Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

The Nuremberg Movement

It’s time to start a movement for new Nuremberg trials. After WWII many Nazis were tried for genocide and various war crimes, and they were executed.

I remember a long time ago my friend Stirling Newberry told me that western elites had only one moral rule, “Don’t be Nazis.” Anything short of being a Nazi was OK: mass murder that didn’t quite reach genocide, mass impoverishment, police states that didn’t quite reach “we are the Gestapo” levels, etc…

This struck me as not much of a red line, you can do a lot of evil without being as bad as the Nazis, after all.

But they’ve crossed even this red line. They’re Nazis. Trump, Trudeau, Biden, Harris, almost every leader and politician in Europe, outside of Spain and Ireland, certainly virtually every German and British politician, has aided and abetted genocide. We’re not just talking looking the other way, they’ve locked up those opposed to genocide and they’ve sent weapons and in many cases (Britain) they’ve actively defended Israel from those trying to stop the genocide militarily, like Yemen and Hezbollah.

Nor are we just talking politicians. One journalist was executed at Nuremberg, and most of the journalists in the West have covered for genocide now. The New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the Guardian, the Telegram, every major TV news show, etc, etc… They knew genocide was happening, they lied about it, they did everything they could to make sure it could continue.

And, of course, almost every Israeli politician and almost all members of America’s congress, many members of Britain’s and Canada’s House of Commons, most Germany politicians, most EU officials, and so on.

All of these people need to hang from the neck till dead. All of them. If we don’t have “supports genocide” as a red line, we have no red lines at all.

This isn’t politically possible now. They’re in power. But they won’t be in power forever. Never forget. Never forgive. And ensure justice.

Fair trials and if they aided genocide, hang them from the neck till dead. There is no statute of limitations on genocide.

And if you’re completely selfish, understand this. They think they can even commit genocide and get away with it. This time it was a bunch of brown people in another country, but having crossed that line, the next line is “what if we mass murder white people in the first world? Could be we get away with it? They let us make them poor and homeless, is killing them that big a step? They’re just useless eaters, anyway.”

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

How Leadership Worked In the Early & Middle Roman Republic

When a lot of people talk about Rome, they’re thinking of the Empire and when they write about Rome, they’re writing about the decline and fall. But I’ve always been more interested in creation of new things and how they ran when they were running well. To be sure, knowing how a system eventually failed is important, but not if we don’t understand how it ran well in the first place.

The Republic actually had four different elected assemblies and voting groups (the Senate was not, strictly speaking, elected.) By the middle Republic three were still important.

Tthe Centuriata (organized by military centuries based on wealth, since wealthier citizens could afford better equipment) elected Consuls and Praetors, who had Imperium (the right to lead troops), voted on war and peace and served as a court for serious crimes. It was dominated by the richer classes.

The Tributa, was based on tribes (geographical organizations.) Because all voting took place in Rome, urban tribes had oversized power in it. It voted on legislation proposed by magistrates and the Tributa (the electorate itself) voted to select lower magistrates like Quaestors and Aediles.

Finally there was the Concilium Plebis. This body excluded Patricians and was organized by Tribes. It elected Tribunes of the People. Their powers varied over time, but at certain points they were arguably the most powerful officials in Rome. Tribunes could veto bills from other bodies and the Plebis could pass laws binding on all citizens. Tribunes were meant to be available to any Roman citizen at any time. They couldn’t even close or lock the doors of their homes.

Then, of course, there was the Senate. In the early years Senators were largely appointed by Consuls. A little later by Censors (officials responsible for running a population census and for public morals, elected every five years for a one year term.) In time it became customary for officials elected as Quaestors or Aediles to be enrolled almost automatically. As a practical matter, the Senate was controlled by powerful and rich families. At first those were mostly Patrician, but in time various powerful Plebeian families broke in.

The important leaders in the Republic were magistrates. They held court, they knew law, and in the case of officials with Imperium, they lead armies.

Except for the Tribunes, Censors and Aediles, election to office required following the Cursus Honorum.

