The Top 10 Millitary Leaders in World History

10 Takeaki Enomoto Genius of diplomacy, language, and tactics. He attempted to establish the federal republic of Japan instead of Meiji restoration

9 Saladin He defeated many crusaders to save peaceful Islamic communities. He was famous for his mercifulness.

8 Friedrich Barbarossa Joined 3rd Crusader. Emperor, scientist ,and artist. He lead Tutonic empire to be unified and expanded.

7 Julius Caesar Charismatic Roman General. Known for ordering troops and the great usage of siege weapons.

6 Elwin Rommel The Desert Fox. His tactics brought German various victories in Africa. The best general ever in German History!

5 Genghis Khan Unified scattered normad trivals into one huge empire. Known for his great usage of mounted archer bands.

4 Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of Great Britain. Founder of New Modelled Army. He brought meritocracy into British military.

3 Napoleon Bonaparte Established a great new law and order. Genius of artillery usage. His great usage of cannons lead France to invade Italy.

2 Zhuge Liang Kongming The genius Chinese from the state of Shu-Han. His knowledge was beyond humans' at the contemporary time period

1 Alexandros The Great No one can be more famous tactician than him! His tactics is still influential in this modern world military tactics

On Keynes and Hayek: Macroeconomics is Geographical rather than Political

Both the traditional Kenyesian and Hayekian macroeconomic policies are no longer effective in this current world where the systemic risk in the global market is high. Unless it stimulates all countries' economy simultaneously, Keynesian stimulus package does not work. Unless there is an extremely universal consensus, Hayekian structural reform does not work. The universal government is less likely to be wanted so that both policies won't be accepted. Nowadays, the world economy seems to be turning back to focus on more Microeconomics like in the past. We are no longer able to expect the aggregate level to be either up or stabilised. Each economic agent now has to rely on his/her own risk management analysis, which is a microeconomic subject, in order to survive in this unpredictable macroeconomic environment.....



I admire Keynes himself because he accused Ricardo's theories for his misunderstanding of how the real world economy actually functions. Keynes was successful to offer the theories which are more correlated to the real world situation unlike Ricardo's ones. His critical analyses about the aspect that all classical economists ignored are very clear and sophisticated.

However, Keynes' fault is that he did not clearly mention "how exactly and effectively" pour their stimulus money into economy. This was the crucially weak characteristics of Keynesian theory.

I don't see Hayek as an economist; He is more likely a political economist / political philosopher.

I strongly argue that macroeconomics is more geographical rather than political i.e. passive than positive



Speaking of Monetary Economy, both Keynes and Hayek do not answer fully about how individual economic agents respond to the interest rate. The central bank's interest rate is (as long as it is operated rationally without any politicised ideological bias) merely determined to adjust the real interest rate to be zero as much as possible. If it is deviated from zero, it of course negatively affects macroeconomic environment. But, it does not mean the zero rate stimulate economy: The stimulus is very different from the central bank's interest rate.

Neither the animal spirit nor the long term expectation is fallacy. The right answer to describe the investment motive in the monetary economy is "There is nothing to specify a factor that stimulates in the macroeconomic level"! There is even a possibility that in a chaotic depression, the investment motive dramatically increases because of the possibility to win the gamble! Furthermore, in the economic boom, the interest rate tends to be "lowered" because the "risk of bankruptcy" of borrowers goes down.

This does not mean irrational; This is actually a very rational acts by economic agents because they act owing to their own surrounding environment, information obtained from their own sources, and psychological preference. Thus, Keynes' animal spirit fails. In addition, these economic agents do not too much care about the structural issues so much.

They decide their investment plan by means of the "form of contract" with their clients, rather than the structure of the borrowers' business. The contract differs across different types of borrowers. So, as long as the contract ensures to bring some business gain, investors are quite happy to lend money to mal-structured businesses. Thus, Hayek's focus on the long term structural issues fails.

On Augustine, Aquinas, and the transition from Roman Empire to the medieval, and to the pre-modern

Unlike Aquinas, Augstine was very autocratic and dogmatic. Augstine believed that how human-beings, at the current (contemporary) time, are not how they ought to be. Therefore, they need a strict principle like the "idea" (This indicates Augstine was strongly influenced by Plato) to guide them to how they should be. The problem of his idea is that there is "no stop point" where all human-beings are fulfilled in what God, the idea, claim. That's why Augstine stated. Aquinas was more realistic and Augustine. Aquinas at least knew how human-beings are at the current (contemporary) is what God initially planned them to be. So, we can neither complain nor expect them to be at the ideal state. Aqunas argued that we coexist with our sins but we have to resist against it as much as possible. However, from my point of view, sin is a reality, and sin can be necessary. I do not see sin to be always something to be avoided; it is often a necessary to enjoy our life !!


Well, you have to imagine what the community was like in the early medieval age. Collapse of Roman Empire, havoc everywhere, and so people lost their direction in their life. Unlike nowadays when we can access to various information resource and be educated with Copernican world view, people at the medieval age were disparate to believe in something superstitious.... oh it should be said the superstitious worship was "necessary" to give people a certain principle as the "natural law", the universal invincible law. But, this explanation does not mean I support it: Actually I think of this divine rule was necessary evil at the contemporary time period. As a matter of fact, I reckon the late medieval age (about from the 3rd Crusader period) when people gradually became independent from this Christian autocracy. This was the sign that that part of the world became more stabilised, the technology advanced, and the information flow grew.

Furthermore, I highly admire all 3 Palestinian religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These religions enlightened people to think independent from the nature surrounding them. Neither all ancient religion nor all oriental religions have ever done in such a way! The Palestinian religions enabled individual human-beings to think rationally (beyond their surrounding nature and their box of thought), and established strongholds! Augstine and Aquinas definitely contributed in this great work!