Black Universities: a source of untapped potential

“The trouble with racism is that it means second-rate people in first rate jobs.” These words, once spoken casually to us, are the real basis of our opposition to discrimination of all kinds: It’s inefficient; it’s not in the long term interests of the oppressor. All societies suffer from hierarchy and ethnic hatreds, But was saddest of all to see the United States of America, born in such enlightenment, to be so disfigured by this most ancient weakness of the human mind. One attempt to counter this was the establishment of Historically Black Universities and Colleges, which aimed to provide some higher education for students who were excluded from white institutions. They have been around for a long time, and you would have thought by now that the penny would have dropped: “this is a fantastic source of underused potential which could benefit us all, especially now that China is treading on our cowboy heels”. Well, read this and think again: Unshackle Historically Black Universities in Nature Briefing

Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the United States “are producing world-class research and record numbers of Black scientists with one hand tied behind our backs and shackles on our ankles” because of “consistent, drastic underfunding” compared to institutions established to educate white students, writes evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves Jr. “For example, my research group alone has produced more Black women with PhDs in microbial evolution in the past five years than the rest of the country has in the past five decades.” Graves calls on industry, philanthropists and individuals to shore up weakening government support for HBCUs, minority-serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities.Nature | 10 min read

It’s not that we especially like black people ,or white people, or any ethnic, religious or social group . Quite the opposite, most of the time, for most of them. Nor are we especially compassionate or just, as far as we know. But we do regard all forms of generalised prejudice as a debility of the human mind, like the propensities to gamble, drink to excess, or indulge in concupiscent and promiscuous sexual practices. (that’s a polite way to put it!-ed) All of these errors waste time and money which in the long run would make us wiser, happier and safer. Let’s see if anyone does anything about these colleges.

#HBUCs #education #prejudice #racism #supercilious #economics #USA

You are now living in a completely new world-but don’t let that spoil the weekend

The English Wars of the Roses (1450-1485) were savage bloody affairs. Forget all the costumes and Shakespearean poetry: the dynastic struggles of York and Lancaster really mattered at the time, and as late as Elizabeth 1 , the succeeding Tudor Dynasty lived in constant fear that a Plantagenet claimant might reignite the struggle. Now fast forward 80 years or so to the English Civil War, an even more sanguinary and passionate affair. No one cared in the slightest who was a Yorkist or a Tudor. You might as well have talked about Romans and Carthaginians for all the relevance it had at Marston Moor. Over, gone, forgotten.

Here’s another thought. Growing out of that civil war came a rivalry between Crown and Parliament that lasted for well over a hundred years, and twice exploded into violent war in the Jacobite rebellions (1715 and 1745) The leader of the second rebellion, called Bonnie Prince Charlie by some, lingered in exile until 1788. Read that last date carefully. Because the next year was the start of the French Revolution, unleashing a series of global changes so far reaching and dramatic that the world would never be the same again. Would anyone at Trafalgar, Waterloo or even in the British House of Commons, have tried to map their experiences onto a template provided by the Bonny Prince?

Our present age lasted from the Second World War until the second election of Donald Trump. It’s founding myth was 1940: gallant Britain battled alone until the mighty United States arrived to tip the scales decisively for the forces of freedom and goodness. After the war the benefits of Anglo-Saxon order were spread to places like Europe and Japan. It was good while it lasted. People kept gardens, obsessed with sport, brought hundreds of bright new shiny things and believed themselves to be clever and happy and free. Many thought it ws the natural order of things and would last forever.

We believe that the fundamental order of that world cracked after the US invaded Iraq in 2003. It was shattered by the financial crisis of 2008. Technological developments such as social media and fossil fuels produced profound and unmanageable instabilities in the environments of even very rich countries, rendering their political and economic settlements obsolete.

It is easy to mourn the passing of the old order, easy to rail against its destroyers like Trump and Putin. Such nostalgia is dangerous, for it will lead to attempts to live in the vanished past and even recreate it. Far better to first recognise this is a new age, and all old assumptions, all old patterns have been shattered irrevocably. There were good things in the old order. They must be preserved. There will be good things in the new, however remote and distant they seem. You have the weekend, ladies and gentlemen to consider what those might be. Enjoy it profitably, and we will see you on Monday.

