Posts Tagged ‘economics’
“I think it would be a very good idea”*…
As we discuss global culture(s) or geo-politics, we often talk about “The West” (and the rest). In a review of Georgios Varouxakis‘ new book The West: The History of an Idea, Andrew Kaufmann reminds us that it’s important to interrogate that defining concept…
What is the West? Many take the idea for granted, but few can define it. In this meticulously researched, engaging, and sometimes bewildering new book, The West: The History of an Idea, intellectual historian Georgios Varouxakis takes readers on a two-centuries-long tour of the many uses, definitions, and redefinitions of the term. Along the way, readers may find their own long-held assumptions and stereotypes challenged and even undermined.
The book makes a number of arguments, but for the purposes of this review, it’s worth focusing on just a few major ones. The first and most innovative argument of the book is this: The idea of the West as a transnational sociopolitical community distinct from the rest of the world is more recent than we think. This idea received its first sophisticated and coherent articulation in the 1820s from French philosopher Auguste Comte.
While historians and other academics had long looked to past societies like ancient Athens or medieval Europe as representing the “West” against some “other,” Comte was the first to coherently put together a future-oriented political program to be adopted and followed. Most scholars locate the future-focused version of the West’s inauguration in the 1890s, when the idea was used to justify imperial and colonial expansion. By contrast, Varouxakis argues that Comte and his followers wanted to build a West that was anti-imperialist, committed to science and reason, liberated from dogmatic Christianity, and fueled by altruism and sympathy.
As a progressive positivist, Comte saw the “Western Republic” as a via media between a hyper nationalism (of the French variety) and an overly abstract universalism. He imagined a way station that transcended the parochialism of family and nation and would one day be realized and embraced all over the world, even if it would take a full seven centuries from his own writing to come to fruition (that was Comte’s timeline). Neither tied to a particular nation like France (although Paris would be the center of this Republic until Constantinople would replace it), nor embodied by an abstract and universal cosmopolitanism, the Western Republic (or l’Occident) would be set off against its Other—in particular, Russia and the Orient. Still, over time this republic would non-coercively welcome the rest of the world into its fold.
Contrary to a common conception of “the West,” it was not to be a society (or society of societies) committed to democracy, individualism, or liberalism. It was instead a rejection of the hyper-individualism of the modern period, and it was an attempt to recover an older other-centered ethic that had been lost to a prior age.
The second major argument Varouxakis presents is that despite this idea of a transnational West that had its origin in Comte’s work, and despite Comte’s legacy that his disciples clearly carried across continents and centuries, the history of the idea of the West since Comte is complicated and contested. Put another way, while the specter of Comte hovers over the entire narrative, his vision is not always fully realized, nor is the meaning of the term always stable. This complicated history manifests itself in a number of different ways and carries with it some significant implications…
… Many casual users of “Western Civilization” will often identify it as one and the same with liberal democracy. They often find that somehow and at some point Britain came to embrace the West as being just that—liberal and democratic. Varouxakis complicates this picture by showing that while a few liberal voices in Britain were certainly also champions of Western Civilization, the more consistent and coherent users of the term were disciples of Comte and therefore much more illiberal in their thinking…
… Or take the more familiar East vs. West framework we associate with the Cold War, where surely the fault lines of Eastern totalitarianism against Western liberal capitalism are clean and clear. But even here the history is complicated, as the period begins with the acknowledgement that it was indeed Soviet Russia that helped to save “western civilization.” Indeed, it took forty years of gradual evolution for the idea of the “West” to finally crystallize around the shared commitment to economic, religious, and political freedom over and against Soviet planned economies, state-sanctioned atheism, and one-party politics with no free and fair elections…
… Given the winding road of the history of the West, it is instructive that there seems to be something of a settlement on its meaning for today, even if there are differences in its application. This can be seen most clearly in Varouxakis’ penultimate chapter on the dispute between Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama after the end of the Cold War. Fukuyama of course is well known for his view that the West—in its embrace of liberal democracy and capitalism—had now emerged triumphant over the defeated ideas of Marxist totalitarianism, which found its fullest expression in Soviet Russia of the East.
Samuel Huntington’s ideas of what the West embodied were not much different, but he diverged from Fukuyama in his vision of what the world’s future likely entailed. For Huntington, the coming years and decades would see a “clash of civilizations,” a conflict of the most basic sort between the West and the great civilizations of the world as we know it. He saw nothing certain about the global triumph of any particular civilizational expression, including the West. Indeed, Huntington contends that it is only the West that even believes in universal ideals, and that all of the non-Western civilizations—whether Chinese, Islamic, or otherwise—are all partial in their visions. Therefore, we see here in the latest debate about the West a return of the Comtean question: Will the West become a universal civilization, or will it endure as one of many civilizations forever in conflict with each other? While we may have some agreement on what the West stands for, we may have less confidence in its future in the world.
The history is complex, indeed. But Varouxakis also raises the question of whether Western Civilization—however one defines it—is something to defend in the first place. He considers this question several times in the book, but perhaps none more poignantly than in the Great War itself. For example, there were many who noted the hypocrisy of the “Western powers” that suddenly found common cause with the long-excluded Russia in their fight against Germany and the Central Powers. But perhaps more troubling is what it says about a civilization when it produces not the peace and altruism long promised by its founder, but instead destruction on a scale that had never been seen before in human history. One could likewise ask: What kind of civilization deliberately excludes and exploits the weakest members within its borders, such as in the treatment of African Americans in the United States and of those in the furthest regions of the colonial empires of Europe? This crisis of confidence and feeling of decline continued through the interwar years, as Oswald Spengler expresses in his Decline of the West, a fitting rejoinder to the optimism of Comte’s Western utopia.
And so, perhaps the best way to conclude for readers of all sorts—but especially Christians—is to offer two words of caution. The first is to those who would defend the “West” and “Western Civilization” as something either resonant with or even inspired by a Judeo-Christian worldview. And that word is simple: the origins of the idea of the West in one of its most dominant forms (the Comtean one) and in its subsequent historical uses is either non-Christian or even anti-Christian. Indeed, I went into the book expecting a heavy dose of Judeo-Christian connections to the idea of the West, and while the link is not completely absent, I was struck by its muted nature.
Besides the post-Christian progressive vision of Comte himself, consider the voice of Black writer Richard Wright as one representative example to follow in the Frenchman’s footsteps. As someone who identified with the West, he considered “the content of [his] Westernness [residing] fundamentally…in [his] secular outlook upon life.” The progress of the West would be realized the more it emancipated itself from the influence of “mystical powers” or the priests who would speak in their name. Armed with the tools of trial-and-error pragmatism, human life can be sustained without recourse to divine help. A West liberated from divine help is a West worth preserving, at least according to Wright.
Overall, the West as an idea has many champions who are quite open in their antipathy toward the Christian religion, and it would be foolish to ignore those influences on the meaning and use of the term for us today. Still, the second and final note I’d like to offer is a bit more optimistic. In the concluding chapter, Varouxakis urges readers to move from the parochialism of “Western” ideas to adopt a language that is universal in its appeal. What, after all, was so attractive about any of the Western projects that Varouxakis so painstakingly chronicles? It was always their global appeal.
Altruism, sympathy, love for others, freedom, individualism, democracy, capitalism. These are not ideals that belong to just a few but rightfully can be embraced by all of God’s creatures in different places, at different times, and in different ways. Certainly for Christians who embrace a global faith, the least we can do is see the inheritance of the “West,” however defined, as a mixed bag of common grace insights and ideas in rebellion against God, combined with the perspective that none of what is worth keeping in the West should ever be kept from those who would embrace its ideals…
Eminently worth reading in full: “The Idea of the West” from @mereorthodoxy.bsky.social.
For a look at the concept in current context/practice: “The Rest take on the West,” from @noemamag.com.
* Gandhi’s response when asked, “what do you think of western civilization?”
###
As we ponder perplexingly plastic paradigms, we might recall that it was on this date in 1957 that “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going On” by Jerry Lee Lewis peaked at #3 on the US pop singles charts (though it topped the R&B and country charts shortly after). It was a cover of a 1955 release by Big Maybelle of a song written by Dave “Curlee” Williams (and sometimes also credited to James Faye “Roy” Hall). Lewis, with session drummer Jimmy Van Eaton and guitarist Roland Janes, had recorded the song at Sun Records in just one take.
“Unless we change direction, we are likely to end up where we are headed”*…
… And so, the estimable Cory Doctorow argues in his wonderful blog/newsletter Pluralistic, we’d better make ourselves ready.
Further, in a fashion to last week’s (R)D post on the arrival of authoritarianism in the U.S. (to which your correspondent would have added Garret Graff‘s powerful essay had it landed in time)…
As Trump rails against free trade, demands public ownership stakes in corporations that receive government funds, and (selectively) enforces antitrust law, some (stupid) people are wondering, “Is Trump a communist?”
In The American Prospect, David Dayen writes about the strange case of Trump’s policies, which fly in the face of right wing economic orthodoxy and have the superficial trappings of a leftist economic program.
