Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

  My last post offered my reasons for believing that "peak Soviet" was on or about 1959. This offers an angle to a question: how do empires fall? How did that empire get from 1959 to 1991?  What did NOT happen was a simple diagonal line decline. What did happen was a decline that was slow ... then still slow ... then again slow ... but then very fast.  Several things happened in the decade 1959 - '69 that indicated the empire had reached a limit, but most of these developments did not seem at all like omens of impending collapse.  There was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Khrushchev did get something for his trouble: the US did through back channels agree to withdraw missiles from Turkey. But the whole thing looked like Nikita K. had pushed too hard and had been forced to back down: never a good look for an Emperor.  The year 1963 saw a very bad harvest in the grain-bearing parts of the country, resulting in breadlines, and in the face-losing decision to expen...

I believe I've discussed this before in this blog but, hey, I'm old enough so that you have to expect that I've repeated myself now and then. According to one theory -- one with a certain level of plausibility to it at least -- the societies of the world fall into three classes as defined by water: the dry, the temperate, and the wet. With the dry, large-scale irrigation is essential to any agriculture at all. With the wet, dikes and flood control measures are an imperative. In temperate parts of the world, neither of those needs is quite so urgent, and they can be handled at smaller, localized, scales. Projects that require great scale require great states, powerful imperial centers. On this logic, small states, and individual liberty, has only been possible in the lucky goldilocks parts of the world, neither wet enough nor dry enough to create those unquestionable imperial centers.

Without a lot of throat clearing, here are some thoughts. 1. In general, the causes of wars between nations states always involve competition for resources, and the breakdown of earlier means for mediating those conflicts non-violently. Look at it this way: A new war comes about at the end of a precious period of peace, or at least relative peace. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a new war at all, just a continuation of the everlasting one, right? Also, I think it safe to assume for simplicity's sake at least that resource conflicts are constant. Wants are infinite, resources are limited! So ... a war begins both because specific resource conflicts exist and because mediation mechanisms that until then had kept the peace have broken down. 2. In Europe, the First World War came about largely as a byproduct of the scramble for Africa. The major powers each wanted to gobble up large parts of Africa for their own use, for mining, for markets, for prestige, etc. This brought them ...

  Finance studies the way in which liquid resources, cash and cash-like stuff, moves about in a broader economy, and – if all works well – gets to where it is needed. Finance is a branch of economics, and so as you might suspect is concerned with “supply” and “demand.” But it is concerned with a very particular branch of each. Consider the cash that some people have saved. We’ll call them the Jones’. They’ve put cash away somewhere – in a safe, let us imagine, or in a pillow case – where it is immediately available to them should they want it. Consider also that there are other people and institutions who very much want the use of that cash. These others may have a very restaurant and a distinctive brand, but may need a new infusion of cash in order to expand the restaurant, perhaps making it a chain. In this case, the idea naturally arises that the Jones’ money might be lent to the restauranteurs, as equity (in which case the Jones’ expect a share of profit) or as debt (in...