Building a new world order with BRICS The West wants to downplay the recent expansion of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) economic group. And yes, the newly enlarged group, now including Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, is politically disparate and arguably united only by resentment of U.S. hegemony. But underestimating it would be risky, argues Thomas Fazi in UnHerd. The new-look bloc will represent almost half the world’s population and, in purchasing-power terms, 37% of its GDP — more than the G-7. Its member countries are growing faster than the rich world. And while much of the G-7’s wealth is financial, BRICS countries have the manufacturing base and, crucially, the resources, notably oil. The bloc “has become a full-blooded geopolitical actor that can longer be ignored,” says Fazi. The price of everything and the value of nothing Some people earn more than other people. In Friedrich Hayek’s terminology, they have greater economic value. But “value is not the same as merit,” writes Virginia Postrel. Value is simply the outcome of supply and demand: Some skills happen to be in demand at a given moment, and people who possess those skills will earn well. “We shouldn’t confuse economic success with just deserts,” Postrel writes. Some people are lucky to be born with in-demand talents, and they are economically rewarded for it, but a tendency to assume higher earnings means greater merit makes that a source of friction. “America would be less riven by conflict” if people recognized that there is “no necessary connection between merit and success.” History that can’t be repeated Flagship readers might be aware of the “replication crisis” in science: The realization that the results of many classic studies, notably in psychology but also in medicine and elsewhere, do not stand up to scrutiny. What they might not be aware of, writes the historian Anton Howes, is that the study of history faces a similar crisis. Anecdotes in historical works get picked up and repeated, but — when you actually trace them back to their sources — often are based on mistranslations, poorly sourced, or simply made up. “Take the oft-repeated idea that more troops were sent to quash the Luddites in 1812 than to fight Napoleon,” says Howes. “Utter nonsense … [but] Historical myths are especially zombie-like. Even when disproven, they just. won’t. die.” |