4 ms·

I can see strong parallels between this and the fall of the Roman Empire: "Maintaining an army to defend the border of the Empire from barbarian attacks was a

I can see strong parallels between this and the fall of the Roman Empire: "Maintaining an army to defend the border of the Empire from barbarian attacks was a constant drain on the government. Military spending left few resources for other vital activities, such as providing public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the Empire. The empire had to begin hiring soldiers recruited from the unemployed city mobs or worse from foreign counties. Such an army was not only unreliable, but very expensive. The emperors were forced to raise taxes frequently which in turn led again to increased inflation." Source: https://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/ https://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/

qaq 8y ago
It's actually pretty complicated. Pretty much whole tech ecosystem originally got bankrolled by mil. spending. Some mil. spending is basically subsidies to Boeing etc. which in turn competes with Airbus which basically gets direct subsidies. So it would be pretty complicated to figure out all the effects.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  For certain, the US couldn’t just skip the wars and pocket exactly $1.5T, but we definitely could’ve avoided spending most of that, or spent it in more economically useful ways, even if subsidies to Boeing to compete with airbus is one of them.
jbattle 8y ago
Of course - the fall of Rome was a dynamic phase of ups and downs that lasted for literally centuries - the phase described above was operative for longer than the US has been around. I hesitate to draw overstrong conclusions from history, the wise words of Santayana not withstanding
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
digianarchist 8y ago
Chris Hedges thinks the same: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-death-of-the-republic/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-death-of-the-republic/
Thiez 8y ago
Where are the modern borders in this parallel? I suppose the US borders on Canada and Mexico, but it would be rather impolite to refer to their people as barbarians, and defense from the attacks of those countries is not where all the money is going. I'm just an outsider in this matter, but it looks a lot like the US is spending money on offensive wars that it elects to engage in, rather than having to protect its borders from "the barbarians". So I don't really see the strong parallel.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The US "sphere of influence" goes far beyond its physical borders. The borders of this ""empire"" are places like the eastern border of Poland and the Korean DMZ, as well as a complex set of partial influences in the Middle East.
- CapricornNoble 8y ago
  The borders of the US Empire are not physical. They are financial. It all revolves around the Petrodollar system ( https://youtu.be/JN5q_0H41VE https://youtu.be/JN5q_0H41VE or any other "Petrodollar explained" video on YT). Basically the US cut a deal with the Saudis decades ago "price your oil only in US dollars and we'll support your monarchy". Bottom line is that any industrial nation that needs energy must hold US dollars to purchase oil, which vastly inflates global demand for dollars, artificially supporting our currency and also essentially acting as a tax on the global economy. US hegemony is essentially reliant on the US military keeping everyone else in line with regards to oil pricing as well as central banking. Consider: Saddam Hussein ditched USD for EUR in 2000 ( https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur... ). Deposed in 2003. Iran opened a non-dollar-denominated oil burse in 2008. Promptly sanctioned and eventually cut off from the SWIFT banking system. ( https://apjjf.org/-China-Hand-/2719/article.html https://apjjf.org/-China-Hand-/2719/article.html ) Invasion was discussed. Remember McCain's "Bomb bomb Iran" moment? But the US military was already overstretched and in no position to crack open Iran (a MUCH tougher nut than Iraq or Afghanistan). Qaddafi wanted to create a new pan-African currency, starting in Libya with gold/oil-backed dinars. Deposed in 2011. ( https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-... ) Some websites have argued that after Ukraine's revolution all their gold reserves disappeared as well, possibly into US/European hands. I haven't found super-reliable data on that though. Point is, these are the borders of the empire, one that is maintained by the global distribution of US military might, as well as international organizations such as the IMF. Before anyone can posit solutions to American's bank-busting spending on the military-industrial complex, you must first understand the hidden context of what really motivates American actions on the world stage.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
The other fun parallel with Rome is its expansionist nature - Rome was strongest as it grew and once it ran out of space to expand its basis for economic growth disappeared as well. Now that may be chicken and egg, but as long as Rome kept growing it was OK. I feel like that nicely reflects the stock market - the moment the economic expansion stops is the minute that things are going to get dicey.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
That was back in the day when money was real. The current national debt is $21.3 trillion dollars, and there's absolutely 0 expectation that it will ever be paid off or realistically do anything except exponentially increase. Instead we'll just go further and further into debt and paying off old debts with more new debt. Outside of governments, this sort of money management has a special term... The point is that even if we ignore all revenue based spending, another $1.5 trillion of debt hardly changes anything at all. Roman soldiers by contrast were paid in real money with value based on the inherent value of the materials it was made of. That also meant that the governments were also forced to give heed to the cost of their actions. And so needless wars or other expenses could and did destroy nations. But now money means nothing and can be created out of thin air. Its only value is in other countries agreeing to see it as valuable. So long as the USD guarantees access to oil (... an important factor many forget when thinking about our real motivations in the mideast), and we have a strong enough military and political influence to 'encourage' the persistence of the USD as the world reserve currency, it is basically impossible for our country to go bankrupt. And I do not see this as a good thing, as it also means there's absolutely no fiscal deterrence to reckless spending, and war is incredibly expensive.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  The USA national debt is only a number. As you say, money can be created out of thin air. The money that the USA spend in a moment in time is limited by the real resources available (overspending would create inflation) [1]. The 'national debt' in only a number reflecting pass spending and has very little relevance. The USA dollar as the currency of 'the empire' have a special status, but that it's not what protect the USA of default, but the strength of the real economy and being the issuer of their own currency. [1] - http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2853 http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2853
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I think that article misses out on a couple of points: 1) Central banks do have the ability to control monetary supply. This is exactly what quantitative easing is -- the fed purchasing securities with funny money to drive the price of things up and spur artificial inflation and call the resultant increase in market prices 'growth.' That article was written before we started going far off the deep end with monetary policy. 2) Modern monetary policy is based around faith. If people have faith in a currency, it has value. When that faith wavers, the currency is worth less than the paper its printed on. As an amusing (but not necessarily relevant) aside that's already the case in the US coinage, where we've had to pass laws prohibiting the melting of coins as the metal is now in many cases worth more than the amount of money they're supposed to represent! The entire purpose of pretending the money has intrinsic value is not some holdover from the gold era, but to try to convince everybody the money has intrinsic value. --- The real reason the USD has remained so powerful is because it guarantees access to oil and oil remains the most valued resource in existence. And so holding onto USD ensures you have are indirectly holding onto access to oil, which has value everywhere. Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Syria -- these nations all have one thing in common. They expressed intent to no longer peg their oil prices on the dollar and to start trading primarily in different currencies. Haven't you ever wondered how arbitrary our Mideast relations must seem until you consider this? Or why we 'waste' trillions of dollars to no apparent end in these nations? Because what we're doing in the Mideast is very much intentional. We're best buds with Saudi Arabia - one of the most oppressive regimes in existence and a huge sponsor, and source, of terror. For instance 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. But all that matters is that Saudi Arabia plays its role of an obedient lapdog when it comes to the petrodollar - so we're best friends forever. If they ever indicated genuine plans to move away from the USD, expect for us to suddenly realize they're not a great country and urgently decide we need to 'bring democracy' to them.

qaq 8y ago

It's actually pretty complicated. Pretty much whole tech ecosystem originally got bankrolled by mil. spending. Some mil. spending is basically subsidies to Boeing etc. which in turn competes with Airbus which basically gets direct subsidies. So it would be pretty complicated to figure out all the effects.

village-idiot 8y ago
For certain, the US couldn’t just skip the wars and pocket exactly $1.5T, but we definitely could’ve avoided spending most of that, or spent it in more economically useful ways, even if subsidies to Boeing to compete with airbus is one of them.

jbattle 8y ago

Of course - the fall of Rome was a dynamic phase of ups and downs that lasted for literally centuries - the phase described above was operative for longer than the US has been around. I hesitate to draw overstrong conclusions from history, the wise words of Santayana not withstanding

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

digianarchist 8y ago

Chris Hedges thinks the same: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-death-of-the-republic/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-death-of-the-republic/

Thiez 8y ago

Where are the modern borders in this parallel? I suppose the US borders on Canada and Mexico, but it would be rather impolite to refer to their people as barbarians, and defense from the attacks of those countries is not where all the money is going. I'm just an outsider in this matter, but it looks a lot like the US is spending money on offensive wars that it elects to engage in, rather than having to protect its borders from "the barbarians". So I don't really see the strong parallel.

pjc50 8y ago
The US "sphere of influence" goes far beyond its physical borders. The borders of this ""empire"" are places like the eastern border of Poland and the Korean DMZ, as well as a complex set of partial influences in the Middle East.
CapricornNoble 8y ago
The borders of the US Empire are not physical. They are financial. It all revolves around the Petrodollar system ( https://youtu.be/JN5q_0H41VE https://youtu.be/JN5q_0H41VE or any other "Petrodollar explained" video on YT). Basically the US cut a deal with the Saudis decades ago "price your oil only in US dollars and we'll support your monarchy". Bottom line is that any industrial nation that needs energy must hold US dollars to purchase oil, which vastly inflates global demand for dollars, artificially supporting our currency and also essentially acting as a tax on the global economy. US hegemony is essentially reliant on the US military keeping everyone else in line with regards to oil pricing as well as central banking. Consider: Saddam Hussein ditched USD for EUR in 2000 ( https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur... ). Deposed in 2003. Iran opened a non-dollar-denominated oil burse in 2008. Promptly sanctioned and eventually cut off from the SWIFT banking system. ( https://apjjf.org/-China-Hand-/2719/article.html https://apjjf.org/-China-Hand-/2719/article.html ) Invasion was discussed. Remember McCain's "Bomb bomb Iran" moment? But the US military was already overstretched and in no position to crack open Iran (a MUCH tougher nut than Iraq or Afghanistan). Qaddafi wanted to create a new pan-African currency, starting in Libya with gold/oil-backed dinars. Deposed in 2011. ( https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-... ) Some websites have argued that after Ukraine's revolution all their gold reserves disappeared as well, possibly into US/European hands. I haven't found super-reliable data on that though. Point is, these are the borders of the empire, one that is maintained by the global distribution of US military might, as well as international organizations such as the IMF. Before anyone can posit solutions to American's bank-busting spending on the military-industrial complex, you must first understand the hidden context of what really motivates American actions on the world stage.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

The other fun parallel with Rome is its expansionist nature - Rome was strongest as it grew and once it ran out of space to expand its basis for economic growth disappeared as well. Now that may be chicken and egg, but as long as Rome kept growing it was OK. I feel like that nicely reflects the stock market - the moment the economic expansion stops is the minute that things are going to get dicey.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

That was back in the day when money was real. The current national debt is $21.3 trillion dollars, and there's absolutely 0 expectation that it will ever be paid off or realistically do anything except exponentially increase. Instead we'll just go further and further into debt and paying off old debts with more new debt. Outside of governments, this sort of money management has a special term... The point is that even if we ignore all revenue based spending, another $1.5 trillion of debt hardly changes anything at all. Roman soldiers by contrast were paid in real money with value based on the inherent value of the materials it was made of. That also meant that the governments were also forced to give heed to the cost of their actions. And so needless wars or other expenses could and did destroy nations. But now money means nothing and can be created out of thin air. Its only value is in other countries agreeing to see it as valuable. So long as the USD guarantees access to oil (... an important factor many forget when thinking about our real motivations in the mideast), and we have a strong enough military and political influence to 'encourage' the persistence of the USD as the world reserve currency, it is basically impossible for our country to go bankrupt. And I do not see this as a good thing, as it also means there's absolutely no fiscal deterrence to reckless spending, and war is incredibly expensive.

RobertoG 8y ago
The USA national debt is only a number. As you say, money can be created out of thin air. The money that the USA spend in a moment in time is limited by the real resources available (overspending would create inflation) [1]. The 'national debt' in only a number reflecting pass spending and has very little relevance. The USA dollar as the currency of 'the empire' have a special status, but that it's not what protect the USA of default, but the strength of the real economy and being the issuer of their own currency. [1] - http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2853 http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2853
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think that article misses out on a couple of points: 1) Central banks do have the ability to control monetary supply. This is exactly what quantitative easing is -- the fed purchasing securities with funny money to drive the price of things up and spur artificial inflation and call the resultant increase in market prices 'growth.' That article was written before we started going far off the deep end with monetary policy. 2) Modern monetary policy is based around faith. If people have faith in a currency, it has value. When that faith wavers, the currency is worth less than the paper its printed on. As an amusing (but not necessarily relevant) aside that's already the case in the US coinage, where we've had to pass laws prohibiting the melting of coins as the metal is now in many cases worth more than the amount of money they're supposed to represent! The entire purpose of pretending the money has intrinsic value is not some holdover from the gold era, but to try to convince everybody the money has intrinsic value. --- The real reason the USD has remained so powerful is because it guarantees access to oil and oil remains the most valued resource in existence. And so holding onto USD ensures you have are indirectly holding onto access to oil, which has value everywhere. Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Syria -- these nations all have one thing in common. They expressed intent to no longer peg their oil prices on the dollar and to start trading primarily in different currencies. Haven't you ever wondered how arbitrary our Mideast relations must seem until you consider this? Or why we 'waste' trillions of dollars to no apparent end in these nations? Because what we're doing in the Mideast is very much intentional. We're best buds with Saudi Arabia - one of the most oppressive regimes in existence and a huge sponsor, and source, of terror. For instance 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. But all that matters is that Saudi Arabia plays its role of an obedient lapdog when it comes to the petrodollar - so we're best friends forever. If they ever indicated genuine plans to move away from the USD, expect for us to suddenly realize they're not a great country and urgently decide we need to 'bring democracy' to them.