4 ms·

So when in 1960s students revolted against the War in Vietnam, an average American knew all those things? I don't think so. I'd rather draw parallel to Ancient

So when in 1960s students revolted against the War in Vietnam, an average American knew all those things? I don't think so. I'd rather draw parallel to Ancient Rome and its citizens. As long as there were "Games" in town and bread for free nobody cared. Once the Rome was on fire they woke up. For some time. The situation is hopeless. The only solution is when US runs out of money. Goes bankrupt. Which is quite possible. Once USD isn't the world currency, the country defaults. And then there is no money for wars, no money for swat teams in every little town, no money for surveillance. Those things will still be there but on much lesser scale. The US has currently the biggest debt of any empire in the history of the world. Impossible to repay. Once the world currency status moves from USD to Yuan, the Government will try to use all that military/police power to "maintain order", the thing is the policemen and soldiers won't have money, there will be no gas even for military, etc. Exactly like USSR when it collapsed -- bankrupted by all the wars and stupid policies.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The situation is hopeless. The only solution is when US runs out of money. Goes bankrupt. Which is quite possible. Once USD isn't the world currency, the country defaults. Why would it? The US dollar not being the world currency wouldn't drop the value of US industrial output, but it would (presuming that it dropped the value of the dollar due to reduced global demand for US dollars) reduce the value of US debt. Which would be bad for entities with incomes or assets denominated in US dollars, but good for entities with debts denominated in US dollars, and neutral for entities whose income was dependent, say, on US output. > The US has currently the biggest debt of any empire in the history of the world. In absolute terms, maybe, but relative to the size of its economy, its not even the largest of countries in the world today. > Impossible to repay. This is neither true nor meaningful; as long as the debt can be serviced, it doesn't actually need to be repaid (and could, in fact, grow in absolute terms over time without limit without harm so long as output was growing apace.)
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  >Why would it? The US dollar not being the world currency wouldn't drop the value of US industrial output, but it would (presuming that it dropped the value of the dollar due to reduced global demand for US dollars) reduce the value of US debt. 90% of all USD in circulation isn't even in the US borders. Isn't used for the needs of the US industry/economy. Thanks to this the FED can print, print, print into the oblivion, getting back just 10% of inflation it created, while the world gets the 90%. Ever heard the famous: “The dollar is our currency, but your problem” by John Connally, President Nixon’s Treasury Secretary, to a delegation of Europeans worried about exchange rate fluctuations? Now the ponzie scheme grew (as they always have to) so it is not only Europeans, but also Arabs and Asians, but the days of the USD debt ponzie scheme are counted. There are just these many losers on the planet to buy into it. Now, just imagine these additional USD coming from all over the world to the US. Hyperinflation? And just a single simple event could cause that: Chinese tying their Yuan to gold. Who on Earth will want your t-bill backed by the most indebted government on the planet, when they can get it backed by gold and the biggest creditor government in the world? >Which would be bad for entities with incomes or assets denominated in US dollars, but good for entities with debts denominated in US dollars, and neutral for entities whose income was dependent, say, on US output. Right. Your debt would vanish. I think that's the only good thing from the hyper inflationary perspective. The debt is USD denominated, so yes, it makes sense. Again, from China perspective, a little price to pay to have world reserve currency instead of the US having it. >This is neither true nor meaningful; as long as the debt can be serviced, it doesn't actually need to be repaid (and could, in fact, grow in absolute terms over time without limit without harm so long as output was growing apace.) If we use the official government formula of calculating inflation from Ronald Reagan years we are at 10% today. We've been for at least 3 years now. And what is the return on the t-bill? Again, it might be true, that at least you know you'll be repaid even if it means you'll loose. But t-bills are in fact in a bubble territory now. What will you do when interest rates rise? If interest rates are at 7% we're talking about more than 50% of tax revenue going just to service the debt. Just to pay the premium. Over 50% of the tax revenue! And what if we have to have it at the levels from the beginning of 1980s? At 18% ? We won't even be able to service it. And in 1980s most of the debt was hold by the Americans. So the money was going back to the US economy. Currently most of the debt is held by foreigners. Can you imagine the impossibility of a political situation were over 50% of the tax revenue goes to foreigners in the middle of a financial crisis? And it is just at 7% interest rates. The FED effectively can't rise the rates. There is no way they can do it. You think this is acceptable like forever for t-bills holders?
XorNot 13y ago
> I'd rather draw parallel to Ancient Rome and its citizens. As long as there were "Games" in town and bread for free nobody cared. Once the Rome was on fire they woke up. For some time. This is not why the Roman empire collapsed. In fact the term "collapse" itself implies some weird sudden event, rather then a gradual evolution over the course of hundreds of years into the various entities which became the forerunners of nation-states today. The Byzantine empire - east Rome - has no definitive end, for example.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  I agree with you 100%. My post (I think) was more about decline than collapse. All the negative development we currently see in the US from militarization to weak economy are signs of decline and not collapse. Like UK -- it has declined from an Empire Status, but did not collapse. I agree - the same with Roman Empire.
  - kunai 13y ago
    You're incorrect here again. Byzantium retained its integrity, but Rome, the city, did collapse thanks to invasions by Germanic tribes and the Huns. So did most of Europe that was under Roman control, and some portions of North Africa as well. Constantinople stayed standing for quite a while. Control shifted around, falling into the hands of the Mamluks, Seljuks, and subsequently the Ottoman Turks, from where Turkey gets its name. There are numerous other civilizations (for instance, dynastic China) that have suffered decline rather than outright collapse. Rome was not one of them though; the entire Western Empire broke apart. It's just not a good example.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      There is no correct and incorrect. I claim - as many historians do - that The Roman Empire continued for many centuries more than you claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire And yet, I agree, there are historians who will claim that The Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with Roman Empire. Still it is debatable. There is no correct/incorrect here. For me the Holy Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The situation is hopeless. The only solution is when US runs out of money. Goes bankrupt. Which is quite possible. Once USD isn't the world currency, the country defaults. Why would it? The US dollar not being the world currency wouldn't drop the value of US industrial output, but it would (presuming that it dropped the value of the dollar due to reduced global demand for US dollars) reduce the value of US debt. Which would be bad for entities with incomes or assets denominated in US dollars, but good for entities with debts denominated in US dollars, and neutral for entities whose income was dependent, say, on US output. > The US has currently the biggest debt of any empire in the history of the world. In absolute terms, maybe, but relative to the size of its economy, its not even the largest of countries in the world today. > Impossible to repay. This is neither true nor meaningful; as long as the debt can be serviced, it doesn't actually need to be repaid (and could, in fact, grow in absolute terms over time without limit without harm so long as output was growing apace.)