The problem isn’t that tariffs are always bad, nor is it that demanding state ownership stakes in structurally important companies that depend on public funds is bad policy. The problem is that Trump’s version of these policies sucks, because everything Trump touches dies, and because he governs solely on vibes, half-remembered wisdom imparted by the last person who spoke to him, and the dying phantoms of old memories as they vanish beneath a thick bark of amyloid plaque.
Take Trump’s demand for a 10% stake in Intel (a course of action endorsed by no less than Bernie Sanders). Intel is a company in trouble, whose financialization has left it dependent on other companies (notably TMSC) to make its most advanced chips. The company has hollowed itself out, jettisoning both manufacturing capacity and cash reserves, pissing away the funds thus freed up on stock buybacks and dividends.
Handing Trump a 10% “golden share” does nothing to improve Intel’s serious structural problems. And if you take Trump at his word and accept that securing US access to advanced chips is a national security priority, Trump’s Intel plan does nothing to advance that access. But it gets worse: Trump also says denying China access to these chips is a national security priority, but he greenlit Nvidia’s plan to sell its top-of-the-range silicon to China in exchange for a gaudy statuette and a 15% export tax.
It’s possible to pursue chip manufacturing as a matter of national industrial policy, and it’s even possible to achieve this goal by taking ownership stakes in key firms – because it’s often easier to demand corporate change via a board seat than it is to win the court battles needed to successfully invoke the Defense Production Act. The problem is that Trumpland is uninterested in making any of that happen. They just want a smash and grab and some red meat for the base: “Look, we made Intel squeal!”
Then there’s the Trump tariffs. Writing in Vox EU, Lausanne prof of international business Richard Baldwin writes about the long and checkered history of using tariffs to incubate and nurture domestic production.
The theory of tariffs goes like this: if we make imports more expensive by imposing a tax on them (tariffs are taxes that are paid by consumers, after all), then domestic manufacturers will build factories and start manufacturing the foreign goods we’ve just raised prices on. This is called “import substitution,” and it really has worked, but only in a few cases.
What do those cases have in common? They were part of a comprehensive program of “export discipline, state-directed credit, and careful government–business coordination.”
In other words, tariffs only work to reshore production where there is a lot of careful planning, diligent data-collection, and review. Governments have to provide credit to key firms to get them capitalized, provide incentives, and smack nonperformers around. Basically, this is the stuff that Biden did for renewables with the energy sector, and – to a lesser extent – for silicon with the CHIPS Act.
Trump’s not doing any of that. He’s just winging it. There’s zero follow-through. It’s all about appearances, soundbites, and the libidinal satisfaction of watching corporate titans bend the knee to your cult leader.
This is also how Trump approaches antitrust. When it comes to corporate power, both Trump and Biden’s antitrust enforcers are able to strike terror into the hearts of corporate behemoths. The difference is that the Biden administration prioritized monopolists based on how harmful they were to the American people and the American economy, whereas Trump’s trustbusters target companies based on whether Trump is mad at them.
What’s more, any company willing to hand a million or two to a top Trump enforcer can just walk away from the charges.
In her 2023 book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein introduces the idea of a right-wing “mirror world” that offers a conspiratorial, unhinged version of actual problems that leftists wrestle with.
For example, the antivax movement claims that pharma companies operate on the basis of unchecked greed, without regard to the harm their defective products cause to everyday people. When they talk about this, they sound an awful like leftists who are angry that the Sacklers killed a million Americans with their opiods and then walked away with billions of dollars.
Then there are the conspiracy theories about voting machines. Progressives have been sounding the alarm about the security defects in voting machine since the Bush v Gore years, but that doesn’t mean that Venezuelan hackers stole the 2020 election for Biden.
When anti-15-minute-city weirdos warn that automated license-plate cameras are a gift to tyrants both petty and gross, they are repeating a warning that leftists have sounded since the Patriot Act.
The mirror-world is a world where real problems (the rampant sexual abuse of children by powerful people and authortiy figures) are met with fake solutions (shooting up pizza parlors and transferring Ghislaine Maxwell to a country-club prison).
Most of the people stuck in the mirror world are poor and powerless, because desperation makes you an easy mark for grifters peddling conspiracy theories. But Trump’s policies on corporate power are what happens in the mirror world inhabited by the rich and powerful.
Trump is risking the economic future of every person in America (except a few cronies), but that’s not the only risk here. There’s also the risk that reasonable people will come to view industrial policy, government stakes in publicly supported companies, and antitrust as reckless showboating, a tactic exclusively belonging to right wing nutjobs and would-be dictators.