The lowest office was Questor. You had to be 30 and the duties were administrative. You might oversee the treasury, serve as an aide to a governor or consul, or otherwise oversee financial or administrative duties.

Aediles were not part of the Cursus, but as time went by you were unlikely to be elected to senior office if you hadn’t served as an Aedile, in part because they were responsible for the games: gladiatorial contests and races. In addition they were responsible for overseeing Rome’s infrastructure: roads, temples, markets, building standards and so on.

Praetors had to be 39 years old minimum and presided over courts (were judges), governed provinces and had the right to command troops.

Finally there was the Consulship. There were two consuls at a time, they had full Imperium, presided over assemblies and acted as judges for the most important cases.

In addition, it was rare for anyone to be elected to any office higher than Qaestor without military service.

Now that we have some idea of the structure, let’s break down why it worked so well for so long.

Experience with How Government Actually Works. Because of the cursus honorum and the de-facto requirement to serve as Aedile and to have military experience, government officials actually knew how the state worked from roads and treasury to law to military affairs. They understood the nuts and bolts of government operations. Compare this to most of our politicians, who don’t know how cities are actually constructed, how the law works, how real world markets actually act and so on.

Since a state that can’t win wars risks stopping being a state, having military experience is important. Moreover it meant that civilian officials understood the military and could expect respect from the military and control it. (Until the late Republic, anyway.)

Officials were pretty much all lawyers. Yes, I know the jokes, but if your job is to create laws, knowing the law seems like a good thing, eh? And since they served as judges as well as usually acting as private lawyers (for which they could officially not accept fees) they knew how laws were actually working in the community.

Praetors serving as Governors, once Rome had provinces, meant that before they became Consul, they had also run a large principality. Again, they had experience in an executive role before being put into the supreme executive role.

Skin In the Game. Rome’s greatest military loss was probably at the battle of Cannae, when Hannibal essentially wiped out an entire Roman Army of 86,000 men. Here’s the interesting thing: one third of Senate was wiped out. Proportional losses among the most important people in Rome were far higher than among the plebs. This is the opposite of how our society now runs, where the powerful don’t serve in the military and if they do, aren’t on the front lines.

Clientage System. Everyone in Rome was part of a system of client/patron relations. Think of it as a chain. You might have a few clients, but have a patron who had many clients, and that patron might have a patron as well. Patrons had a duty to help their clients, and clients had the same duty to their patrons, including the expectation to do battle on their patrons behalf. Clients would go to court with their patrons and cheer for them. When their patrons held office, clients would assist. The patrons would help clients with business affairs, give them gifts and in general take care of them.

This means that everyone in Roman society was connected thru formal chains from almost the very bottom (slaves weren’t clients, but freed slaves automatically became clients of their ex-owner) to the very top of society. Loyalty to clients was important, because clients were a patron’s power base, including their most reliable voters. As for clients, well, powerful patronage is always useful. The powerful in Rome could not be disconnected from everyone else, or they wouldn’t be powerful.

Truly Divided Government. America’s founders tried to imitate the Roman Republic, but one of Rome’s great advantages is that the government was truly divided. The Tribunes and the Plebs truly were opposed to the Senatorial class much of the time. They truly did stop their legislation often. All thru the design of government, there were checks and balances, even at the top. There were two consuls so that neither of them could rule impeded, for example.

When necessary a dictator could be appointed, but constitutional dictatorships were specific to a problem. Usually a war or administrative issue. They were used, in effect, to solve a specific problem and once it was resolved the dictatorship was over.

Limited War Making Power. Only a few officials could lead troops: Praetors, governors (ex-Praetors, usually), Consuls and Dictators. The troops themselves were raised from the general population for specific wars and disbanded once the war was over. There were few professional soldiers, it was a citizen army. Until the late Republic it was unthinkable for Roman armies to turn on Rome and that happened because a professional army with soldiers often under arms for decades was formed. The soldiers became more loyal to their generals (who rewarded them with loot and rapine) than to Rome. But during the Early and Middle Republic the military was an appendage of society, not apart from it.

