The Brilliant, Befuddled, Bismarck Brief
How many particles are there?
The Bismarck Brief, primarily written by Samo Burja, provides, “In-depth investigations and long-form analysis of the key institutions, industries, and live players who drive global technology, geopolitics, and industry. Delivered to your inbox every Wednesday at 2pm GMT sharp.”
I like reading the B. Brief by Mr. Burja. It’s fun to follow along with all of his “live players” and their knot of interactions. He makes it always seem like you’re just around the corner from really figuring out how the world works! Yet the more you dig, the more complexity, more countries, more industries, more regulations, more nuance, more generalized rules, more exceptions to those rules you find.
It brings me back to a friend’s answer for why he wasn’t sold on Georgism. He said, “The world just seems more complex than that.”
Burja’s efforts remind me of my youthful efforts to investigate Christian dogma. While many quickly dismiss Christian theology as obviously inconsistent, when you start off with certain assumptions about your salvation, and you’re provided thousands of years of writing by very smart people that address all the clever little challenges you’ve come up with plus answers to even more issues you hadn’t thought of, you can see how someone spends a lifetime studying, praying, and parsing, always on the brink of understanding, always thinking the next wise man will have the last piece of the puzzle. How does one decide to stop the search?
In some sense, if you look at a river and seek to understand it by analyzing each molecule’s position and velocity…well, that would eventually give results, or at least a lot of content for blogging. Especially when you start to notice structures, use fancy maths, identify patterns, form narratives. Alternatively, you can just step back and see gravity doing its work. The river flows from high to low.
To be clear, the results are not oppositonal. One can understand gravity and study the minutiae and see how they cohere. In the case of the Bismarck Brief, I believe the analysis is objective and perceptive and in line with what George would predict, but the Brief fails in its synthesis at times as it lacks the Georgist framework. They are studying the positions and velocities; they do not “See the Cat”.
As for Samo Burja’s “Great Founder Theory” of how society changes, that’s sorta beyond the Land Value Tax and effects of private property in land. I would say that George didn’t offer a clear method of effecting change. He was seeking one. While he was able to describe what justice looked like and, in its absence, how human progress stalls, he tried a political career and it failed. His movement failed. His book sold 3 million copies and is now obscure. How I would like to talk to him about sortition (the forming of legislative bodies by lot).
My friend who is hesitant to accept simple Georgism would probably enjoy the B. Brief, but the friend has chosen lately to simplify his life and is no longer reading any news. For what it’s worth, his simple life has recently included buying his first house with a girlfriend, adopting his first dog, and running his second marathon. Complexity finds a way to getcha.
Here is the end of year post from Burja’s Bismarck Brief https://brief.bismarckanalysis.com/p/27-insights-from-three-years-of-bismarck. If you read it, let me know what your simple or not so simple thoughts are.
Yours truly,
Max