Decline of Empires

[Cyrvak]

I hate to do it but its another thread compairing Rome and the US... ran across this earlier...

The new "Silk Road"


The historical Silk Road is probably somewhere around 2000 years old. From its inception, the Silk Road was the coronary artery for the Roman Empire’s hunger for luxury goods from the East, such as silk, jade and gems. This demand was in fact so large that it drained hefty sums of gold out of Rome, contributing to the bankruptcy of the Roman economy and eventually the downfall of the empire itself.

The heavy trading along the Silk Road fueled an intense cultural and economic boom. Although over time the silk road would disappear (and reappear only to disappear once more) due to the ever changing geo-political and economic landscape, today we are seeing a revival of the silk road, albeit in a different form. According to George Magnus, Senior Economic Advisor to UBS Investment Bank, a new silk road has emerged through the trade of hydrocarbons, petrodollars and consumer goods.

At the heart of this petrodollar economic system lies China; a net consumer of half of the world’s oil. The capital flows along the road are immense and by no means constitute a one way flow towards the dollar surplus oil economies of the Middle East. These very intense petrodollar fueled trade relationships are at the core of the rebirth of a new silk road. In fact, the new Silk Road is nothing more than a catch phrase for the growing and intensifying economic chains between the Middle East and Asia.

In this emerging trade paradigm, Islamic finance is becoming an increasingly important facet of the new Silk Road. Western and Asian companies, as well as governments, are increasingly using Islamic bonds (Sukuk) to tap the deep well of petrodollars in the Middle East. China also seems to be soaking up ever larger amounts of Islamic finance and investment products. It is a convenient way to recycle the petrodollars of the Middle East and ease some of the massive U.S. trade imbalance. Equally important is that China’s large public works is a good match for the requirements of Islamic asset backed financing products.

The historical link is that the USA is starting to find itself in a similar position to the ailing Roman Empire of ancient times. I will mention a number of factors that coincide: slow decline of the American economy as the primal economy (increased economic multi-polarity), high and increasing debt per capita, currency devaluation, addiction to foreign resources and consumer goods. There are also many political similarities: poor leadership on key issues, an over stretched military, new types of enemies, migrant problems, internal political division and polarized religious factions vying for power. In fact, both Rome and the United States attempted to “liberate” Mesopotamia and secure it from Iranian (then Parthian) influence: it was short lived and costly.

Although you could easily write a book about all the similarities between ancient Rome and the United States, one thing is certain; the global economic paradigmatic shift is forcing the old Pax Americana into a slow retreat. And yes indeed, there is a new silk road emerging, based on petrodollars, black gold, and Asian consumer goods. Perhaps it is too simple to blame it all on economics and politics, but I do believe Clinton got it right when he said “It’s the economy, stupid!”

I for one think that without placing more of an emphasis on correcting our current economic situation, we are going to be in fairly bad shape, regardless of if everything else we have our hand in turns out peachy keen... The question becomes, do you agree with this, and how can we get politicians to give it the attention it deserves?

[invictus]

Well eventually every country must fall at one point. The question of when is hard to decide. If the US falls now, perhaps the new countries formed will be smart enough to build themselves back up before the world continues to surpass them. If they wait, well the world could pass them and then it would be a somewhat "dark" age in the new area. -Leon

[The Good]

Wow, you're right, the USA may go the way of the Roman Empire. Thats very interesting.... Especially the part where you compare how Rome was trying to "liberate" Mesopotamia, like the USA is doing now.

I wonder what America's "Dark Age" will be like, what kind of barbarian invasion will happen?

[Lavastein]

Wow, you're right, the USA may go the way of the Roman Empire. Thats very interesting.... Especially the part where you compare how Rome was trying to "liberate" Mesopotamia, like the USA is doing now.

I wonder what America's "Dark Age" will be like, what kind of barbarian invasion will happen?

mexican illegals declare independents from the main body of the usa. The citizens are left to fend for themselves due to government disorder. Revolution begins anew.

Ps. Jp, so the fact that USA is being badly out traded by China and Japan and our mainland products are surpassed by Chinese cheap labor is not a bad thing? Our economy isnt good its horrible.

[Cyrvak]

Not my words sir, hence the quote, came from http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com...silk-road.html I just happend to agree with it and wondered what you folks thought

[Caelius]

Not the US = Rome myth again....

[Kscott]

America is far more similar to the British Empire than it is to Rome and even then comparing the two is very much so a stretch. History does teach us lessons, but it should never be used to make direct comparisons as the situation is never exactly the same.

[milns]

Actually you could compare all Eropean empires to Rome. All Europe in its history after fall of Rome was trying to recreate it - Charlemagne, HRE, Eastern Roman Empire, Napoleon, Germany, Britain, Russia, and USA today. My ancient history professor counted 10 Romes (including Rome it self)

[Tom Paine]

Actually you could compare all Eropean empires to Rome. All Europe in its history after fall of Rome was trying to recreate it - Charlemagne, HRE, Eastern Roman Empire, Napoleon, Germany, Britain, Russia, and USA today. My ancient history professor counted 10 Romes (including Rome it self)

I'm forced to disagree. Eastern Roman was the Roman Empire and its flawed to disassociate the two; Charlemagne was, if I recall rightly, first Holy Roman Emperor; Napoleon was looking for the greater glory of France; Britain was simply out to conquer the world for economic reasons (slight simplification); and so on. None was out to emulate Rome.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

From the original article:

From its inception, the Silk Road was the coronary artery for the Roman Empire’s hunger for luxury goods from the East, such as silk, jade and gems. This demand was in fact so large that it drained hefty sums of gold out of Rome, contributing to the bankruptcy of the Roman economy and eventually the downfall of the empire itself.

What a load of reeking, steaming, unadulterated pig crap.

I'm forced to disagree. Eastern Roman was the Roman Empire and its flawed to disassociate the two; Charlemagne was, if I recall rightly, first Holy Roman Emperor; Napoleon was looking for the greater glory of France; Britain was simply out to conquer the world for economic reasons (slight simplification); and so on. None was out to emulate Rome.

Charlemagne and his contemporaries saw him as the poltical and spiritual heir to the Roman Emperors of the West and a literal continuation of the former Western Empire's line. They saw the break between 476 and 800 AD as an interregnum and saw Charlemagne as as much a Roman Emperor as Trajan or Augustus.

Those who like their history divided into neat sections and whose idea of who or what a "Roman Emperor" should be is defined by the First and Second Centuries find this idea either nonsensical or horrific, but that's how people in 800 AD saw things.

So he wasn't simply emulating Rome, he (reluctantly, actually) accepted that he was part of a genuine continuation of the Roman Empire.

[milns]

I'm forced to disagree. Eastern Roman was the Roman Empire and its flawed to disassociate the two; Charlemagne was, if I recall rightly, first Holy Roman Emperor; Napoleon was looking for the greater glory of France; Britain was simply out to conquer the world for economic reasons (slight simplification); and so on. None was out to emulate Rome.

What I ment was idea of Roman empire, of course they weren't like Rome, but all europen history from 476 was constant attempts to recreate the empire. Empire is gone, but idea of empire still lives.
And btw look at the simbols of empires (except Britain maybe), they all somehow try to copy Roman ones

[Cyrvak]

Not exactly no... if you read the artical/the rest of the post, you'll see that it does raise some interesting issues about our economic state, and I want to know what can/should be done to correct it.

[Kscott]

The article is flawed in many ways. For one the Roman Economy was at its height till the very end of the empire. And inflation an issue? Inflation at moderate levels is incredibly good for the economy. Not to mention the migrant problem. Are the seriously going to compare Mexicans to the Germanic hordes?