Sociologists have a name for this: they call it “schismogenesis,” when a group defines itself in opposition to its rivals. Schismogenesis is progressives insisting that voting machines and pharma companies are trustworthy and that James Comey is a resistance hero.
After we get rid of Trump, America will be in tatters. We’re going to need big, muscular state action to revive the nation and rebuild its economy. We can’t afford to let Trump poison the well for the very idea of state intervention in corporate activity…
Trump’s mirror-world New Deal: “The capitalism of fools,” from @pluralistic.net.web.brid.gy.
And for a (think tank’s) take on the state of socio-political play: “U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective.”
* Chinese proverb
###
As we ready ourselves, we might note (per the Garret Graff piece linked above) that…
Just months short of the nation’s 250th birthday, Donald Trump is close to batting a thousand at speed-running the very abuses of power that led the Founders to write the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Does any of this sound familiar:
- He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
- He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
- He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
- He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
And so on…
And we might recall that it was on this date in 1752 that the Liberty Bell was officially placed in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall) in Philadelphia. In its early years, the bell was used to summon lawmakers to legislative sessions and to alert citizens to public meetings and proclamations. It is likely that the Liberty Bell was among the bells in Philadelphia to ring on July 8, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was first read to the public, although no contemporary account of the ringing exists.
“In science, it happens every few years that something that was previously considered a mistake suddenly reverses all views, or that an inconspicuous and despised idea becomes the ruler of a new realm of thought.”*…
Today’s post is, in essence, the recommendation of the current issue of of a publication referenced here often, Noema. It’s editor, Nathan Gardels, previews its contents…
When a concept that organizes our reality is replaced by an entirely different and incommensurate worldview, it is called a “paradigm shift.”
The theme of this edition of Noema was conceived in early 2024. At that time, we had in mind the epochal shift from the paradigm of globalization, in which markets, trade and technology cross borders, to “the Planetary,” where we recognize that the whole Earth system embeds and entangles human civilization in its habitat.
This deeper awareness has been enabled by the emergence of a technological exoskeleton of satellites, sensors and cloud computation that expands the heretofore limited scope of human understanding of the world, repositioning our place in the natural order. Neither above nor apart from nature, we have now come to realize we are part and parcel of one interdependent organism comprised of multiple intelligences striving for sustainable equilibrium.
The disclosure of climate change as a destabilizing consequence of human endeavor was enabled in the first place by planetary-scale computation. This capacity holds out the evolutionary prospect that human, machine and Earth intelligence might one day merge into a kind of planetary sapience that restores and maintains the ecological balance.
As we have written often in Noema, this conceptual reorientation would entail a redefinition of what realism means in geopolitics. This new condition calls not for the old “realpolitik” that seeks to secure the interests of nation-states against each other but for a “Gaiapolitik” aimed at securing a livable biosphere for all.
As logically compelling as this case for planetary realism may be, the paradigm shift underway is going in the opposite direction. Instead of the global interconnectivity forged in recent decades maturing into a planetary perspective, it is breaking up into a renewed nationalism more emphatically sovereigntist than before the advent of globalization.
In short, the prevailing political temperament around the world today is out of sync with the planetary imperative. This does not diminish its reality but, for the moment, eclipses and derails its emergence as the conscious organizing principle of human civilization.
The paradigm shift we are witnessing today not only marks a move away from a planetary awareness but also signals the last sigh of liberal universalism as the dominant governing philosophy of the postwar order since 1945.
The rules-based liberal international order, underwritten and guaranteed for decades by American might, has been consigned to the ash can of history by the summary defection of its founding architect from its terms and premises.
Under President Donald Trump and his allies, America has effectively joined the revisionist powers of China and Russia by baldly asserting sovereigntist self-interest unencumbered by rules that also encompass the interests of others.
Tariff walls, outright trade wars and unraveling alliances are supplanting the expansive web of global commerce, Western unity and cultural cross-fertilization that characterized times only recently. In a further break from the established order, Team Trump openly contemplates its own Anschluss of other people’s territory in Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Canada, instead of expressing outrage at China’s desire to take Taiwan, Russia’s bloody attempt to seize Ukraine or Israel’s increasing occupation of the Palestinian territories.
As Francis Fukuyama and Niall Ferguson discuss in a collage of commentary in this Noema edition, these developments portend the return to a world not unlike that of the 19th century, when the great powers carved out exclusive domains of influence.
The obvious great powers that would constitute a world apportioned in this way are China and Russia, both grasping at Eurasia, plus the United States and India. Whether Europe falls within the American sphere of influence depends on its capacity to cohere as a continental entity and find its identity as an alternative within a West that is fracturing under the strain of America’s revisionist turn.
Since the future appears to be taking us back to the 19th century, one cannot say we are in “uncharted territory.” On the contrary, we’ve been down this path before and know how it led to world wars that the global rules-based order, for all its well-known faults, was meant to avoid repeating.
On the American home front, and increasingly elsewhere in the West, it appears the “strong gods” of family, faith and nation are prevailing over the culturally liberal sentiments of an open society.
When there is no common agreement on what constitutes the good life, culture is politicized. As Alexandre Lefebvre argues in Noema, who gets to define “the good life” has become the central political question of our time. As in China, Russia, Iran or Turkey, governing authorities in the West are increasingly seeking to assign the moral substance of their vision to the state in place of the neutral proceduralism of liberal regimes that, at least in theory, embrace the diversity of all values without favor.
As the ascendant traditionalists see it, this rights-based liberalism grants a kind of converse moral substance to the state by virtue of the permissive openness it invites, nourishes and protects.
In many ways, liberalism was bound to fail just as Marxism did, and for the same reason. Marxism lacked a theory of politics that accommodated diverse constituencies because it assumed the universality of the interests of one class. Similarly, liberalism has falsely assumed its own universality, believing that there can be a consensus on only one conception of “the good life.” In reality, where some see declaring gender identity as the positive freedom to pursue self-realization, others see it as the corrosion of traditional Christian morality.
Like the British philosopher John Gray, Lefebvre suggests that the liberalism of the future may well entail a constitutionally grounded “modus vivendi” of autonomous jurisdictions as one way to keep the civil peace in diverse societies.
What is stunning in this context is how rapidly the America that elected Trump has tilted toward illiberal democracy under his tumultuous reign. Team Trump has robustly pursued retribution against political enemies, scorned universities as “the enemy,” moved to dismantle the administrative state and climate policies, demeaned the judicial system and cultivated crony corruption. Moreover, in the Orwellian name of free speech, Trump insists on ideological conformity across the board, from college students to corporate law firms.
To base the idea of democracy solely on elections invites this kind of illiberalism because it implies that majoritarian rule is all that is necessary for legitimacy. But, as the American founding fathers well understood, the will of the majority does not embrace all interests in a society, which must be protected equally. That is the reason for constitutional rule as the founding principle of a liberal polity.
In constitutional theory, the imposition of limitations and restraints — the “negative” — is what prevents the majority from absolute domination. It is the negative that makes the Constitution and the “positive” that makes government. One is the power of acting, the other the power of amending or arresting action. The two combined make a constitutional government.
It is this governing arrangement that made America great. The biggest danger of Making America Great Again is that a movement that believes it is the embodiment of the will of the majority will cast aside any constraints on its power as a contrivance by the elites of the ancien régime to keep the masses down.
In Niall Ferguson’s contribution to Noema, the historian raises the specter that “history was always against any republic lasting 250 years. This republic is in its late republican phase, with the intimations of empire much more visible.”…
… As politicized cultural battles and the churning geopolitical economy further unfold, a paradigm shift of a significance similar to planetary awareness is taking place that will redefine what it means to be human.
Across the sciences, we are coming to understand the self-organizing principle of “computation” as the building block of all forms of budding intelligence, from primitive cells to generative AI. This process involves learning from the environment, assembling information and arranging it by sharing functional instructions through “copying and pasting” code, so that an organism can develop, reproduce and sustain itself.
As Google’s Blaise Agüera y Arcas and James Manyika write in this issue, “computing existed in nature long before we built the first ‘artificial computers.’ … Understanding computing as a natural phenomenon will enable fundamental advances not only in computer science and AI, but also in physics and biology.”
More than half a century ago, they note, pioneering computer scientists had the intuition that organic and inorganic intelligence follow the same set of rules for development. “John von Neumann,” write the authors, “realized that for a complex organism to reproduce, it would need to contain instructions for building itself, along with a machine for reading and executing those instructions.” The technical requirements for that “universal constructor” in nature — the tape-like instructions of DNA — “correspond precisely to the technical requirements for the earliest computers.”
“Life,” they continue, “is computational because its existence over time depends on growth, healing or reproduction, and computation itself must evolve to support these essential functions.”
Grasping the correspondence with natural computation and learning from it, they believe, will render AI “brainlike” as it further evolves along the path from mimicking neural computation to predictive intelligence, general intelligence and, ultimately, collective intelligence. “Brains, AI agents and societies can all become more capable through increased scale. However, size alone is not enough. Intelligence is fundamentally social, powered by cooperation and the division of labor among many agents.”