#history #politics #economics #donald trump #vladimir putin #united states #NATO

Go Back to where you came from: if this isn’t the best TV in ten years, we don’t know what is

“But why do they all come here?” is the agonised cry of Dave Watford and his mates in every pub from Truro to Thurso. Dunno, Dave. The English language? Because of our free market, low regulation economy, where the reward is for taking risks? Because we’re still relatively prosperous? But Dave and the boys are right: Immigration and its discontents are the number one driving force in all our lives here in the third decade of what may prove to be our very last century.

Or are there deeper forces at work? People have always moved from bad conditions to try to find better ones. Such movements are always deeply resented by the native populations in the host lands. It is the achievement of Channel 4‘s Go Back to Where you Came From [1] to cast the question in terms of the way people really are, not the way they ought to be. Six ordinary, but essentially decent British people complete a typical migrant’s journey from the ravaged lands of their origin to their final landing under the White Cliffs of Dover. The producers chose Syria and Sudan as the “GO” points. Wow. We get it.

And we stress: ordinary, decent people. So the producers deliberately chose the reality show format to highlight their odyssey; for no one in 2025 would have watched a documentary. And what an odyssey for the 21st century it is! They run the gauntlet of squalid refugee camps, freezing and burning temperatures, lousy food, unmentionable lavatory facilities, major league armed criminals and deadly waters in the course of their journeys. All the while in dialogue themselves, and with the locals. All six displayed levels of courage and endurance which we could ever endure, we confess.

Like the heroes of any epic road movie, they are transformed, so that they are not the same people they were when they started it. One man in particular stood out: a haulage contractor from Yorkshire who though sheer hard work has built up a small lorry business. It lets him feed his family, of whom he is fiercely protective, with out any help from the state. And get this: if you are fined £10 000 every time an illegal immigrant jumps on your lorry, wouldn’t you be just a little resentful? But it is to the immense credit of this man, and the film makers, that they slowly uncover the causes of his plight. War; ecological collapse; deep inequality and the paid apologists who defend it at every turn. He comes, he sees, he thinks, he changes. His deep reserves of emotional intelligence finally process the better angels of his nature.

Yet we at LSS do not advocate opening England’s doors to every migrant, however desperate their plight. Emotion and pity are bad guides to policy. A Nation state is not the same thing as the Social Services department of a London Borough. But the lesson is clear: a substantial, though not crippling transfer of funds from richer to poorer countries would eliminate most human migration quite quickly.

Go Back to Where you came from at last shows the true causes of this problem, And most people learned the lesson. That is a mighty achievement indeed.

[1]https://www.channel4.com/programmes/go-back-to-where-you-came-from#:~:text=Six%20opinionated%20Brits%20experience%20refugee%20life%20up%20close

#go back to where you came from #immigration #migration #emigration #climate change #war #poverty #inequality

Declining Life Expectancy: a sure sign of a declining civilisation

You , your children and your grandchildren are going to live a lot less than you should have done. That’s the stark message from Andrew Gregory of the Guardian,[1] who has been busy reviewing a major study of life expectancies across 20 European nations. It’s a topic which has concerned us before here(LSS 21 12 21) and not only is it not going away but we think it is a sign of something deeply general going wrong.

The first signs that the old Soviet Union was in real trouble came in the 1970s when astute researches suddenly realised they weren’t returning their annual health figures to the WHO and other bodies. Their economy was no longer delivering, people were going hungry: and you just can’t spin health statistics over the long term. Within a few years the system had fallen in on itself. According to a study by the University of East Anglia the long rise in life expectancy which we have taken for granted for centuries has now stalled. Worried? You should be.

Greece(lashed by cataclysmic economic woes 15 years ago) is second worse. But it is the countries of the UK, one of the most unequal societies in the western world, which are doing worst of all. And we think we know why. Our old friends Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett [2] long pointed to inequality as the root causes of many evils such as obesity poor health bad diets over work and chronic illness[2] And -surprise, surprise! These are exactly the factors which the authors cite to be dragging UK statistics so drastically backwards. But can you forgive us one more observation, gentle readers? One country bucking the trend is Norway. Which some readers will recall set up a sovereign wealth fund with their share of North Sea Oil back in the 1980s of the last century.(LSS 6 7 20) While the British in the same years splurged theirs on new cars, shopping, time share villas and an utterly botched programme of de-industrialisation. Here are the consequences.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/18/european-countries-experience-life-expectancy-slowdown-research-shows

[2] R Wilkinson K Pickett The Spirit Level Penguin 2010

#inequality #life expectancy #sovereign wealth fund #public health

We’re up to our necks in Smoot Hawley here

God knows, we don’t like to blow our own trumpet here. The pictures of the Conceited Ape and the Man Blowing His Own Trumpet (both generated with AI) are entirely coincidental. But attentive readers may have noticed how we have been pushing the dangers of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 and its parallels to the policies of Mr Donald Trump (at the time of writing his title is still Mr) .

Now the admirable Larry Elliott of the Guardian has got in on the act [1] We’ve often repeated his thoughts on these pages. And this time he goes further, suggesting it is a sign of American weakness, not strength. Well worth a read over your morning latte, we think As for us, we hope that is the last we see of Messrs Smoot and Hawley and their execrable tariff.

But before we go here are a few final thoughts

1 You read it here first

2 Most historians and economists think Smoot Hawley was a major step in the road to World War 2

3 Despite what nostalgists tell you, wars aren’t all chirpy cockneys singing jolly songs in Underground Stations. Ask them in Ukraine if you don’t believe us.

4 A nation may claim the right to act entirely in its own interest, without regard to others. Fair enough. But by the same logic does an individual have the right to sell Class A drugs such as heroin, if he can make money thereby?

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/13/donald-trump-trade-war-president-china#

#tariffs #trade #world war #smoot hawley #larry elliott #donald trump

Smoot-Hawley for the 21st Century: Why The Conversation agrees with this blog

Tariffs: here we go again. We understand that Mr Donald Trump may have his own reasons for imposing them. As the ruler of a proud and independent nation he has the right to do so. But, for the moment, we still have the right to comment on his action. Which we did in two blogs (LSS 19 5 20, 12 11 24) Being of a historical turn of mind we drew parallels with the famous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Which in the view of most economists and historians not only deepened the gathering recession, but also lead more or less directly to World War Two.

In such circumstances it is questionable whether it is “nice” to find that minds far better educated and profound than ours agree with our insights. For today The Conversation publishes an article by Thomas Giffe and Micheal Pouffle which agrees with us in almost every detail [1] In fact it does the whole job rather better; and you must read it, gentle reader.

Because the article brings out the key psychological reasons for the decisions. And psychological they are, not economic. Here are three killer quotes from Trumps most earnest supporters

Congresswoman Claudia Tenney of New York told Fox News that she’s glad the US is “projecting strength for once on the world stage”. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri insisted that tariffs were “not a surprise,” emphasising that Trump had relentlessly campaigned on “improving our standing in the world.”

former adviser and populist nationalist Steve Bannon warned that America would no longer be “abused” by “unbalanced trade deals.” “Yes, tariffs are coming,” he said. “You will have to pay to have access to the US market. ………… the free market is over.”

Now these are proud and intelligent people. But their priorities lie in fields other than economics. They may be right. They may not. But we do remember a passage from our Gibbon about the declining years of the Empire. Wherein a particularly tyrannous but insecure Emperor, having arranged the murder of his best general. asked an ordinary Roman Citizen for his opinion of the deed:

“I am ignorant, sir, of your motives and intentions” replied the honest man “I only know you have acted like a man who cuts off his right arm with his left”

[1]https://theconversation.com/the-us-tried-high-tariffs-and-america-first-policies-in-the-1930s-trump-should-note-what-happened-next-249079?utm_medium=email&utm_campaig

#smoot hawley #tariff #trade war #world war #USA #China #economics

World Government #2: the end of mass migrations

The world heats, driving waves of refugees in search of survival. Nationalism, religious identitarianism, ethnic exclusion grow. The resulting conflicts throw more waves of refugees onto the shores of societies with neither the psychological nor economic means to cope. Those societies in turn experience fear and destabilisation, as people understandably try to cling to the mental assurances of the past, leading to more nationalism, identity politics………… This spiral downwards will require big thinking indeed if we are to survive at all as a species.[1]

The problems we have identified-(climate change and mass migration) are closely connected. They are rooted in deep inequality. People migrate along economic lines from poor to rich, just like ions in an electric field. They always have done. The solution is a mass transference of sufficient wealth from richer countries to poorer ones to build up their economies. This would not only reduce the incentive to migrate. It would also slow the endless production of status goods like luxury cars and fashionable clothes in the rich countries. The ending of such frivolous production, distribution and consumption would enable an enormous reduction in carbon emissions.

Yet how can a world constructed on hundreds of lines of sovereign and religious identities ever achieve this transfer? There is too much incentive to cheat. To let other nations make the transfers, while guarding local advantage. To allow funds to be hidden in “sovereign” jurisdictions. To allow quick fossil fuel booms to grab short boosts of wealth. To think short term, to think parochially. Perhaps future generations will even decide it was criminally, like the Slave-owning Planters of the US South in the nineteenth century. Whereas a single world Government would cut through all these problems at once. And we haven’t begun to mention the advantages in things like health, space exploration and cleansing pollution, which would follow easily. Once again, the situation is now so desperate, that it’s time to consider something utterly different. We begin to suspect that something to be a World Government, however bizarre that sounds.

In the next post in this series we shall look at the history of the idea of world government, and find it’s not such a new idea after all.

[1] Is the world ready for mass migration due to climate change? – BBC Future

#world government #migration #climate change #pollution #inequality

Torsten Bell’s prescription: but will the British take his medicine?

Here’s a telling statistic about the United Kingdom. Between 1850 and 1992 more than 200 reservoirs were regularly opened across the country, even during World War Two: seven were dug in 1955 alone. Since 1992, not one has been constructed. What goes for reservoirs goes for every other conceivable aspect of infrastructure. Britain is a country living off its past like fallen aristocrats, in deadly hock to nostalgia and expecting a comfort of life way beyond its means.

Such is the thesis of Torsten Bell (Judd School, PPE Oxford, Resolution Foundation and now Labour MP) He presents his thesis in a work of immense detail and careful scholarship called Great Britain? How We Get Our Future Back. He details the consequences of our doleful mismanagement in terms of education, poverty wages, health, and a tax-and-benefits system of Byzantine complexity and contradiction. Yet it is chapter five on investment which diagnoses the root causes of British woes. Compared to other OECD countries, the British are terrible at it, both public and private. This in turn leads to appalling weaknesses in productivity, entailing less investment, and so on etc, etc. Downwards. The consequences of this economic stagnation will be a rise in political extremism as different ethnic and cultural groups fight over the shares of a declining national cake.

His analysis and prescriptions read like the DNA of the present Labour Government. It fits into a long tradition of well-meaning analyses of what’s wrong with Britain. Yet he cautions against the pat solutions of Centre Left bien-pensants (our problems are much deeper than membership or not of the EU) He calls for a new patriotism, based on our undoubted strengths in things like service industries. In this and many other recommendations, he has much good to say. But will the British want his, and his party’s, medicine? Consider this:

Anyone serious about governing Britain should plan on taxes remaining at higher levels than we are used to (p189)

Paying taxes is the litmus test of patriotism: if you won’t put your hand in your pocket, how serious are your protestations of national love? Our fellow countrymen grumble about health and roads: but they hate, viscerally hate, paying taxes, as we know from our lived experience of them. So any new ethos based on shared experience will die stillborn; there are still too many comfortable with the mental furniture of our decline, at least among the English.

Great Britain PLC is a failing company: underinvested , indebted, overdrawn and still overpaid in many grades. A merger was tried between 1973 and 2016, but it failed. Now the only option is a foreign takeover. How hostile shall it be?

We have one criticism of the hardback The graphs are printed in weak grey ink, thereby making comprehension difficult at times, and spoiling the hard work of the author and his researchers

Torsten Bell Great Britain? How We Get Our Future Back The Bodley Head 2024

#great britain #uk #economics #politics #social democracy

Southern States make the same old mistake: pity them in the long run

Pity the poor people of the Southern United States! Because they are making the same mistake as their ancestors did long, long ago. For much the same reasons, we suspect. Have a look at this from Nature Briefings, Southern Scientists Face Political Problems

A survey of faculty members working in US southern states suggests that the political climate is hitting morale among academics and driving a brain drain away from the region. Nearly 3,000 self-selected participants cited diminished academic freedom, restrictions on reproductive healthcare, harassment and the erosion of support for diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. “Multiple faculty members at my institution have been doxxed and harassed, including by elected officials,” wrote one female instructor in Texas. “This makes it difficult for me to do my job or feel safe on campus or at home and honestly just live my life.”Nature | 6 min read

Teaching of certain ideas is to be restricted or banned, The Ten Commandments displayed in every University Classroom……why the fear of words, the loathing of discussion? Because the dominant group (largely white, male and fundamentally Christian) is profoundly insecure. A siege mentality is setting in. The key questions in academe: (“Is this Beautiful?” ” Is this True”) are now too dangerous to ask. There is to be one question only-“does this build up the defences of an ethno-nationalist society?”

The same attitude to learning bedevilled the Old Plantation-and-Slave south before 1861. As Hugh Brogan observes[1]

….a strange barbarous culture grew up which quickly annihilated …Jefferson’s Dream that the University of Virginia, which he founded in 1819, would be a great light of civilisation. The colleges of the South remained jokes until into the twentieth century pp294-295

And now their descendants are playing the same sad game. Why the fear of ideas, the need to snuff out questions?

America is fast becoming an ethno-nationalist society, where different groups jostle for power and status. Now there are good reasons to suspect that this is the natural state of human society. We have argued this before on this blog, citing authors such as Chua and Kaufman(LSS Passim) It may well be understandable, natural even, to defend a state of affairs where your group is the top dog. But happens when someone else has been concentrating on more profitable things, and then comes to get you? The South first learned the answer to that in 1865. Will it have to do so again?

[1] Hugh Brogan The Pelican History of the United States Penguin 1986 see especially ch 14

##ethno-nationalism #slavery #The South #Evangelical #republican

Argentina: Now it’s the Right’s turn to threaten Science

It was quite hard being on the Left in the nineteen seventies. The Right had all the best arguments. It was getting harder and harder to defend collective solutions to anything, while their idea of individual freedom was very attractive indeed. Above all, they said, the free market mechanism required and guaranteed freedom of enquiry. No market can work if you are not allowed to ask honest questions about the price of gold. While the Left’s reputation on free inquiry was appalling(think Lysenko-but it’s still in tatters today in many parts of academe)

Which is why , fifty years on it so strange to see the Right throwing away this advantage. Now it is they who must deny climate change, as it threatens the sacred tenets of free market fundamentalism. They who, for indiscernible libertarian reasons of their own, must oppose vaccines and the hygienic treatment of water supplies. We suppose that desperation makes for bad choices. Perhaps that is why Nature Briefings has opted for this strange, sad story from Argentina, where, perhaps with good intentions, perhaps not, President Milei has embarked on a bizarre programme to try to abolish his country’s future, Researchers Fear end of science in Argentina:

One year into the term of libertarian president Javier Milei, his agenda to slash Argentina’s deficit has meant that, as his administration’s slogan says, “there is no money” for science. The country’s main funder of research projects has been forced to come to a virtual halt, despite most of its money coming from international agencies. Government-funded scientists have seen salaries fall and many have recoiled from Milei’s rejection of climate science. The result is that the country is facing a huge brain drain. “With six more months like this, there will be nothing left” of the scientific community, says Mariano Cantero, the director of an institute in Bariloche.Nature | 6 min read

We could declaim on cliches like cutting of noses to spite faces, right arm with left. or even cría cuervos y te sacarán las ojos.…but instead we’ll end on a personal note. We have always depended on the kindness of Argentinians, both in our professional visits to that distant country, and in personal friendships formed at various times over the years. It was once a very rich, progressive country, and still has a strong middle class yearning to be free. How sad then to witness them in another act of self-harm, burning the seed corn of future meals for the sake of an accounting theory. There is always a reaction in politics, and a Left wing Maduro style regime may prove to be even more terrible than a Millei style rightwing one. We hope that él sentido común may yet prevail.

#argentina #science #maduro #milei #science #research #r&d