Skip to main content

The Pursuit of Power by William H. McNeill

Broad and interesting survey of the use of military advancements and technology as a power vector across history. Starts with the bronze age and trade-based advancements in both weaponry and metallurgy, and runs all the way to the 20th Century's full industrialization of war under centralized command and control.

The bronze age (circa 3500 BC) was history's first verified instance where trade was performed over great distances because tin and copper deposits were never near each other except in rare cases.

Also interesting to see the (albeit frequently forgotten) civilizational discovery that instead of extracting a one-time benefit from plundering conquered lands, you can get long-term, sustainable annuity benefits by exacting annual tributes. This produces a lot more value--and a lot less suffering--for both victor and vanquished.

Note the spontaneous ordering of a merchant class to invent and produce iron/steel (and as a result arms) in China, and how this discovery, along with China's staggering global lead in seagoing skill, naval power, regional control and mercantile power, how all of these world dominating capabilities came and then suddenly faded away in China, weirdly. The Chinese empire developed amazing technologies and capabilities, only to let them rot and die away as China retrenched and retreated from the global scene.

Of course these capabilities (including iron, steel, paper, gunpowder, even the establishment of a merchant class) were to be picked up centuries later in Western/Central Europe and used as vectors for dominating the rest of the world. 

Proto-industrialization of war began in the mid-19th century, beginning with the Crimean war in the 1850s, and then accelerating through the American civil war in the 1860s, and various Prussian/European conflicts to follow. Of course the world wars of the 20th century became the apotheosis of industrialized war under centralized command.

More Posts

The Great Taking by David Rogers Webb

"What is this book about? It is about the taking of collateral, all of it, the end game of this globally synchronous debt accumulation super cycle. This is being executed by long-planned, intelligent design, the audacity and scope of which is difficult for the mind to encompass. Included are all financial assets, all money on deposit at banks, all stocks and bonds, and hence, all underlying property of all public corporations, including all inventories, plant and equipment, land, mineral deposits, inventions and intellectual property. Privately owned personal and real property financed with any amount of debt will be similarly taken, as will the assets of privately owned businesses, which have been financed with debt. If even partially successful, this will be the greatest conquest and subjugation in world history." Sometimes a book hits you with a central idea that seems at first so preposterously unlikely that you can't help but laugh out loud (as I did) and think, &quo

The Shipping Man by Matthew McCleery

A must-read for shipping investors--and even if you're not, it will likely make one out of you. It's a fun story, hilarious at times, and it teaches readers all kinds of nuances about investing. Our main character, running his own little hedge fund, finds out by pure accident that the Baltic Dry Index is down 97% (!) over the course of just three months. It makes him curious, and this curiosity takes him on a downright Dantean journey through the shipping industry.  He's outwitted left and right: first by savvy bankers in Germany, then by even savvier Greeks. And then, in an awful moment of weakness, he gets lured into buying a "tramp" (a very old, nearly used-up ship needing massive repairs) at what seems like a good price. The industry nearly eats this guy alive more than once, but he comes out the other end a true Shipping Man.  This should be mandatory reading for MBA students. I think back to all the terminally boring "case studies" I had to read ov

The Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren

What is wrong with the following statement? "But the two-income family didn't just lose its safety net. By sending both adults into the labor force, these families actually increased the chances that they would need that safety net. In fact, they doubled the risk. With two adults in the workforce, the dual-income family has double the odds that someone could get laid off, downsized, or other wise left without a paycheck. Mom or Dad could suddenly lose a job." You've just read the fundamental thesis of The Two-Income Trap. If you agree with it--although I truly hope you're a better critical thinker than that--you'll have your views reinforced. Thus reading this book would be an unadulterated waste of your time. If on the other hand you are capable of critical thinking and you can successfully see through hilariously unrigorous "logic" of the above statement, then this book will still be a waste of your time (unless you like reading books for the s