No Troops in Rome and no Police. There was no enforcer class within Rome itself. In fact to be under arms in Rome was a huge crime. A general and his troops could not be in Rome, whether armed or not, at the same time. Romans had law, but until you were convicted of a crime almost nothing could be done to you. There were effectively no prisons and no cops. In the later Republic this lead to the rise of gangs and rather a lot of violence, but it worked for a long time and kept Romans free.

A requirement for generosity. If you were rich, you were expected to give to the community. Bridges, roads, temples, libraries, monuments, theaters and so on were all built by rich Romans. In fact, election to office during the Early and Middle Republic wasn’t based on promises of “what I’ll do when elected” it was based on “this is what I’ve already done. I deserve office.” Not just giving, but military service, acting as patron, defending citizens as a lawyer and so on.

Leaders Were Held Responsible. Suing Roman officials after they left office was common. If you misused your office, any citizen could take you to court. Penalties were no joke, including banishment and even death. During office many Roman officials were above the law, sacrosanct, but offices were rarely for more than a year, and a year is not a long time.

Summarizing Remarks:

Republican Roman leadership was effective for so long because Roman leaders were forced to actually learn how government and the military worked. They were given significant power for brief periods, usually a year, and were held responsible afterwards. They were part of chains of clientage which reached from the top to the bottom of society and unable to be unaware of the condition of other Romans. They were expected to contribute their wealth to society, to help their clients and to be generous. They were trained in law and familiar with how law operated because almost all served as lawyers and magistrates. And they served in the military and could expect, as at Cannae, to suffer if the military was incompetently led.

Competence, responsibility, generosity and deep ties to the community.

Of course this system had its flaws, even very serious ones, and as all systems do it eventually broke down. But it was also remarkably successful for centuries.

And, in the context of our larger discussion of leaders being different types of people in different societies and different times, Roman leaders were very different from ours. Oh, sure, they were ambitious, leaders almost always are. And they needed to be elected. But in most ways they had little in common with our politicians and CEOs.

The question is “in what ways were they worse or better”, perhaps. If I had to pick one point, it would definitely be the Curusus Honorum. A lot of our leadership issues, both private and public, would be lessened if our leaders had been responsible for the nuts and bolts of running government and society, and actually understood how it worked.

There’s a lot to be said for the government version of “starting in the mailroom.” Do our politicans even understand how the postal system works or how roads are paved?

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Do The Same Sorts Of People Lead All Societies?

There often seems to be an assumption that leaders everywhere are the same: that there is no real difference between leaders in different countries or at different times.

It’s true that leaders generally share some attributes: almost all want to lead and want power. But beyond that, no.

Think a little about how leaders changed over time in America. Can you really say that the same port of people run politics or corporations today as when FDR was in charge or during the post-war period?  The people then were builders who were expanding the social safety net and increasing the middle class, not the upper. The corporate leadership was dominated by engineers, not by MBAs, and many had started at the bottom and risen to the top.

Or think about the leadership of Europe before and after it was conquered by America and the USSR and split up. These were not men who were automatically subservient to outside powers, without national pride and without ambition.

Think about China under Mao and then China today. The people who ran China under Mao, then during the Deng era, and even in Xi era, while they have some continuity, show significant changes. Over the entire history of the CCP party members are selected, not self-selecting and under Xi’s rule, they’re increasingly chosen based on technocratic accomplishments combined with belief in Party principles. To compare them to the shysters who run America, or the bloodless technocrats of Europe is insane.

In the past we’ve chosen leaders primarily based on military skill and heredity. Leaders of hunter gatherer bands (smaller groups, not all hunter-gatherers have had band formations) were often chosen not for aggressiveness but patience and lack of temper.

Leaders are different in different societies, whether different in space or time. They have different characters, different abilities and different goals. The political elites of 1933-1968 or so in America are very different from those who replaced them and that’s a relatively minor change compared to the replacement of feudal nobles by centralized court aristocrats who were then replaced by elected officials and appointed bureaucrats. Let alone the rise of the bourgeois and capitalists. Men of business think very different from aristocrats competing for court favor, let alone nobles who rule their own domains and armies and who consider even the King simply the greatest among equals. Such nobles are vastly different from Roman imperial bureaucrats or the Senatorial families and elected officials who ran the Roman Republic and were forced to come up thru the Cursus Honorum and actually learn how government works.

