Decline of Empires

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Hmm where are you from ? I am seriously going to open such a thread,since it seems many people are badly delusioned.You just propose a title and let's go !

What has where I'm from got to do with anything? As for a title, "Common Myths about the Middle Ages" would probably be appropriate.

You can find it HERE.

[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

[JP226]

And this is why wealthy people never go bankrupt no matter what they do?

Ummm, no... and yes, Eventually the price of borrowing becomes so high or the price of lending gets so low that money is put elsewhere. Rich people stay rich off compound interst, or interest on interest.

Wrong. You have to pay every debt. And debt comes with interest, every 100 bucks you loan tomorrow you have to be able to repay with 110 bucks tomorrow if debtor so decrees (not entirely accurate but close enough).

you can try reading before you respond next time... debt is inherently paid back with the declination of borrowing.

Ricardian theorum might sound nice in theory, but so do much voodoo economics. They just don't work in practice.

the ricardian equivalence theorum is one of the most pweful economic theorums. The vast majority of the west world operates upon it's principles.

You do and you will if you want to correct economy.

keynesian economics has been largely disproved over the past few decades. Infac hte "new" philosophy is based off the neutrality of money. If oyu know what that means...

You will start doing boom & bust which ends up in very bad economy.

what exactly causes a boom, bust cycle?

[Tiwaz]

Ummm, no... and yes, Eventually the price of borrowing becomes so high or the price of lending gets so low that money is put elsewhere. Rich people stay rich off compound interst, or interest on interest.

Yes, but those people who do not know how to move ahead of trend (as in, most of them) will end up in deep trouble as their loan interests went up suddenly and they were not prepared.

Not to mention that many people have long term loans which can suddenly increase their expenses on loan payments (more on that below). One example of such are mortgages.

you can try reading before you respond next time... debt is inherently paid back with the declination of borrowing.

Only if you MAKE enough money to pay your interest and reduce debt. While also taking care of your own needs! That's the tricky part. Most people could pay their debts with their income easily unless they had to pay for their living, which would get more expensive as well.

This is true for nations as well. USA could pay it's debts with it's income, except they need to uphold certain absolute minimum of national infrastructure which costs money. Thus they have to put large piece of yearly income to the side to cover that. And if you rack up too much debt, you cannot pay your interest and reduce debt in speedy way, resulting in decades of troubled economy where smallest hitch can send you backwards (because you are basically living hand to mouth) or not at all (like many african countries)

keynesian economics has been largely disproved over the past few decades. Infac hte "new" philosophy is based off the neutrality of money. If oyu know what that means...

Yes, money is neutral. Thus it goes where profit is. If your economy relies on others to fund you, you are setting up yourself for huge problems when you are no longer seen as good investment. Thus reducing your income and you ending up in problem explained above.

what exactly causes a boom, bust cycle?

Lack of government intervention in markets. Markets on their own tend to go boom&bust instead of steady. Like it or not, without government slowing down markets on both up and downswings it will end up that way.

USA has done well lately with upswing and government has hesitated to interfere. Resulting momentum on markets will turn when investors no longer consider USA as profitable as it's competitors (because US economy is becoming overdebted) and at that point it is too late to hit the brakes.

[Gelgoog]

if you want to compare america to any empire, you should probably compare it to like carthage, or venice, who rose to power not through direct conquering but through an economic/commercial boom. the UK would be a much closer comparison to rome then would the usa.

besides in the modern age, a country like the usa doesnt buckle and fall apart. the worst that can happen is we our influence/ military power. if the usa does fall apart, then its likely the rest of the world would be pretty screwed up already as well. mostly likely situation- global warming rises sea level to the point that all major coastal cities are flooded, mass immigration towards the inner lands, lack of food causes mass starvation and of course, economic collapse means the falling apart of the union with breakaway states forming their own government trying to keep society from completely going madmax.

[felicissimus]

Kscott I am very well aware of the Sassanids,Kush state,the Huns ,the Mongols etc.Yet I don't see any contribution of them to the world.That's why I said Roman Empire was the One .
You say,you controll the global market.It's what you wish .Nobody controlls the market.It's free by its nature.You can controll opinions.view of smth through convincing people to your ideas.In that America may have some success but only for the worst as it is creating some bad illusions for everybody.By the way,in USA today,I have information,more than 1/3 of USA property already belongs to japanese and other foreigners.Is that controll of America or OVER America ? And what does America own throughout the world ? You say some fleet .In modern days fleet counts nothing ,it's not XIX century ,just watch Discovery about war .
And before accusing me of incivility ,LEARN,ASK what your countrymen are doing throughout the world.I see you are not like them but you must know. Americans my friend,or should I say,the extreme capitalist part of powerful people in USA, are trying to change the order in normal countries throughout the world where they can with illegal,antihuman and terrorist means.They create partizan brigades and open civil wars.They support tyrany regimes and moreover create them.They buy whole groups/parties of people and tell them destroy their own countries for a benefit of only them and their masters.People,that would have never democraticly come to power.People of the lowest nature. In fact America finances everywhere the worst what it can find in a society and makes it able to take over normal institutions,society hierarchy etc.It makes a revolution of criminals and terrorists.And moreover ,when they like Saddam made by USA,rebel naturally again,it denies its connection with them.
It's just nothing normall America doing lately.I have a respect of the ordinary american which is much like us europeans.But what your country has turned into after the 60's,I can only pity you .
Sorry but that's my opinion.
Free feel to call your country still great if you wish.I don't care.For me it's an illusioned giant that has started to putrefy.

[Kscott]

Kscott I am very well aware of the Sassanids,Kush state,the Huns ,the Mongols etc.Yet I don't see any contribution of them to the world.That's why I said Roman Empire was the One .

Well the problem is your world only consist of Europe. The Han are seen as the founders of Chinese society. The Romans of the East. The Gupta are seen as the cultural height of India. I think you will find they were incredibly influential in India. Again I think you need to start realizing Europe does not equal the world.

You say,you controll the global market.It's what you wish .Nobody controlls the market.It's free by its nature.You can controll opinions.view of smth through convincing people to your ideas.In that America may have some success but only for the worst as it is creating some bad illusions for everybody.

Its actually not what I wish, I'm an isolationist, but thats besides the point. America does control the market. Some places in South America have a lot of industry for example, but that industry is owned by US companies. Obvious we don't have complete control of the market, but its not a stretch to say we control it. Its not some imperial fantasy I have.

By the way,in USA today,I have information,more than 1/3 of USA property already belongs to japanese and other foreigners.Is that controll of America or OVER America ?

Well the statistic is wrong for one. Some foreigners are buying government bonds and stock in companies, but its not 1/3.

And what does America own throughout the world ? You say some fleet .In modern days fleet counts nothing ,it's not XIX century ,just watch Discovery about war .

You may not realize it, but fleets are still incredibly important. We also have the worlds largest air force and infantry. But over 50% of the worlds navy is just incredibly dominating. And own throughout the world? We own industries across the world. For example if you eat at McDonald's your shipping some money over to America.

And before accusing me of incivility ,LEARN,ASK what your countrymen are doing throughout the world.I see you are not like them but you must know.

I think im more knowledgeable about my country than foreigners. Its the nature of the beast.

Americans my friend,or should I say,the extreme capitalist part of powerful people in USA, are trying to change the order in normal countries throughout the world where they can with illegal,antihuman and terrorist means.They create partizan brigades and open civil wars.They support tyrany regimes and moreover create them.They buy whole groups/parties of people and tell them destroy their own countries for a benefit of only them and their masters.People,that would have never democraticly come to power.People of the lowest nature. In fact America finances everywhere the worst what it can find in a society and makes it able to take over normal institutions,society hierarchy etc.It makes a revolution of criminals and terrorists.And moreover ,when they like Saddam made by USA,rebel naturally again,it denies its connection with them.

We do play power games, but again no world power ever has not. I mean look at Belgium. Even they can be accused of this with the Belgium Congo.

It's just nothing normall America doing lately.I have a respect of the ordinary american which is much like us europeans.But what your country has turned into after the 60's,I can only pity you .
Sorry but that's my opinion.
Free feel to call your country still great if you wish.I don't care.For me it's an illusioned giant that has started to putrefy.

Yep you make you opinions on America from your seat far away in Europe, I'll judge what I see around me.

[JP226]

Yes, but those people who do not know how to move ahead of trend (as in, most of them) will end up in deep trouble as their loan interests went up suddenly and they were not prepared.

Well, that's pecifically an ARM, and some people are stupid or adventurous enough to take them in hopes of waiting out for a lower fixed rates, or flipping assets or are fooled.

Here is the kicker, money is given out because people can make money on loaning. If the world was that unstable and that unreliable, risk aversion would take affect and interest rates would sky rocket, both short and long term.

The less likely someone can pay back, the higher the market rate is for that individual and it's cost of money. Gradually the loaning process stops and one has no choice but to save. It's a natural process unless... i'll explain at the business cycle level.

Only if you MAKE enough money to pay your interest and reduce debt.

if you don't you can't borrow in the first place. Else what is the point of letting someone borrow? SUre economics has the altruism factor on an individual basis but the vast majority of the money is lended out on the basis of selfinterst.

Lack of government intervention in markets. Markets on their own tend to go boom&bust instead of steady. Like it or not, without government slowing down markets on both up and downswings it will end up that way.

What you want to say is it's caused by animal spirits. The natural pessimism and optimisism of investors. Keyensian thought believes the market is inherently instable and that the government must take the place of investors and guide investors through monetary and fiscal policy with the advantage of it's multiplier effect.

Unfortunately I don't buy any of that ****, i'm more inclined towards the monetarists specifically, but I think their is some meaning to the austrian and real business cycle beliefs as well.

The Austrians believe that business cycles are caused from government intervention, specifically monetarily. They can't possibly take the role of price and over inflate or under inflate the money supply and create misallocations of funds, causing booms and busts. They stress the gold standard to take the place of the federal's lack of ability to do anything

Then you have the RBC belief, they believe that money is neutral. No matter how much or how little cash there is in the system, it represents the same amount of wealth in the long run. Nominal variables may change but real prices stay the same. Therefore business cycles are inherently changed by misinformation causing production shocks or factor gluts.

And then you have the monetarist belief which is kinda sorta a mix between the austrians and the RBC, the economy is inherently stable, it's only the government's intervention that causes the boom bust cycle. Milton Friedman copared the federal use of monetary policy as a drug, you get high off the rush/ boom and then crash. But he gave way to the problems of velocity that such a gold standard would not be able to keep up with the frequent individual expenditure of each unit of gold. That would create inflation while somewhat limiting the amount of wealth. So he left in the use of monetary policy, but only to grow the supply at the same level of the economy. 5% growth means 5% increase in the MS.

Out of those four, the only business cycle theory that really does not hold water among the world's most renowned economists is the keyensian theory. For example go back to the loaning issue and someone who gets cash can't pay it back. Why? Because the government misuse of monetary policy allows that person to get cash, ie lowers rates, then raises them when that person shouldn't have it. Misallocation off the back of keyensian policy. Dangerous stuff.