The case for optimism – the West has rallied

This is Iain Martin’s weekly newsletter for Reaction subscribers.

The award for most depressing long read anywhere on the internet this week goes to a remarkably dispiriting but terrific piece about the end of technological progress. Competition for this award was stiff, with a large number of entries and long reads published in various publications on topics including recession, the great depression, inflation, stagnation, ecological disaster, insufficient football for young women in British schools, the television personality Sandi Toksvig getting annoyed with the Archbishop of Canterbury over the views of African Anglicans on same sex marriage, historic excess money supply growth, the imminent lack of money, and the absence of rain south of Birmingham.

For sheer existential angst blended with deep historical analysis there could only be one winner, however, step forward, essayist Tanner Greer. Niall Ferguson highlighted his latest piece on the Scholar’s Stage site and it’s a must read.

In essence, progress has stalled, he says. Most of what gets described now as innovation is really just a refinement or improvement of existing, long-established technology. Even flashy tech, full of evangelists banging on about changing the world, is not transformative for humanity in the way the internal combustion engine or electric lighting were.

Perhaps you’re reading this on a mobile phone. Of course, it is on one level extraordinary that such a device is a computer that would once have required a warehouse full of machines to produce the same computational power. But in the end you’re still reading text. It’s got headlines, and a picture, and an intro, and I’m writing it trying to keep your attention because we have a shared interest in understanding what’s going on, much as someone writing for a newspaper or reading it did in 1962. It’s not that far removed.

Not even Artificial Intelligence seems likely to change the fabric, or essence, of our environment. It’ll probably be annoying, and sometimes useful, and it will raise the salience of spiritual and moral questions, because examining what it means to be human will become even more important the more powerful the machines become. But AI won’t remake the physical world around us.

The technology entrepreneur Peter Thiel has said something similar about progress having got stuck, but Greer goes deeper.

His gloomy conclusion is that perhaps this is just the way it is. Great leaps, of the kind made from around the 1870s happen extremely rarely in human history. That was a special phase. It’s over. China’s growth was only so dramatic because it was catching up, in a short period, with the developed economies.

“Double-digit GDP growth means transforming the physical basis of an entire society,” Greer says. “It means mud to concrete. Wood to steel. Sweat to dynamos. Shovels to dynamite. Wicks to lightbulbs. Carts to cars to aeroplanes.”

Not until nanotechnology or some other development produces another such giant leap will Greer believe progress has resumed. 

So, that’s the end of that then? We’re destined to wallow around in a low growth world with little prospect of dramatic improvements.

Even worse, it means our power is reducing. The autocratic states are catching up, and in the case of China, overtaking the West. Meanwhile, we are distracted and consumed by self hatred. The end of progress dooms us to relative decline.

Without being boosterish, I don’t think so. We should be much more optimistic about the enduring idea of the West and the power of the human spirit. Consider the story of this year, so far.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Kyiv government was given a few days at best. Instead, they resisted and almost six months later are still fighting. Although the cost of mobilising Ukrainian society is crippling, they have demonstrated how powerful the urge to defend freedom remains.

The West did not fold. Most of it rallied to Ukraine’s aid. The US, UK and Canada have poured in aid and training, managing to do so even during a relatively weak US presidency. The EU Commission has been robust too.

The foreign policies of Sweden and Finland were transformed and they are joining NATO. The Poles have accommodated millions of refugees and are retooling to resist Russia.

Even if there have been problems with France and Germany’s desire for a deal between Ukraine and the aggressor, it is now perfectly possible to imagine a group of democratic allies, not agreeing on everything, but agreeing on a lot, working even more closely together in the decades ahead to defend freedom and deter China and Russia.

In that context, the G7 countries – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and the UK – plus the members of the EU, account for more than 50 per cent of global GDP, as Tory leadership contender Liz Truss points out.

There was an illustration of the fundamental difference, between the democracies and the autocracies, in a tweet from the great John Simpson of the BBC this week: “China’s ambassador to France is quoted as telling French TV: ‘After reunification [with Taiwan] we’ll start re-education.’  The Uyghurs of Xinjiang will know what that means.”

And there is the difference, expressed perfectly. The human spirit matters, human dignity matters. The West isn’t an anachronism when it stands for freely chosen government, freedom of expression and association, free and healthy institutions, and freedom from tyranny. We have the better idea and we’re not done yet.

Poor old Bailey of the Bank

You don’t hear much from Mark “Net Zero” Carney these days. The former Governor of the Bank of England was a rock star appointment when the then Chancellor George Osborne poached him from Canada. Following the tenure of traditionalist Mervyn King, groovy Carney set about repositioning the Bank of England. With inflation deemed kinda old school (central banks had conquered it and the spike shortly after the 2010 election turned out to be temporary) the BoE could widen its field of interests. Carney was especially concerned by climate change. This is not to say he was uninterested or lacks knowledge on monetary policy, but post-financial crisis he saw it in terms of the Bank rebuilding trust by engaging in other policy areas. The BoE became quite a different beast, more likely to chip in on net zero.

Now it falls to his successor, Andrew Bailey, to get back to basics and clear up the mess. Having already been there for the Covid shock, now Bailey must try to alleviate inflation.

I’ve criticised aspects of Bailey’s tenure. The Bank was insufficiently curious about money supply growth (since fallen back down). They were slow to act on inflation they assured us was transient.

But anyone telling you this is simple, with easy answers, is a chump.

Bailey faces a nightmarishly difficult task, with a new government arriving pushing assorted ideas. The promise is of tax cuts, although I’ll believe that when I see it. The public finances will be in such a mess with the energy crisis and recession coming that everything will be about the emergency this winter. I suspect Truss will restrict herself to cancelling some of the Sunak tax rises. 

Some Truss supporters, such as John Redwood, always worth watching on macro policy, say the Bank now risks making the recession worse with excessive interest rate rises. Others want rates normalised with higher rates.

It’s a mess. The mania for making Britain race to net zero earlier than most other countries, a policy cheered on by Carney’s Bank of England, is now in ruins. Britain has insufficient storage for gas and depends, let’s pray, on the interconnectors from Europe this winter providing help. Currently, Britain is shipping out supply to the rest of Europe. And yet here we are an island built on hydrocarbons, underinvested in security of supply. Well done everyone.

Through this minefield, Bailey must find a path for the country’s economy. It is not in anyone’s interests for him to fail.

Sunak must stay and help

One of the worst features of the contemporary British political system is the tendency of the leadership class to run away once they leave office or suffer some reverse or other. This is not a personal criticism of the individuals involved. Presumably each had their own reasons to leave and make lots of money.

What will Rishi Sunak do if, as seems likely, he loses the race to become Tory leader and Prime Minister? His campaign may be imploding. On Friday, footage emerged of him saying in leafy Tunbridge Wells he tried to alter the Treasury formula that advantages poorer, urban areas. Disaster. And this from the campaign that earlier in the week accused rival Liz Truss of trying to “level down” left behind Britain.

Even so, it is very important Sunak does not quit the race. He should stay in politics. The former Chancellor and Truss should move beyond their differences, and he should accept a cabinet post with a brief to reform and improve education or the NHS.

Previous generations of politicians, and voters, understood the importance of senior figures sticking around and learning from mistakes. It’s how you get wisdom in the system. Imagine if Churchill had run away in a huff after the Gold Standard debacle of the 1920s. Instead, he stayed and was on hand in 1940. Callaghan didn’t flee after devaluation. He was PM nine years later, and even if that didn’t end well he was an immensely dignified figure, a standout example of the best of Labour Britain, a patriot who stayed seeking to serve.

Britain today is not so over-endowed with talent that it can afford someone like Sunak leaving politics.

What I’m reading

I’ve just started Slouching Towards Utopia, the new economic history of the 20th century by J Bradford DeLong. Not many jokes so far, but interesting nonetheless and on a similar theme to Greer’s essay.

Bill Browder’s new book on battling the Russian gangster state is also worth a look. Financier Browder has bravely fought for justice after a colleague was killed. The book reads, as they say, though this time it’s true, like a thriller. All the Russian corruption, cronyism and horror is real. When will any decent person again want anything to do with Russia and the Russians after the Putin catastrophe? Twenty, thirty years?

What I’m listening to

Right now, I’m listening to Richard Strauss and Metamorphosen, one of his final works. The suggestion by scholars is that it mourns the destruction of German culture, arguably the greatest culture ever assembled, in the firestorm of the 1940s. Was Strauss more concerned by the destruction of buildings, and his beloved opera houses, than with the destruction of people? Possibly, although in the closing days of the war he scribbled a note denouncing the bestiality of the Nazis. Metamorphosen is haunting, but there’s a coldness to it, in contrast to the warmth of his Four Last Songs that followed.

Okay, enough of that. I’ve now switched to the second solo album from Keith Richards on the basis that life is too short. Main Offender features the drummer Steve Jordan, now of the Rolling Stones.

My colleague at The Times James Marriott wrote another of his brilliant columns this week, referenced this week on Reaction by Patrick Barrow.

The Marriott discussion made me think of the drummer Steve Jordan, although he wasn’t mentioned. James had been to a concert in London headlined by the  American professionally gloomy singer Phoebe Bridgers. She sings ethereal anthems for the doomed younger generation middle classes, those unable to afford a house and destined to inherit nothing more than a fried planet, dashed dreams, or possibly their parent’s house.

I like Bridgers, and own several of her albums on CD (an ancient, now forgotten format). There’s a problem though and it was apparent in her performance at Glastonbury. Her band is listless. They play low key as though they are depressed being on stage and want you to know it, rather than trying to entertain and cheer you up. The drummer in particular, and I don’t want to be unkind to the young chap, lacks fire. Why is he a drummer?

Drumming done well is a kinetic activity. Rock and roll doesn’t work without it. When Steve Jordan digs in the effect is like a rocket taking off. His playing creates energy that ripples out through the band and then on into the audience (this is sounding like the interview with a fan at the start of spoof rockumentary Spinal Tap, I know).

The great jazz and soul drummers did it all the time, and enjoyed it on the basis music is supposed to be an enjoyable activity, even if the lyrics, or themes, are dark or difficult.

No doubt this will elicit a complaint from fans of Phoebe Bridgers and other youngsters. They’ll say this only goes to show my generation and the generation before were lucky because we had all the good, energetic drummers, leaving the current generation only with the listless, depressed drummers, another example of the way the universe has been stacked against the young.

Anyway, have a good weekend. I’m in Scotland for a few days. I’ll report back on what First Minister Nicola “angry” Sturgeon is furious about now. There’s bound to be something.