Of all the things we do as a society, selecting our leaders and deciding what power to give them is possibly the most important.

It’s something we’ve been very bad at for a long time now.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 10, 2025

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 10, 2025

by Tony Wikrent

 

They’re not capitalists — they’re predatory criminals

UNLOCKED: The Epstein/Trump/Israel Connection Unpacked (w/ Whitney Webb) (YouTube Video)

Briahna Joy Gray interviews Whitney Webb, July 30, 2025 [Bad Faith podcast]

[TW: Webb does an extraordinary job detailing the organized crime backgrounds of Trump and Epstein. Gray was left flabbergasted and visibly shaken by the information. I was also flabbergasted, but because here was someone finally discussing a few key facets of USA and British history that very, very few historians are willing to consider: the World War Two merger between organized crime and intelligence agencies begun during Operation Underworld, when the Office of Naval Intelligence recruited Joseph LanzaMeyer Lansky, and Lucky Luciano​​​​​​​ to watch for and report any possible Axis espionage and saboteur operations in U.S. northeastern ports. Webb next outlines how organized crime “went legit” by taking over Wall Street and the “mergers and acquisitions” racket in the 1970s and 1980s. This last point is something many “influencers” have denied, some with near hysteria.

[Trump’s mentor was mafia lawyer Roy Cohn, and Webb discusses  Cohn’s ties to organized crime that were also shared by Epstein’s mentor, Les Wexner. Webb also mentions the CIA / Iran-Contra involvement in the illegal narcotics trade uncovered by San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb in 1996, and some of the British “corporate raiders,” such as Sir James Michael Goldsmith, who spearheaded the criminal infiltration of Wall Street. (It is not mentioned if and how Gary Webb and Whitney Webb are related.) This may be the most explosive 90 minute show you will ever listen to in your life. It paints a clear picture of the malevolent criminally-inclined elites who have seized political and economic control of USA and the west.]

[At 59:59 BJG asks why? “why are these people who have everything still getting involved in illegal and immoral activities.”

[My answer:  to understand why, you have to ignore the nostrums and ideas of liberalism, and turn to the founding philosophy of civic republicanism, which has been under attack by USA’s would be oligarchs since before the Constitution was signed and ratified. The quick answer to BJG’s question is found in the1667 epic poem Paradise Lost, by English republican John Milton: when Satan explains why he rebelled against God by saying “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”

[Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. That is the mindset of an oligarch.

[The great weakness of liberalism is its moral ambivalence about the accumulation of wealth. Liberal thinkers such as John Locke defend the accumulation of great wealth under the principles of individual liberty. But as should be abundantly clear by the events of the past few decades, great wealth corrupts a society. While liberalism prefers to ignore this problem, the general socio-economic dynamic of this corruption is a central theme of civic republicanism.

In The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth Century England (Evanston, Northwestern University , 1945), Zera S. Fink, quotes from English republican political theorist Algernon Sidney, who was executed for “treason” against the crown in 1683: “Man” he wrote, “is of an aspiring nature, and apt to put too high a value on himself. They who are raised above their brethren, though but a little, desire to go farther; and if they gain the name of king, they think themselves wronged and degraded, when they are not suffered to do what they please. In these things they never want masters; and the nearer they come to a power that is not easily restrained by law, the more passionately they desire to abolish all that opposes it.” Even when a prince was virtuous and began by desiring nothing more than the power allowed him by law, he was subject to greater temptations to invade the liberty of his subjects than human nature could be expected to withstand. “The strength of his own affections,” Sydney declared, “will ever be against him. Wives, children, and servants will always join with those enemies that arise in his own breast to pervert him; if he has any weak side, any lust unsubdued, they will gain the victory. He has not searched into the nature of man, who thinks that anyone can resist when he is thus on all sides assaulted.”  Monarchy, in short, by the very constitution of human nature, tended always to degenerate into tyranny. It was a defective form of government because in the most important place of all it was lacking in those adequate restraints on the defects of human nature which all the classical republicans saw as an essential of any well-contrived government.