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
>Why would it? The US dollar not being the world currency wouldn't drop the value of US industrial output, but it would (presuming that it dropped the value of the dollar due to reduced global demand for US dollars) reduce the value of US debt. 90% of all USD in circulation isn't even in the US borders. Isn't used for the needs of the US industry/economy. Thanks to this the FED can print, print, print into the oblivion, getting back just 10% of inflation it created, while the world gets the 90%. Ever heard the famous: “The dollar is our currency, but your problem” by John Connally, President Nixon’s Treasury Secretary, to a delegation of Europeans worried about exchange rate fluctuations? Now the ponzie scheme grew (as they always have to) so it is not only Europeans, but also Arabs and Asians, but the days of the USD debt ponzie scheme are counted. There are just these many losers on the planet to buy into it. Now, just imagine these additional USD coming from all over the world to the US. Hyperinflation? And just a single simple event could cause that: Chinese tying their Yuan to gold. Who on Earth will want your t-bill backed by the most indebted government on the planet, when they can get it backed by gold and the biggest creditor government in the world? >Which would be bad for entities with incomes or assets denominated in US dollars, but good for entities with debts denominated in US dollars, and neutral for entities whose income was dependent, say, on US output. Right. Your debt would vanish. I think that's the only good thing from the hyper inflationary perspective. The debt is USD denominated, so yes, it makes sense. Again, from China perspective, a little price to pay to have world reserve currency instead of the US having it. >This is neither true nor meaningful; as long as the debt can be serviced, it doesn't actually need to be repaid (and could, in fact, grow in absolute terms over time without limit without harm so long as output was growing apace.) If we use the official government formula of calculating inflation from Ronald Reagan years we are at 10% today. We've been for at least 3 years now. And what is the return on the t-bill? Again, it might be true, that at least you know you'll be repaid even if it means you'll loose. But t-bills are in fact in a bubble territory now. What will you do when interest rates rise? If interest rates are at 7% we're talking about more than 50% of tax revenue going just to service the debt. Just to pay the premium. Over 50% of the tax revenue! And what if we have to have it at the levels from the beginning of 1980s? At 18% ? We won't even be able to service it. And in 1980s most of the debt was hold by the Americans. So the money was going back to the US economy. Currently most of the debt is held by foreigners. Can you imagine the impossibility of a political situation were over 50% of the tax revenue goes to foreigners in the middle of a financial crisis? And it is just at 7% interest rates. The FED effectively can't rise the rates. There is no way they can do it. You think this is acceptable like forever for t-bills holders?

XorNot 13y ago

> I'd rather draw parallel to Ancient Rome and its citizens. As long as there were "Games" in town and bread for free nobody cared. Once the Rome was on fire they woke up. For some time. This is not why the Roman empire collapsed. In fact the term "collapse" itself implies some weird sudden event, rather then a gradual evolution over the course of hundreds of years into the various entities which became the forerunners of nation-states today. The Byzantine empire - east Rome - has no definitive end, for example.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I agree with you 100%. My post (I think) was more about decline than collapse. All the negative development we currently see in the US from militarization to weak economy are signs of decline and not collapse. Like UK -- it has declined from an Empire Status, but did not collapse. I agree - the same with Roman Empire.
- kunai 13y ago
  You're incorrect here again. Byzantium retained its integrity, but Rome, the city, did collapse thanks to invasions by Germanic tribes and the Huns. So did most of Europe that was under Roman control, and some portions of North Africa as well. Constantinople stayed standing for quite a while. Control shifted around, falling into the hands of the Mamluks, Seljuks, and subsequently the Ottoman Turks, from where Turkey gets its name. There are numerous other civilizations (for instance, dynastic China) that have suffered decline rather than outright collapse. Rome was not one of them though; the entire Western Empire broke apart. It's just not a good example.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    There is no correct and incorrect. I claim - as many historians do - that The Roman Empire continued for many centuries more than you claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire And yet, I agree, there are historians who will claim that The Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with Roman Empire. Still it is debatable. There is no correct/incorrect here. For me the Holy Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire.