The Content Is the Title


BlackRock doesn't need USia as a hegemon anymore. Besides, any attempt to regulate it would've caused it to pivot away and operate somewhere else. It's attracted to BRICS, but this multi-civ bloc is no longer a pushover.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Illegitimate Sovereign

Image
Tired of this Wolff guy, but I can't diss Hall so easy. It's microhistory. His specific date of 2400 BCE is too neat and sharp and unsupported. What IS supported is the macrohistorical pattern: private creditors and public issuers have been in structural tension since the earliest recorded economies. JC is in the Temple. 2400 BCE is an interpretive claim, a rhetorical flourish instead of a documented event. Even so, the presence of private bankers and credit systems are documented. So is the struggle between moneylenders and public currency-issuers all the way back into the Bronze Age. Call the former "private credit actors". The Bronze Age is called the Archaic Age. Fast forward past 1200 BCE, the start of the Iron Age, to the Classical period (5th–4th century BCE), when private bankers were financing commercial ventures, managing risk, and lending capital. Archaeology suggests similar market structures existed centuries earlier in the Aegean Bronze Age. This matches...
Read more

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

The Throughput World Order

Image
Isn't Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system" just the latest variant of a Universal Empire? Not quite — and the distinction is pre'-damn-near illuminating once you tease apart what Wallerstein is describing and what Toynbee means by a Universal Empire. There's a rhyme, but they’re not the same creature. In fact, the gap between them is where the modern world hides its deepest structural weirdness. 1. A Universal Empire is a political unification. Toynbee’s Universal Empire is a single sovereign authority that forcibly knits together a civilization after its creative energies have died out. Its traits are unmistakable: - one imperial center   - one administrative shell   - one military monopoly   - coercive unity   - cultural mummification   Rome, Qin-Han, the Caliphate, the Mauryas — these are Universal Empires. They are states. A Universal Empire is a political solution to civilizational breakdown. 2. Wallerstein’s world-system is not a ...
Read more