[In The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America (New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 2007), Michael J. Thompson writes, “Any political community that suffers from severe imbalances between rich and poor is in danger of losing its democratic character…”  And he explicitly states that “the contemporary tolerance of economic inequality is actually the result of liberalism and liberal thought itself.” Thompson  explains that the political philosophy of civic republicanism recognizes the great danger posed by concentrations of wealth and economic power.

In “The American Revolutionaries, the Political Economy of Aristocracy, and the American Concept of the Distribution of Wealth, 1765-1900,” James L. Huston argued that the founders developed a political economy of aristocracy which identified the avaricious rich as a primary threat to the republic.

The revolutionaries’ concern over the distribution of wealth was prompted by a tenet in the broad and vague political philosophy of republicanism. In contrast to nations in which monarchs and aristocrats dominate the state, republics embodied the ideal of equality among citizens in political affairs, the equality taking the form of citizen participation in the election of officials who formulated the laws. Drawing largely on the work of seventeenth-century republican theorist James Harrington, Americans believed that if property were concentrated in the hands of a few in a republic, those few would use their wealth to control other citizens, seize political power, and warp the republic into an oligarchy. Thus to avoid descent into despotism or oligarchy, republics had to possess an equitable distribution of wealth….

[In The Laws, his last and longest dialogue, Plato wrote that “there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil.” We should not be surprised The Laws is the least studied, least known, and least quoted of Plato’s books.

[The Roman historian Plutarch traced the degeneration of the Roman republic into an oligarchic empire to the growing imbalance between rich and poor.  Another Roman, the lawyer, scholar, philosopher, orator, and writer, Cicero, discussed the dangers of economic inequality, but also included a warning of the peculiar psychological condition of the rich:

“When one person or a few stand out from the crowd as richer and more prosperous, then, as a result of their haughty and arrogant behavior, there arises [a government of one or a few], the cowardly and weak giving way and bowing down to the pride of wealth.”

[The work of another historian of ancient Rome, Livy, was the basis of Machiavelli’s description of how the rich of Rome corrupted the Senate. In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli described how the Romans tried to restore political balance by creating tribunes to represent the plebians to counterbalance the control of the Senate by the rich, but the unceasing resistance and plotting against the tribunes by the rich of Rome eventually brought about the end of the Roman republic.

[The lesson for Machiavelli was “Let, then, a republic be constituted where there exists, or can be brought into being, notable equality.”

[In The Spirit of Laws, Book 5. Chapter 5, ”In what Manner the Laws establish Equality in a Democracy,” Montesquieu wrote,

“Though real equality be the very soul of a democracy, it is so difficult to establish, that an extreme exactness in this respect would not be always convenient. Sufficient is it to establish a census, which shall reduce or fix the differences to a certain point: it is afterwards the business of particular laws to level, as it were, the inequalities, by the duties laid upon the rich, and by the ease afforded to the poor. It is moderate riches alone that can give or suffer this sort of compensation; for as to men of overgrown estates, everything which does not contribute to advance their power and honor is considered by them as an injury.…”

[Montesquieu thus echoed Cicero by identifying the peculiar psycho-pathology of the rich by noting “to men of overgrown estates, everything which does not contribute to advance their power and honor is considered by them as an injury.” Does this not precisely define Trump and his vindictiveness?

[In the Christian Bible we find Matthew 6:24:

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

[And, more pointedly, James 5:1-6:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence.

[And there is the famous warning in that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” This famous biblical quotation is repeated three times in the New Testament, in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25.

[The problem of the rich dominating society and destroying it by their aggressive greed and ambition is not confined to the West. The view that the rich posed a danger to good government was also enunciated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius:

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

[According to Confucius, in a well governed society there should be a rough level of economic equality — there should be no poverty. But when a society is no longer well governed, economic inequality arises and there are the impoverished many and the rich few, who abuse and ignore the law and social norms, resulting in misrule. The existence of the wealthy therefore are a marker of a badly governed society.

[And in his Analects, Confucius wrote

If there were an honorable way to get rich, I’d do it, even if it meant being a stooge standing around with a whip. But there isn’t an honorable way, so I just do what I like.

[Oligarchy is the mortal enemy of a republic. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is a well-known saying, but it is just as important to understand that wealth corrupts and concentrated wealth corrupts absolutely. What Gray and Webb discuss is the general corruption that has arisen by our society’s toleration of great wealth, and the social damage it has caused, including the escalating problem of elite impunity.

[The Transcendentalists — among whom were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Louisa May Alcott, and Walt Whitman — were particularly hostile to liberal philosopher John Locke. The Transcendentalist view of Locke was summarized by Orestes Brownson, in The Boston Quarterly Review, in January 1839:

…Locke reduces man to the capacity of receiving sensations, and the faculty of reflecting on what passes within us. According to him we have no ideas which do not enter through the senses, or which are not formed by the operations of the mind on ideas received by means of sensation.

[Locke’s] system of philosophy… is no less fatal to political liberty than to religion and morality… This philosophy necessarily disinherits the mass. It denies to man all inherent power of attaining to truth. In religion, if religion it admits, it refers us not to what we feel and know in ourselves [such a sense of fairness and justice], but was said and done in some remote age, by some special messenger from God; it refers us to some authorized teacher, and commands us to receive our faith on his word, and to adhere to it on peril of damnation. It therefore destroys all free action of the mind, all independent thought, all progress, and all living faith. In politics it must do the same. It cannot found the state on the inherent rights of man; the most it can do, is to organize the state for the preservation of such conditions, privileges, and prescriptions, as it can historically verify….

The doctrine, that truth comes to us from abroad, cannot coexist with true liberty… The democrat is not he who believes in the people’s capacity of being taught, and therefore graciously condescends to be their instructor; but he who believes that Reason, the light which shines out from God’s throne, shines into the heart of every man, and that truth lights her torch in the inner temple of every man’s souk, whether patrician or plebian, a shepherd or a philosopher, a Croesus or a beggar. It is only on the reality of that inner light, and on the fact that it is universal, in all men, and in every man, that you can found a democracy, which shall have a firm basis, and which shall be able to survive that storms of human passions.

[Zohran Mamdani has been repeatedly attacked for saying we shouldn’t have billionaires. But he badly flubs his explanation of this view. The simple fact is that a republic cannot survive the rise of oligarchy. A republic must have very high taxes on wealth and income, to disrupt the concentration of wealth and prevent the inherent despotism of the rich from ever emerging in the first place.

[Our problem now is that a plutocratic oligarchy has already parasitically fastened itself on our society and polity, and we need to dislodge it, and restore the governing principles of civic republicanism.]

Howie Klein, August 06, 2025 [downwithtyranny.com]
Thomas Neuburger, August 03, 2025 [downwithtyranny.com]

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Autarky Sure Looks Good

So, Trump has decided to raise tariffs on India to 50% (who knows if he actually will), over their imports of Russian oil. Meanwhile:

Senators Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal are the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill which would impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and entities supporting Putin’s aggression if Moscow does not engage in peace talks or undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The bill includes imposing 500-percent tariffs on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.

At this point all smart nations and blocs should be doing their best to reduce vulnerability to the US, to route around it and to move towards as much autarky as possible.

It’s notable that while China remains a huge trading power, the economic priority over the last eight years has been making all major industrial stacks domestic: ending their need for industrial goods from other countries and reducing their need for imports of resources. Where that’s not possible, they have shifted to reliable partners like Russia and Iran and various other nations in Asia, Africa and South America.

John Maynard Keynes was of the opinion that anything a country needed, it should make or grow at home if at all feasible. Price arguments are largely ludicrous, because if you don’t have vast exposure to trade or need to buy important goods overseas and you don’t allow significant currency movements outside your border, prices are largely a domestic matter. That is to say, they are a matter of policy. Government actions largely determine the price of goods and services produced in the country IF the country is capable of producing those goods and services itself.

Or, again, as Keynes said, “anything we can do, we can afford.” (The corollary is that anything you can’t do, you can’t afford.)

Trade dependency is foolish. It may be necessary in some cases, and certain policy choices require it, like export driven industrialization. But once you’ve got an industrial base, it becomes a choice.

If a country produces everything it needs, including reasonable luxuries, questions of employment become ludicrous. Just reduce working hours to 30 hours a week, or even 20, or institute an annual income. The idea that resources must be distributed thru jobs is, again, ludicrous. Once a society produces enough why not increase leisure? Why not encourage citizens to do art, write, study or even sun-bathe? Most people don’t have jobs they’d keep doing if they were independently wealthy. There is NO virtue to work that is not actually needed.

A trade structure which creates a vast web of interdependency doesn’t decrease the likelihood of war. The Europeans found that out in WWI: the pre-Great War world had vast amounts of trade, and it was argued that war between the Great Powers was obsolete: they would all lose massively. It was true that they’d all lose massively, and they still went to war.

All that too much interdependence does is restrain nation decision making ability, and, in democratic countries, the ability of politicians to actually do what their constituents want. (They often don’t consider this a bug, mind you. It’s nice to be able to say “we have to reduce taxes on rich people and corporations to be competitive”.)

Free trade is a bad idea for any country that isn’t postage stamp sized. If you can’t make it yourself, learn how. Trade for what you can’t grow or dig up yourself, and actually need. Eat seasonally.

This doesn’t mean “no trade”, it simply means managed trade and an emphasis on making as much as you can yourself.

Certainly no country which can avoid it should need to import food, and likewise and deep need to import energy is a huge weakness which can easily be used against you and which can lead to war. (This is the proximate cause of Japan attacking the US in WWII: America cut Japan off from oil, and they had to have it.)

This also leads back to our previous discussions on population levels and birth rates. A China with 1.4 billion people needs more imports than one with 600 billion people. An American with 150 million people is far freer than one with over 300 million.

As for defense, well, all real countries should have nukes and advanced missiles. It’s that simple. If you do, you’re a real country. If you don’t, you aren’t and are subject to easy blackmail by any great power.

Moving towards autarky is a worthwhile goal. In most cases it will never be achieved and full autarky is rarely a good idea, but getting close is.

(See also, “Ricardo’s Caveat”, because economists are wrong about comparative advantage in free capital flow systems.)

 

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
And get new posts emailed to you once a day.

Why China’s Big On Open Source

Yesterday we discussed Chinese vs. American AI. The big difference is that a lot of China’s AI is Open Source. Not just Deepseek, but:

In addition to Baidu, other Chinese tech giants such as Alibaba Group and Tencent have increasingly been providing their AI offerings for free and are making more models open source.

For example, Alibaba Cloud said last month it was open-sourcing its AI models for video generation, while Tencent released five new open-source models earlier this month with the ability to convert text and images into 3D visuals.

Smaller players are also furthering the trend. ManusAI, a Chinese AI firm that recently unveiled an AI agent that claims to outperform OpenAI’s Deep Research, has said it would shift towards open source.

Nor is it just in AI. An emphasis on open source isn’t just a private matter, it’s in the latest five year plan.

And that is makes sense. Open Source has the great advantage that it’s not subject to geopolitical risk. The US can’t cut countries off that use open source. It also has the advantage that private actors can’t squeeze you nearly as much. If you’re using proprietary tech, whoever is using it can raise prices or stop selling to you.

Moreover, non-Western customers are more likely to products built on open source, again, because it’s much freer or geopolitical or private squeeze risk.

But probably the most important thing is that Open Source and open standards speed up innovation. Anyone who wants to can build on them without paying exorbidant fees, or without simply being locked out by patent or copyright concerns. If you actually want rapid advancement in tech, and China does (the US, overall, does not) then open source makes sense. The original intention of patents was to get inventors to share, not to lock in long term profits. Patents were usually granted for relatively short terms.

The great differences between American and Chinese leadership, both private and public, is that they genuinely do think strategically and long term, and that Chinese leaders care (or, at least, in many more cases act as if they care) about China, not just their own companies or themselves. There is a unifying vision for the country, a true belief in technological advancement and a belief that technology can be used to help ordinary people. I remember seeing a cartoon on AI where in America its used to get rid of artists and writers and in China it’s used to free people up so they can be artists and writers.

Who knows if it’ll work that way, but the “Jetsons” future assumes that tech is meant to do things for us so we can enjoy life more, not so that more and more people can be made poverty stricken, and China has that spirit.

When you believe in technology and science, truly, as for the public good and not just for private profit, well, you wind up leading the rest of the world in 80% of techs.

And soon it will be 90%.

 

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Why China Is Going To Win The AI Race

When you look at AI, right now, it has one major use case that people are really willing to pay for: coding. That means Cursor and, to a lesser extent,  Replit. Let’s take Cursor as an example: it is built on top of other companys AI.

This is a problem, because Cursor doesn’t have a service to sell without making calls to other company’s AIs and those companies can raise prices and Cursor has to eat it.

As Zitron notes, this is what actually happened recently:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up the dramatic changes that Cursor made to its service in the middle of June on my premium newsletter, and discovered that they timed precisely with Anthropic (and OpenAI to a lesser extent) adding “service tiers” and “priority processing,” which is tech language for “pay us extra if you have a lot of customers or face rate limits or service delays.” These price shifts have also led to companies like Replit having to make significant changes to its pricing model that disfavor users….

  • On or around June 16 2025 — Cursor changes its pricing, adding a new $200-a-month “Ultra” tier that, in its own words, is “made possible by multi-year partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and xAI,” which translates to “multi-year commitments to spend, which can be amortized as monthly amounts.”
  • A day later, Cursor dramatically changed its offering to a “usage-based” one where users got “at least” the value of their subscription — $20-a-month provided more than $20 of API calls — in compute, along with arbitrary rate limits and “unlimited” access to Cursor’s own slow model that its users hate.
  • June 18 — Replit announces its “effort-based pricing” increases.
  • July 1 2025 — The Information reports Anthropic has hit “$4 billion annual pace,”  meaning that it is making $333 million a month, or an increase of $83 million a month, or an increase of just under 25% in the space of a month.

In other words, Anthropic, which still isn’t making money even now, increased its prices and Cursor and Replit were forced to pass those price increases on to their customers, and made their products worse.

American AI isn’t profitable. Each call costs more than anyone is charging their customers. And since there are very few AI models (OpenAI, Anthropic and X, basically), anyone who uses these services is subject to having prices suddenly increase. Indeed, since none of these companies is making money, it’s hard to see how anyone could expect anything but price increases.

Now here’s the thing about Deepseek, a Chinese AI. Its run costs 97% less than American AI. You’d think that American AI companies, seeing this, would have looked at how Deepseek did it, but they aren’t, they’re piling on the spending and costs.

And here’s the second thing: Deepseek is open source. You can run it on your own servers and you can build on it.

So: 30x cheaper and you can’t be hit with sudden but entirely to be expected price increases.

Why would you use American AI? (No, it’s not that much better.) The only real reason is legal risk: America wants to win the AI race and it’s willing to use sanctions to do so.

But if you’re in a country outside the Western sphere you’d be insane to use American AI. Absolutely nuts. And even if the Western sphere, building off American AI is incredibly risky.

So Chinese AI is going to win. Sanctions may slow it down, but open source and 30X cheaper is one hell of a combo.

It didn’t have to be like this. OpenAI wasn’t supposed to be a for profit enterprise and Deepseek’s methods of lowering costs could be emulated. But that doesn’t seem to occur to American AI companies.

American tech is completely out to lunch. Absolutely insane. A thirty time cost differential is not something you can just ignore, nor is the fact that American AI companies absolutely will have to raise prices, and raise them massively.

So, yet again, China is going to win, because American corporate leaders are, apparently, morons.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Page 5 of 475

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén