A Common Law for the World? Henry 11 Part One: the idea

When Henry II became King of England in 1154 he faced a situation of almost insuperable difficulty. The country had been wrecked by 19 years of violent civil war (think Sudan or Congo for modern parallels) The warring baronial armies had not gone away. How could law and order be restored when the country was a network of local loyalties? A patchwork of legal jurisdictions-Shire courts, Hundreds, Manorial courts, even Church courts with their own law, seemed to govern every aspect of life. Yet Henry and his jurists came up with a solution, as much by feeling their way toward it as by grand design. It was called Common Law, and it eventually resulted in a new legal system for a new sort of country, which came to claim more loyalty than the local ones that that had gone before

So what is Common Law? And how does it differ from top-down Statute Law proclaimed, for example by Emperors like Justinian or Napoleon? Common Law grew from judicial decisions. Judges settled individual cases; later judges followed the precedents. Over time a body of law emerged that no one person had designed, yet everyone could increasingly rely upon.

Henry was taking a radical step. In the Middle Ages most Kings and other rulers dictated their Laws and expected obedience, enforcing them with armed force where necessary. Henry certainly did this: but he also saw his duty to enforce the new Common Law as well. He was no philosopher king. But he understood something important: if everyone in England was subject to the same law, prosperity and order would follow. It was a bold idea. The difficult part was making it real. In the next part of the series we shall see how this remarkable man accomplished that.

[1] Code of Justinian – Wikipedia

[2] Napoleonic Code – Wikipedia

#justinian #napoleon #statute law #common law #trade #finance # justice #cutom #history #society

Can Mr Trump make America make again?

How is Mr Trump’s attempt to restore America’s lost industrial might proceeding? We can’t say overall. But this excellent piece of reporting by Gillian Tett of the Financial Times shines a spotlight on one corner of the Great Man’s project: the pledge to restore a home-grown supply of semiconductor chips, all made in the USA. Once more we urge you to pay your way across the wall: [1] Because we think the article has implications for another one of our favourite tropes: the difficulty of reconciling Nationalism with a belief in Free Markets. But that’s our take, more of which below

WHAT GILLIAN TETT SAYS

Basically, the Pledge is running into all sorts of problems. For one thing, only about 17% of suitably qualified US graduates go into companies that make the chips: the rest seem to prefer almost anything else, a situation which contrasts unfavourably with countries like South Korea and Taiwan. Another is the President’s much vaunted system of tariffs: The CCIA (Computer and Communications Industry Association) has complained that these will significantly increase the costs of building all those new plants which Trump so ardently desires. But the real problem is the supply of skilled labour. With a deficit figure of approximately 175 000 it’s a lot more serious than a football club needing a couple of new strikers. So what to do? They might import skilled workers-but this would run into ferocious opposition from Trump’s MAGA base for whom immigration is the touchstone issue. How about letting some overseas graduates stay on? Runs into the same brick wall. They could try a major reboot of Industrial Policy. Taking a 10% stake in Intel is a tentative step already: but all the evidence suggests that firms seasoned in the hyper competitive, winner-takes- all world of Free Markets don’t always seem to co-operate well together. There’s a lot more in the article, but that’s what stood out for us.

WHAT WE SAY

And why did it stand out? Well, hardened veterans of this blog will recall two of our former posts. One The Kronenburg Question(LSS 7 6 22) highlighted the deep ethical and philosophical questions about ordering a pint of lager, especially for ardent nationalists who wish to build up their own country’s identity and industries. The other, Is Donald Trump a Socialist? (LSS 7 4 25) wryly observed that, whatever his motives, the President was for practical purposes adopting measures formerly advocated by die hard Lefties such as Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill. An implication which would doubtless dismay him, and many of his supporters. Tett’s report suggests that Trump is trying to be both a Free Market Liberal and an economic Nationalist at the same time. We admit one can be a Nationalist: it is an honourable tradition. Or that one can be a Free Market Liberal: an equally honourable calling. But no one can be both for long.

[1] Gillian Tett Why Trump’s Tech dreams are quietly crumbling Financial Times 31 10 26 Subscribe to read

#david ricardo #free markets #IT #AI #manufacturing #silicon chips #semiconductors ##economics #tariffs #immigration #technology #Gillian Tett #Taiwan

A Common Law for the World? Part one of a new series

We’ve done quite a few blogs on a possible World Government (LSS passim) And one of the commonest objections we receive is “Nice idea, mate-but how’s it meant to actually work? And our interlocutors rightly point to a very substantial problem. The existing world is chock full of codes, laws, guidelines ethical systems and regulations. Some are national, some religious, some political in origin, often with wildly different interpretations of what is right and wrong. Moreover, all address a very real need: “we want to make our laws that govern us, here, now for ourselves” It is one of the most powerful human instincts: certainly one of the neuralgic driving forces in History and has always existed. As have tribes, nations and religious sects. And oddly enough that is what gave us hope. Because History shows there is at least one way to bring different groups of people together and persuade them to work for their mutual benefit, under a shared system of law.

It’s understandable that people living in some distant province made resent the imposition of law codes made up for them in a remote, snooty imperial capital. Sometimes these laws may be just and rational: but even then, they may not meet the needs and wants of locals. And at other times the law codes may be crass, insensitive and oppressive indeed. But there is another method to create a common legal system which people may accept over large areas. Even when they believe themselves to be very different in language, nation and ethnic affiliation. It is called Common Law. And in this series, we shall be examining it to see if it could be the solution to the central problem of a World Government: how to get everyone to agree to a common system of Justice, even when they start with very different ideas as to what that Justice may be.

We’ll look at what we mean by Common Law. And how a Medieval King called Henry II used it to unite the fractured war-torn regions of England into a successful united kingdom which has persisted until today We’ll see if we can make any modern tries at the lessons he and his judges learned. If anyone else is trying this in practice now, in 2026. And above all how codes of law can be created gradually and by consent. Above all, we are not doing this out of starry eyed idealism, nor do we believe in a Better Society. We are too old and two Whiggish to place much faith in improvements in human nature. But we do think the way we live now would be both safer and more convenient if there were less barriers to trade, less cause for murderous warfare and above all the deep and stable capital markets which a single world trading system would bring. We’ll start with the life and times of Henry II, King of England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou Maine and Touraine. Quite a job description- and we will find out how he did it.

[1]Henry II of England – Wikipedia

#law #world government #henryII #codified Law #common law #history #trade #commerce #statute #england #middle ages #Roman law

How Jonathan Haidt destroyed our world view -and how PG Wodehouse put it back together for us

One thing we’ll say for Jonathan Haidt-he writes well. Not only is his masterwork The Righteous Mind [1]one of those books everyone should read, it’s one of the few on that list you actually can read with pleasure. But that’s exactly the problem, gentle readers, For Professor Haidt writes so clearly, so learnedly, so elegantly that he has utterly destroyed our world view(and we haven’t even finished yet) Allow us to explain.

Astute readers will recall our proud boast that this is a Whig website. You know the score-heirs of the Enlightenment, one day Reason and Learning will triumph over the brutish simian instincts of the human psyche, and we will all move forward to sunlight uplands-all white buildings, big lawns and everyone living to 100 and discussing Philosophy, that sort of thing. Not so fast, cautions Professor Haidt. In fact he pretty conclusively demolishes that worldview and still has time for some good puzzles. For him, the relationship between the two bits of the mind is like that between a huge powerful elephant (the unconscious) and a rather nervous little rider (the rational educated bit) whose principal job is to explain reasons to justify why the unconscious bit has just made its latest blunder (think sex ,food and heavy drinking) or got into its latest scrape(think wearing a blue jacket with jeans) “Is this the end?” we cried-did Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Bacon, Spinoza and Bertrand Russell all live in vain? Are we now condemned by our own nature to a life of burning witches, eating at fast food joints and committing unspeakable blunders in the way we vote in certain referendums?

And suddenly we thought-someone else worked out a survival plan for all this over one hundred years ago-and that man was PG Wodehouse.[2] For what is Bertie Wooster if not the elephant: an impulsive, pleasure seeking socially anxious but basically decent sort of chap-the powerful one with the money, but “mentally negligible” in the words of Jeeves, his faithful manservant and amanuensis? Who is the thinking one, the planning one, the one with foresight who manages to extract Bertie (and chums) from scrape after scrape, and somehow keep the show on the road. And at that point we ceased to worry: its been riders and elephants all along, or at least Berties and Jeeveses (is that a correct plural?-ed) And we’re all still here.

So maybe Haidt is our own Jeeves, for the rational community as t’were. And in the long run, it’s always better to learn the way things really are, rather than how we would like them to be. Haidt is a very good guide to that-right up there with Wodehouse in fact.

[1]Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012

[2]Wodehouse, P. G. The World of Jeeves. London: Arrow Books, 2023.

#philosophy #psychology #Jonathan Haidt #PG Wodehouse #neurology #reason #Enlightenment #Hume

Could AI allow developing countries to by pass the twentieth century altogether?

Could AI transform the lives and prospects of the world’s poor so quickly that they reach the standards of advanced countries in decades, rather than the centuries needed according to many gloomy predictions? The indefatigable Heather Stewart of the Guardian reports on a study by the World Bank [2] which suggests it just might.[1] According to the Bank’s Chief Knowledge Officer (can we get him for the quiz team?-ed), if AI is adapted correctly:

“……… economic development in the countries ……. that could have taken centuries …… the potential is there for …… economic development now to happen within decades,”

He (and Heather) channel the example of poor Indian farmers, for whom locally adapted AI on their phones could substitute for the kinds of advisors, scientists and agrarian experts they would never expect to meet in a lifetime. We have no doubt that readers as alert as you will now have no trouble spotting many more such possibilities.

Because we think that there’s something much more profound going on here. Veteran readers will recall our earlier blog Solar Power a Ray of Sunshine in dark Times(LSS 3 9 26) showcasing the work of FT journalist Simon Kuper who pointed out how solar power was allowing African countries to leapfrog decades of development by allowing them to bypass all the immense power grids and communication networks and all the other immensely expensive hardware which the G7 countries spent most of the twentieth century installing. But it wasn’t just pylons: they built a whole network of universities, agricultural ministries, and many other such institutions which powered their economies ahead. If solar power and now AI can allow that massive investment to become unnecessary, then the poorer economies could catch up in decades indeed.

And what a day that might be, gentle readers! Suddenly there would be no need for mass migrations, because who would choose to leave one rich country for another? New markets of prosperous consumers would open around the world: people will still buy something, even if it’s not sugary foods and high-pollution cars. And all the evidence convinces us that as prosperity rises, fertility falls, meaning vast areas could be turned over again to planet-resuscitating rewilding. We hope this Chief Knowledge Officer really does know his stuff. If he does, and if Heather Stewart’s optimism is justified, then this could be one of the most encouraging stories we have read for some time.

[1]World Bank says ‘small AI’ could transform developing countries | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian

[2] Who We Are: Our Mission to End Poverty | World Bank Group

#Articial Intelligence #India #agriculture #development #poverty #world bank #simon kuper #heather stewart #solar power #economics

Owen Jones on why everything has gone wrong for the West (And why we think it proves this blog right)

In 1994 Wayne Merry was a Senior Political Officer at the US Embassy in Moscow. Those were heady days for the US and the West in general. The terrifying hydra of Soviet Communism had recently been slain. The world was open to free markets, hypercapitalism and democracy; the Good Side had won. It was the end of History-or so it seemed. Merry thought differently. In between distributing cash to starving Russians in the streets, he observed that the Russian economy was incapable of sustaining the radical reforms prescribed for it by self-confident western Experts. That the idea of Democracy was already in serious trouble, and that extremists and strongmen who could restore order to the utter chaos were already on the rise. Instead of being heeded, he was made persona non grata, his cable buried until 2024. Though we suspect it made interesting reading in Ukraine upon its final release.

Such is the tale told by Owen Jones in his Guardian article The West is in Freefall…… [1] which we heartily recommend you to read. Not because it is so utterly hard hitting and trenchant ( it is both) but because we think it has something to say about the intellectual blindness and moral complacency which allowed the triumphant position of 1991 to be transformed into the catastrophic mess of today. We don’t always agree with Owen Jones, gentle readers: but this time he is most certainly on to something. And we agree with his diagnosis: the central sins of our rulers were the ancient ones of Pride and Greed. Here are two devastating, almost killer quotes

Russia had to move towards “our way of doing things,” said Strobe Talbott, President Bill Clinton’s main Russia adviser. If that sounded like “an obnoxious confirmation of our doctrine of exceptionalism”, his answer was simple: “Well, tough. That’s us; that’s the US. We are exceptional.”

Western economies were not starved of wealth: they were increasingly organised to extract it rather than invest it. As the economist Mariana Mazzucato told me, 80% of British finance now flows back into finance, insurance and real estate. Western economies became increasingly good at rewarding ownership, but increasingly bad at building the productive foundations on which prosperity depends.

We are sure Owen’s forthcoming book will have many more examples and supporting evidence [2]

And our take? We know you like us to riff on showcased articles, independently of what their author has stated. It is this: Owen goes a long way to diagnose the root causes of our disgrace. But diagnoses are much easier than prescriptions. It has to be noted that just about every system of organising human societies eventually comes up with failures as lamentable as those of the Washington consensus and hyper financialisation. And that many of the problems we face today-climate change, re-location of industrial production , mass migrations- are as much as result of technological change as of any one political system. Which implies that the world is so small and interconnected that a single unitary world authority is now both essential and feasible. But you have read that many time s here before.

[1] The west is in freefall – and the worst part is that we were warned, but chose not to listen | Owen Jones | The Guardian

[2]Owen has a new book out on October 1^st The Fall of the West: How They Really Lost It. We shall buy it. We hope you will too!

#russia #usa #hypercapitalism #free markets #democracy #social democracy #owen jones #maria Mazzucato #financialisation

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

Chinese success : some harsh lessons for many countries

We often showcase the Guardian’s Larry Elliott. not just because he’s good at economics (he is), but also because his articles have a way of illuminating a much broader range of human life including Geopolitics and History to name but a few. And we think today’s called China’s demise was gleefully predicted by the West-but meanwhile it’s built an AI Revolution Is a prime example. As usual, we provide a brief summary of Larry’s main points, accompanied by the earnest imploration for you to read it for yourself. Followed as ever by our own take: thoughts which the article has stimulated in the minds of the Editorial Board of LSS, its staff, and that contract bloke who does the cleaning.

LARRY SAYS

For decades, western experts have been confidently predicting the failure of the Chinese economic model. The Chinese, their wisdom ran, were overindebted, overinvested, over reliant on the property market and didn’t have enough democracy. Even when China began to do well at low level manufacturing it would never, they asseverated, catch the West’s lead in high tech manufacturing and industries of the future. But what has happened? Now the Chinese are leading the world on renewable energy technologies. They don’t even have to import machine tools from Germany, which we find especially significant. As for AI; their models and technologies are breathing down the necks of the leading American corporations. With dire risks to the current US stock market boom, perhaps even to the global balance of power itself. All in all, pretty significant stuff. Which leads us to think:

WHAT WE SAY

Let’s start by looking at how Larry thinks China achieved all this:

When China began to build up its manufacturing strength almost 50 years ago, it saw itself as a developing country. It had no illusions about the scale of the challenge but had a plan and stuck to it. There was no aversion to picking winners. Nor would the strategy be left exposed to the whims of speculators. Instead, there was a willingness to use all the policy tools available: subsidies, tariffs, exchange controls and state investment.

We remember how these were the very years western nations were taking the opposite route. Remember the Washington Consensus, Thatcherism, Monetarism, whatever you want to call it? Free markets were good, it held: and anything the State did was, by definition bad. So: cut taxes, cut regulations, abolish all industrial policy and above all keep labour costs low. If that meant outsourcing jobs to China, what the hey-it would keep those pesky unions in check, wouldn’t it? Nowhere was this policy more rigorously applied than in Great Britain, which has seen itself slide from manufacturing power base to a small offshore island living on tick, whose inhabitants wander bewilderedly through the remains of their past like the impoverished heirs to a squandered fortune.

Yet Britain’s story is the whole West’s really, only more so. We want the western nations to survive, really we do: they represent so much in the common patrimony of humankind. But if they are to do so they must stop thinking like spoiled brats, and start to think like developing nations once more. To learn a little humility, in fact.

China’s demise was gleefully predicted by the west – meanwhile, it built an AI revolution | Larry Elliott | The Guardian

#china #USA #UK #economics #technology #history #AI #manufacturing #trade #industrial policy

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

Bond market worries: is America beginning to go the way of Spain and Britain?

Good morning gentle readers and welcome to another week in which we shall together learn even more about Science and Society. We’ll concentrate on the Society bit today, via economics. Because when two minds as acute as Katy Martin of the Financial Times[1] and Heather Stewart of the Guardian[2] coincide, we suspect that Society may be unravelling rather fast indeed.

WHAT KATY AND HEATHER SAY Both highlight disquieting instability in the US Bond Markets, particularly long term US Treasuries..Remember: this is the key metric by which foreigners judge a country’s future soundness and judgement, it filters out the short-term sound bites of spokespersons, and foxes the spins of friendly media. For US bonds, the outlook is becoming troubling. Yields are rising. And every intervention by Mr Bessent, however well intended, only seems to be making the markets ever more uneasy about US policy signals. What’s worse, all this worry seems to be bleeding into the dollar, the sheet anchor of the world financial system. We should be clear: Bessent is firefighting. The long‑term debt is not his creation, nor his remit. That belongs to Congress and the Presidency, and currently neither seems willing to confront the colossal $40 trillion IOU .Ok, financial ladies summarised :here follows our own gloss.

WHAT WE SAY Well, ever since the 1890s US Treasuries and the dollar have been the rock-solid anchors of the world economy. It’s like that when a superpower is at its peak. Everybody wants your currency: which in turn makes you strong because if you own the reserve currency, you can keep issuing in it long after everyone else runs out. Think the gold and silver backed currencies of Imperial Spain at its zenith, and the enormous role of Sterling and the Bank of England’s gold reserves before 1914. The first signs that these Empires were in decline was series of financial crises. Spain’s manifested themselves as a series of bankruptcies under Philip II and his successors. British readers will recall the interminable series of financial and balance of payments meltdowns -1914, 1931, 1940, 1947, 1956, 1967, 1976-are just the most outstanding as their own Empire declined from world hegemon to just another country in Europe.

Which begs the question: is America about to go the same way? Perhaps, but with some caveats. Firstly this is August and there are always some funny trades around in a quieter month. Secondly AI is competing mightily for funds in the capital markets, putting a squeeze on sovereign debt. And do not forget: this is still only a trend, America still has enormous economic potential. There is still time to elect a different Chief Executive and a different group of lawmakers to undo some of the damage of the last 20 months or so. But the warning from the ladies’ articles is clear: the margin for error is starting to narrow fast.

[1]Bossing the bond market around never works For once an FT article not behind a paywall, huzzah!

[2]Jumpy bond markets make it clear: Trump risks driving US into debt crisis | Heather Stewart | The Guardian

[3] Decline of Spain – Wikipedia

[4] British Empire – Wikipedia

#Scott bessent #US treasury bonds #financial crisis #dollar #imerial spain #imperial Britain #economics #finance #geopolitics