These "leading economists" have understood nothing about the Habsburg Empire. Nor the economic power of thereof (see China). Habsburgs were ruling by force, but

These "leading economists" have understood nothing about the Habsburg Empire. Nor the economic power of thereof (see China). Habsburgs were ruling by force, but it would have been a perpetual war without prosperity (see Iraq, Afghanistan) if they wouldn't have observed the following. The premise was, that it has three foundation pillars, supporting each other: - members of the empire had a common monetary policy, to have a common economy - which supported a common military power to ensure the "freedom" to - have a common foreign policy. If you follow the above, you understand that it is a recurring theme, and it is still the premise as of today. In fact, the American Empire [1] has drawn from it heavily (USD, .mil, and the current situation). Furthermore, this is the underlying thesis of the European Union: common market, common currency (€), a very discretely nascent military power which is heavily opposed by the USA (but all is in the guise of NATO), in order to have a common foreign policy (most people's interest of this globe do not coincide with the interest of those who shape USA foreign policy [not so] behind the scenes). Even so, aspirations of the Latin American Union and the Arab Union are also taking a page from this book -- though sidelined by western propaganda as much as possible, for obvious reasons. China with the cantons and the Yuan has a very coherent execution. Regarding the half-life of the empires, the Habsburgs were well educated enough to know their lessons from history. They know the opening chapters of Bainville's bestsellers. They knew what to avoid but alas, nothing can last forever... [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1020_ageofempire/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1020_ageofempire/