicles architecture Parthenon architecture Athenian democracy political theory Solon lawgiver Cleisthenes reforms Pericles statesmanship Alexander the Great empire‑building Hellenistic science Alexandria library Septuagint translation Byzantine theology Cappadocian Fathers Orthodox liturgy Hagia Sophia architecture Procopius history Anna Komnene history Photios scholarship Cyril and Methodius Slavic literacy Byzantine diplomacy Greek fire military technology Cretan Renaissance literature El Greco painting Rigas Feraios nationalism Adamantios Korais Enlightenment Greek War of Independence Philhellenism modern Greek state Venizelos diplomacy Cavafy poetry Seferis poetry Elytis poetry Kazantzakis literature Theodorakis music Hadjidakis music Papandreou political thought Onassis shipping Greek diaspora scholarship modern Greek cinema modern Greek science modern Greek shipping global Greek cuisine Mediterranean diet.

“Ah,” we countered, but they never invented cocktails!” But they did have-no, do have- some fine rosé wines. So to counter this obvious aching gap in Greek culture we sent those same researchers off to create a short but very handy guide to three Greek Rosés, priced to all pockets, which could make for some delicious refreshments if it gets as hot as we think it might get hot in this El Niño summer. (See LSS 5 6 26)

£8–£10 — Kourtaki Retsina Rosé (Attica)

Often found in larger Tesco or Sainsbury’s stores, depending on region. Dry, light, herbal, very Greek, very summery. (If your local doesn’t stock it, M&S sometimes carries a Greek rosé under its “Found” range.)

£12–£14 — Mylonas Rosé (Mandilaria/Agiorgitiko, Attica)

Available from The Wine Society, Waitrose Cellar, and several independents. A proper step up: strawberry, pomegranate, a little herb; beautifully balanced.

£18–£22 — Gaia 14–18h Rosé (Agiorgitiko, Nemea)

A cult bottle. Stocked by Berry Bros. & Rudd, The Wine Society, and good Greek specialists. Serious rosé: pale Provençal style but with Greek backbone and minerality.

Sorry if they forgot Demis Roussos

With thanks to Mrs MF of Bridport, Dorset

#wine #greece #hellenic #rosé #holiday #demis roussos

Thomas Piketty thinks he has a way out of the mess: but do we know enough to take it?

Given the simultaneous polycrises we’re now immersed in, it’s always poignant to come across a report that offers possible ways out. So when another such is unearthed, this time by Jonathan Watts of the Guardian, [1]we were particularly intrigued. Partly because it covers some the same tropes we have circled around here ( Justice; LSS 24 4 23 et seq : Inequality: LSS 16 9 25 and governance; LSS 16 1 25 et seq) And partly because one of the report’s moving spirits is the great Historian and economist Thomas Piketty, whose name has also graced these pages. [2]

Living standards can rise for all, the authors asseverate. The worst of climate change may be mitigated. Political and social tensions ameliorated. The key is to tax the small group of billionaires who control most of the world’s wealth and power. While at the same time redirecting investment away from carbon heavy industries such as construction, mining and manufacturing and towards education and healthcare. The new world they envisage would have a shorter working week, be more prosperous (the lowest universal income quartile would come in around $5000 per annum) and above all be ecologically stable. Hyper capitalist consumers and green neo-puritans come in for equal criticism. Both endless consumption and austerity hair shirts are unfeasible say Piketty and co. Sufficiency is their new lodestar for their intriguing (dare we think Whiggish?) Third way. [3][4][5]

And our thoughts? We think the report’s careful scholarship and refreshing new thoughts are clear already. Its recommendations are both sanguine and rational and would undoubtedly contribute to a more tolerable world. But: they run up against what in everyday language is called human nature and in Social Identity Theory comparative advantage. Most people would rather live in a world where they had £10 and their neighbour £5 rather than one in which they had £15 and that neighbour £13, as their relative social advantage is better in the first instance than the second. That, in a nutshell is the human weakness.[6] It suggests that groups enjoying relative social advantage will fight like tom cats to maintain it against inferior groups, rather than join with them to their common benefit. Particularly if they are well funded to do so by sympathetic billionaires who thereby ensure their own supreme advantage over all. This is human instinct. In theory we could overcome it. Have we the cognitive capacity to do so?

[1]‘An equal and habitable world is possible’: academics set out sweeping vision for planetary survival | Environment | The Guardian

[2]Thomas Piketty – Wikipedia

[3]World Inequality Conference 2026 – World Inequality Lab

[4]World Inequality Report 2026

[5]Global Justice Project

[6] Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3), 1999, pp. 817–868.

#economics #climate change #inequalty #social justice #tax #education #decarbonisation