In short, as philosopher of technology Tobias Rees also argues in this issue, the evolution of computation as a symbiosis of human and machine will cause us to rethink what it means to be human as, for the first time in history, a “more than human” intelligence emerges on our planet.
These contradictions and crosscurrents of the profound paradigm shifts we are living through all at once mark what future historians will surely describe as the Age of Upheaval…
FWIW, I worry that the diagnosis of our current political/cultural morass is maybe not dark enough. And as to AI, I’m no wide-eyed believer in the current cycle of hype. Indeed, I worry that AI could contribute to our social ills in the short term both by increasing and amplying the atomization and misinformation that we suffer and by challenging the economy if, as seems all too plausible, current over-enthusisam/over investment occasions a crash. That said, I honor the wisdom of Roy Amara: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”
In any case, every link above is eminently worth clicking/reading; better yet, buy the issue.
All change: “Paradigm Shifts,” from @noemamag.com.
[Image above: source]
* Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities
###
As we buckle up, we might recall that it was on ths date in 1944 that IBM dedicated the first program-controlled calculator, the Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator (known best as the Harvard Mark I)– one of the earliest, if not the earliest, general-purpose electromechanical computers, and the one that laibd the base for subsequent development… and thus a catalyst for the string of developments– technical, social, and political with which we’re wrestling now.
Designer Howard Aiken had enlisted IBM as a partner in 1937; company chairman Thomas Watson Sr. personally approved the project and its funding. On completion it was put to work on a set war-related tasks, including calculations– overseen by John von Neumann— for the Manhattan Project.
The Mark I was the industry’s largest electromechanical calculator… and it was large: 51 feet long, 8 feet high, and 2 feet deep; it weighed about 9,445 pounds The basic calculating units had to be synchronized and powered mechanically, so they were operated by a 50-foot (15 m) drive shaft coupled to a 5 horsepower electric motor, which served as the main power source and system clock. It could do 3 additions or subtractions in a second; a multiplication took 6 seconds; a division took 15.3 seconds; and a logarithm or a trigonometric function took over a minute… ridiculously slow by today’s standards, but a huge advance in its time.
“Wheat feeds the West, rice sustains the East”
Tomas Pueyo on why this is so… and what that has meant for culture and history…
What’s your staple, bread or rice?
This is a momentous fact, for it might have determined politics, culture, and wealth.
How? Well, bread comes from wheat, and rice from… rice…
… Wheat and rice are not harvested in the same places. Rice and bread are the predominant food where rice and wheat are respectively the predominant crops. Here’s another way to look at the same data:
This, in turn, is determined mainly by this:
… But this doesn’t fully explain it since it also rains a lot in Ireland, for example, but nobody grows rice there. You need the heat found closer to the equator: Rice grows in hot, wet, flat, floodable areas, whereas wheat prefers cooler, drier, better drained areas.
Flooding rots wheat but can 3x the yields of rice. That makes wheat well adapted to hills, whereas rice can only survive on hills when they are terraced.
This sounds like just a fun fact, but it ain’t. Because rice generates twice as many calories per unit of area.
This means that rice nourishes families on half the land that wheat requires. Which means population density in rice areas can be twice as high as in wheat areas, or four times with double cropping. A hectare of land can feed 1.5 families with wheat and 6 with rice.
Yet rice paddies also require a lot of work—twice as much as wheat. And that work is almost year-round: preparing paddies, raising seedlings in nurseries, transplanting every single seedling by hand into flooded fields, managing water, pumping it, weeding, harvesting, and threshing—often followed by a second rice crop or a winter crop. These tasks peak during transplanting and harvest, creating critical seasons where a huge amount of work must be done in a short window of time.
Crucially, this labor cannot be delayed—if you miss the planting window or harvest late, the crop is ruined. As a result, rice farmers developed reciprocal labor exchange: neighbors help each other transplant and harvest in time. The timeliness pressure meant rice villages became tightly cooperative communities to ensure everyone’s fields were tended before it was too late.
Wheat farming historically had a more seasonal rhythm with periods of relative quiet. Wheat is typically sown in the fall or spring and then mainly just left to grow with the rain. Aside from episodic weeding or guarding the fields, there was less continuous labor until harvest time. Harvest itself was a crunch period requiring many hands with sickles—European villages would collaborate during harvest, and farmers might hire extra reapers.
These differences made these regions diverge across politics, culture, and economy…
Read on: “How Bread vs Rice Molded History,” from Pueyo’s Uncharted Territories.