And honestly, Rome never tried to "liberate" Mesopotamia. It tried to conquer Parthian sovereign territory from Parthia and latter the Sassanid Empire. And for the Romans this struggle hardly brought about the fall as it was the Eastern Empire doing this fighting. The West only had Germanic Tribes and the Huns to worry about.

Really in a superficial kind of way you can make the times look incredibly similar. If you actually take an in depth look at this its rather clear that the eras are incredibly different and have incredibly different problems.

[Aetius]

Kscott is correct. If anything the US can more compare to the decline of the Roman Republic, not Empire.

[JP226]

If it's remotely possible to pinning the cause of the declining roman empire, it is it's economy. The heirarchy economy of the roman empire peaked and just simply could not provide for it's people. The US clearly doesn't have that problem. (and don't question me I will destroy any and every economic argument presented)

I do agree with previous posters that the US resembles closer to the british model. Lucky for the US, the britsih model existed during a time of monarchs and totalitarian control. No matter the system, when you have an economy that is as effective as the brits and ours, you can't survive when their are imposing external forces. The brits were surrounded by backward command economies that couldn't hope to affod the comparative advantage that britain needed. Basically they could not trade to the capacity and certainity that we can today.

I think many people take the correlation between time and world standings to mean that any nation successful lasts for only so long. In reality time means nothing, a nation could last a year, a hundred years a million years. TIme has no bearing, thier is no 15 minutes of fame. It's the external and internal forces, namely economic, that determine a nations survival. As things are today there clearly is no reason for the US to "fall."

[Pnutmaster]

I foresee a future comparision that will be made between Rome and the U.S...

The name of the U.S will continue to live on into the centuries (if indeed civilization is to continue for centuries), but its titles and government will increasingly become empty shells of their former selves. Ultimately the former U.S will be nothing more than a domain of some global entity (be it an economic or political one).

[Tiwaz]

If it's remotely possible to pinning the cause of the declining roman empire, it is it's economy. The heirarchy economy of the roman empire peaked and just simply could not provide for it's people. The US clearly doesn't have that problem. (and don't question me I will destroy any and every economic argument presented)

I do agree with previous posters that the US resembles closer to the british model. Lucky for the US, the britsih model existed during a time of monarchs and totalitarian control. No matter the system, when you have an economy that is as effective as the brits and ours, you can't survive when their are imposing external forces. The brits were surrounded by backward command economies that couldn't hope to affod the comparative advantage that britain needed. Basically they could not trade to the capacity and certainity that we can today.

I think many people take the correlation between time and world standings to mean that any nation successful lasts for only so long. In reality time means nothing, a nation could last a year, a hundred years a million years. TIme has no bearing, thier is no 15 minutes of fame. It's the external and internal forces, namely economic, that determine a nations survival. As things are today there clearly is no reason for the US to "fall."

You mean US economy based on "loans" (both in private sector where people rely on their credit cards etc for everything and national level where USA is running on deficit year after year and relies on outside investors to keep it somehow floating) is somehow good and functioning?

Then why so many economists across the world are warning that it cannot last much longer and if steps are not made to correct this trend there will be bad results? Only controlled drop in US economy (drop cannot be avoided, it can only be slowed and reduced) will keep it from eventually collapsing.

[Nydirannon]

It is an interesting article.

The empires don't last forever. In ancient times, the dominant empires lasted a lot longer. Nowadays, the status quo changes more quickly since the competing powers readjust to the quick changes of technology, the economy ans so on....

Rome was a dominant power for more than 5 centuries. In the 19th century, we had the British century with the British economic dominance until around 1890 and the Brtish colonies until the mid 20th century. Who had thought in 1900 that the UK would be in a steep decline and lose most of its empire 50 years later and all its empire 70 years later?
The 20th century was known to be the US century with dominance in economics, later military from 1942 to now and even cultural.
It will be quite unlikely that the US will be the only dominant superpower in 50 years. The decline of the US does not mean it will necessarely meet the fate of the Roman empire beeing pludered by raving barbarians.

Even though Britain lost its colonial empire and its economic preeminence, it still remains an influential country in the world, a middle sized power with a reasonable prosperous economy and a full member in the European Union even though it is not a member of the euro zone.

The world in the 21 st century may be a multipolar world as we saw in the Middle Ages when there wasn't really a superpower. The US will still remain an important economic power with strong military, the European Union if it doesn't make blunderous mistakes will remain an economic power, China and India will emerge as economic heavyweights with a potential of strong military in China. Japan will be likely a regional economic power. Russia could come back if it takes advantage of its raw materials wealth. Also there could be an emergence of Brazil in Latin America in the world scene.

Of course it is all speculation what I am talking about, but I will be extremely surprise if the hierarchy of power in the same in 50 years. The world changes more quickly than it did even 50 years ago.

[felicissimus]

Ha ha americans try to compare with roman history ! This is the funniest thing ever .Roman life and state created a civilisation that was widely accepted through Europe and lately influenced the whole world .Also it was not just a power,but the only one of its time.
Present America is in my opinion a colonial remnant,maybe the richest of all colonies,but not a power by itself like an empire as the British.There may be no comparison in the way a strong country,an empire functions and USA.Also its people are some naughty children that are 100000000 miles away of being strong citizens or invincible armies.What currently this naughty post-colonial rich place of rebels is trying to do is to destroy or bring down every other place in the world,which none of the empires in the past was aiming or even thought of.And all this based practically on nothing except many people of no quality and many (but currently not that many money ).
I expect a soon decline in USA if its people don't become reasonable .

Ah,and even in the 20th century I see no place for USA as a "dominant power " .The dominant power was always Europe.Also Russia.USA just used the turmoil after the nazi defeat to gain some prestige and influence.

Currently the best hated nation throughout the world.I myself am indifferent.Just say what the others think and refer to.

[Kscott]

Ha ha americans try to compare with roman history ! This is the funniest thing ever .

Actually most Americans have stated the comparison is flawed.

Roman life and state created a civilisation that was widely accepted through Europe and lately influenced the whole world .

Only accepted by those who felt Rome's sword.

Also it was not just a power,but the only one of its time.

Really? You had the Rome/Parthian/Hun combo, Rome/Sassanid/Hun Combo, Rome/sassanid/Kushan/Hun Combo, Rome/sassanid/kushan/Gupta/Hun Combo. Im not sure you can say Rome was the only power. Certainly the predominate power in Europe.

Present America is in my opinion a colonial remnant,maybe the richest of all colonies,but not a power by itself like an empire as the British.There may be no comparison in the way a strong country,an empire functions and USA.

Colonial Remnant? What remains of America make it in any form a colony? And you may be unaware, but more than 50% of the World's Navy belongs to America and we control the global market. In that way we are incredibly like the British Empire, just more transperant.(i.e we don't have to conquer you to dominate the market place.)

Also its people are some naughty children that are 100000000 miles away of being strong citizens or invincible armies.

Clearly behind you in civility.

What currently this naughty post-colonial rich place of rebels is trying to do is to destroy or bring down every other place in the world,which none of the empires in the past was aiming or even thought of.

Destroy everyone else? Thats a rather large claim that I think you will find impossible to back up. But hey if you want to make America the great evil Empire go ahead. Just remember that facts are not on your side.

And all this based practically on nothing except many people of no quality and many (but currently not that many money ).

No quality? The vast amount of inventions from the past century disagree with you.

I expect a soon decline in USA if its people don't become reasonable .

How are we unreasonable?

Ah,and even in the 20th century I see no place for USA as a "dominant power " .The dominant power was always Europe.Also Russia.USA just used the turmoil after the nazi defeat to gain some prestige and influence.

Yes you clearly see Europe as the center of the Earth, but perhaps with some more reading you will find that was not always so. Europe for most of its history was somewhat lagging behind the Mid-East and China.

Currently the best hated nation throughout the world.I myself am indifferent.Just say what the others think and refer to.

Clearly indifferent