* adage
###
As we deliberate on our diets and their destinies, we might recall that it was on this date in 1887 that Chester A. Hodge of Beloit, Wisconsin received patent No. 367,398 for ‘spur rowel’ barbed wire (consisting of spur shaped wheels with 8 or 10 points mounted between 2 wires). It was one of many patents for barbed wire (e.g., here), which spread across the American West rapidly (thanks, in no small measure to the guy featured in the alamanc entry here)– and (by protecting farmers from foraging open-range cattle) paved the way for the expansion of wheat (and other kinds of) farming.
“What protectionism teaches us to do to ourselves in time of peace is what enemies seek to do to us in time of war”*…
This post, written on July 29, is dropping on August 1, the deadline set by President Trump for the imposition of “reciprocal tariffs.” Here, in spirit of a search for a silver lining, Paul Kedrosky with an argument that, while the traiffs are both prima facie and fundamentally a bad idea, they could lead to a good place…
Tariffs are dumb. They distort trade, favor inefficient local producers, cause trading partners to retaliate, and make people worse off than a world without them. On these points, economists almost universally agree.
But tariffs are not useless. They may even be sort of, almost, kinda, a … good idea in these very weird U.S. circumstances.
Hear me out, because three things are going on, so it can get messy:
- The U.S. is, as the line goes, an insurance company with an army, which has straitjacketed its budget, which I’ve written about previously.
- The U.S. hates taxes, and most voters are innumerate, so it finds silly ways to hide them.
- Tariffs are a kind of horrible, second-best solution to the above problems.
The first two points are mostly self-explanatory. Entitlements plus defence are now around 70% of the U.S. budget—see also, insurance company with an army—leaving little room to do much other than cut, unless you find new revenue. But new revenue is hard, because Americans hate income taxes, and have long resisted carbon taxes or a value-added tax (VAT). They aren’t coping well with what I’ve called life under 2%.
Enter tariffs. They raise money because consumers buy things. We can argue about whether the producing companies pay the tariff (they mostly don’t), or whether consumers pay it via higher prices (they mostly do), but the effect is the same: consumers buying things increases government revenue. That is tariff income.
So far, so … suboptimal. Because tariffs aren’t a good tool for this. I will come to why they aren’t very good in a few paragraphs, but they distort, create weird incentives, invite retaliation, etc.
A much better tool is a value-added tax (VAT), a broad tax applied to consumer purchases of goods and services. Most countries have one, including all of the OECD except for the U.S.
It is generally agreed that VATs are a good idea, that they can be less distorting than income taxes. And, most importantly, if you’re a government, they produce gobs of income for countries that have them. How much income? The average nation’s VAT income is around 6% of GDP.
So, why doesn’t the U.S. have a VAT of its own? After all, the country has what are often obfuscated as significant long-term fiscal challenges. These mostly revolve around trying to run a costly modern social democracy on a low-tax system. This mathematically intractable “challenge” is made worse by a healthcare system unrivaled for all the looting intermediaries demanding to be seen instead as paragons of competition and capitalism.
There are various reasons for having no U.S. VAT, but the most important is in the name: it is a tax. And Americans hate taxes. Just ask them. The U.S. government cheerily indulges them in their hatred of taxes by cutting the taxes they can see, like income taxes, and hiding the ones they can’t, like the pre-tax corporate deductibility of healthcare premiums (costing $300b and 1.5% of GDP). This has costly & malign effects, like a 6+% structural budgetary deficit and the most screwed-up and expensive healthcare system in the world…
… The U.S. is foregoing approximately $2.8 trillion annually in potential VAT revenue at an OECD-average rate. Even at half that rate—because, America!—a U.S. VAT might produce, all else equal, around $1.4 trillion a year.
To put that in a kind of context, the current U.S. budget deficit is around $1.8-trillion a year. A VAT set at even half of OECD average levels would nearly zero out the U.S. deficit. (And, of course, reforming U.S. healthcare by eliminating premium pre-tax deductibility, instituting universal Medicare Lite, and requiring catastrophe insurance would flip the U.S. to surpluses, but I digress.)
Let’s now turn to tariffs. Like a VAT, they are broad consumption taxes, just not applied defensibly. They are applied only to imports, not to everything bought and sold in the country. This makes no sense, unless you think tariffs aren’t taxes (they are), and you think tariffed companies pay them (they don’t). So, Americans.
But tariffs are a species of VAT, albeit a poorly designed one. A universal tariff on imported goods—say, at 15%—would raise VAT-lite revenues. Based on recent data, U.S. annual imports are around $4 trillion. Applying a uniform 15% tariff to manufactured goods, which is 80-ish% of that. might yield roughly $300-$400 billion annually. While this is a fraction of the revenue of an actual VAT, it is real money. The choice then is not between a perfect VAT and an imperfect tariff, but between an imperfect tariff and continued reliance on deficit financing or distortionary taxes on labor and capital income.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you might rightly protest. This is just a bad solution. Sure, but it is, in practical terms, a “second-best solution”, even if it is also perhaps the second-worst.
We should want more second-best solutions, economics tells us, if the alternative is doing nothing. There is a framework, with which I won’t bore you, that says it’s okay to do something less than perfect, if by doing so you counteract some of the problems preventing you from doing the best thing.
In this case, American politics prevents an actual VAT from happening, so perhaps tariffs aren’t so bad, if the alternative real distortion is structural deficits. To that way of thinking, distorting trade via a uniform tariff (a second distortion) may increase overall welfare relative to the status quo (deficits), despite being shitty trade policy.
And, if we want to spitball here, tariffs could even lay the groundwork politically and psychologically for a future transition to an actual big-boy VAT. Citizens and businesses might recognize that consumption taxation you can see is better than consumption taxation that you can’t. A future administration could leverage dissatisfaction with tariffs to propose replacing them with a more economically efficient and lower-rate VAT. Politically, the VAT would then become not a “new” tax but rather a tax cut (in rate terms only) eliminating import tariffs.
The debate over tariffs versus VATs is about the current structural problem in U.S. budget, a refusal to recognize life under 2%. Economically ideal policies frequently fail politically, leaving policymakers with second-best solutions. Tariffs, undeniably flawed and distortionary, are a usefully ugly compromise. They generate meaningful revenue, shift some production domestically, and potentially serve as a stepping-stone toward a VAT.
[Lest we got our hope up too high… Kedrosky is addressing the revenue half of the equation. But where and how that money is spent (whether raised by tariffs or a VAT) obviously matters absolutely. It’s clear from the examples he cites along the way, that Kedrosky would see that income most usefully applied to the social infrastructure that, as he observes, we have (to put it politely) neglected. Sadly, the “Big Beautiful Bill” and the rhetoric that surrounds it suggest that the Trump administration has other, darker plans, beefing up Defense and Homeland Security and creating a “sovereign wealth fund“… all of which could all-too-easily (and obviously) go horribly wrong, creating more damage in the form of social infrastructure destruction, and souring the public on the very idea of Federal action. Still, as Kedrosky concludes…]
Hey, a boy can dream, can’t he?…
Tariffs are a bad idea.. but could they lead somewhere good? “Tariffs are Dumb Enough to (Almost) Work,” from @paulkedrosky.com.
###
As we search for silver linings, we might recall that it was on this date in 2023, that Justice Deartment Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled the case alleging that then-former President Donald Trump broke several laws in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election…
On June 8, 2023, a grand jury in the Southern Florida U.S. District Court indicted Trump on 37 felony counts, including charges of willful retention of national security material, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, relating to his removal and retention of presidential materials from the White House after his presidency ended. Thirty-one of the counts fell under the Espionage Act.
On August 1, 2023, a grand jury for the District of Columbia U.S. District Court issued a four-count indictment of Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870 for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both indictments. Trials were scheduled but never held.
On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents prosecution against Donald Trump, siding with the former president’s argument that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.
On November 25, 2024, Smith announced that he was seeking to drop all charges against Donald Trump in the aftermath of Trump’s victory in the 2024 United States presidential election. The Justice Department, by policy, does not prosecute sitting presidents of the United States.
Smith submitted his final report to the Justice Department on January 7, 2025, and resigned three days later…
… [In fact] The special counsel prepared a two-volume final report: the first volume about the election obstruction case, and the second volume about the classified documents case.
Trump’s lawyers were allowed to review Smith’s final report from January 3–6, 2025 in a room where they could not use their electronic devices. They objected to the report’s release. On January 6, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira (who could still face criminal charges in the classified documents case asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop its release to avoid influencing their case, and the next day, Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the report’s release until three days after the 11th Circuit decided. Later in the evening on January 7, the special counsel provided both volumes to the attorney general, and the next day, the Department of Justice said it would release the first volume publicly and may provide a redacted version of the second volume for a limited review by select members of Congress. On January 9, the 11th Circuit allowed the release of the first volume, and on January 13, Cannon said she would likewise allow it, given that her own authority was limited to the classified documents case. On January 14, the 137-page first volume was released.
– source
The 137-page report that was released is here.
The matter did not, of course, rest there. In 2024, in Trump v. United States, filed in response to the Smith indictments, the Supreme Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president’s “official acts” – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate. (In practice, as we’ve seen in 2025, his immunity seems to extend even to things that Congress is supposed to regulate.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.