An Empire Self-Destructs
Posted by freedomforall 7 months ago to Government
Empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth. The Roman Empire came about through the productivity of its people and its subsequent acquisition of wealth from those that it invaded. The Spanish Empire began with productivity and expanded through the use of its large armada, looting the New World of its gold. The British Empire began through productivity and grew through creation of colonies worldwide—colonies that it exploited, bringing the wealth back to England to make it the wealthiest country in the world.
In the Victorian Age, Brits were proud to say, "There will always be an England," and "The sun never sets on the British Empire." So, what happened? Why are they no longer the world's foremost empire? Why did they lose the majority of their colonies and wealth?
Well, first, let's look back at the other aforementioned empires and see how they fared. Rome was arguably the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Industrious Romans organized large armies that went to other parts of the world, subjugating them and seizing the wealth that they had built up over generations. And as long as there were further conquerable lands just over the next hill, this approach was very effective. However, once Rome faced diminishing returns on new lands to conquer, it became evident that those lands it had conquered had to be maintained and defended, even though there was little further wealth that could be confiscated.
The conquered lands needed costly militaries and bureaucracies in place to keep them subjugated but were no longer paying for themselves. The "colonies" were running at a loss. Meanwhile, Rome itself had become very spoiled. Its politicians kept promising more in the way of "bread and circuses" to the voters, in order to maintain their political office. So, the coffers were being drained by both the colonies and at home. Finally, in a bid to keep from losing their power, Roman leaders entered into highly expensive wars. This was the final economic crippler and the empire self-destructed.
Spain was a highly productive nation that attacked its neighbours successfully and built up its wealth, then became far wealthier when it sailed west, raiding the Americas of the silver and gold that they had spent hundreds of years accumulating. The sudden addition of this wealth allowed the Spanish kings to be lavish to the people and, as in Rome, the Spanish became very spoiled indeed. But once the gold and silver that was coming out of the New World was down to a trickle, the funding for maintaining the empire began to dry up. Worse, old enemies from Europe were knocking at the door, hoping to even old scores. In a bid to retain the empire, the king entered into extensive warfare in Europe, rapidly draining the royal purse and, like Rome, the Spanish Empire self-destructed.
In the Victorian era, the British Empire was unmatched in the world. It entered the industrial revolution and was highly productive. In addition, it was pulling wealth from its colonies in the form of mining, farming and industry. But, like other countries in Europe, it dove into World War I quickly and, since warfare always diminishes productivity at home whilst it demands major expense abroad, the British Empire was knocked down to one knee by the end of the war.
Then, in 1939, the game was afoot again and Britain was drawn into a second world war. By the end of the war, it could still be said that there would always be an England, but its wealth had been drained off and, one by one, its colonies jumped ship. The days of empire were gone.
Into the breach stepped the US. At the beginning of World War I, the US took no part in the fighting, but, as it had experienced its own industrial revolution, it supplied goods, food, and armaments to Britain and her allies. Because the pound and other European currencies could not be trusted not to inflate, payment was made in gold and silver. So the US was expanding its productivity into a guaranteed market, selling at top dollar, using the profits to create larger, more efficient factories, and getting paid in gold.
Then, in 1939, it all happened again. Although the US eventually joined both wars, they did so much later than Britain and her allies. At the end of World War II, the US had a lively young workforce, as they had lost fewer men to the war. They also had modern factories, which had been paid for by other nations, that could now be used to produce peacetime goods for themselves and the rest of the world more efficiently than anyone else.
And (and this is a very big "and") by 1945 they owned or controlled three quarters of the world's gold, as they'd drained it away from the warring nations in the early days of the war. This allowed the US to invite the post-war leaders to Bretton Woods to explain that, as the holders of the world's wealth, they'd dictate what the world's default currency would be: the dollar.
But this was all threatened by the fact that, when the now-poorer nations of the world sold their goods to the US, they, too, beginning with the French, wished to be paid in gold.
In the subsequent years, the gold in Fort Knox traveled back to the east, from whence it had come. In 1971, this flow was shut off, as the US, still the foremost empire, had the power to simply remove all intrinsic value from the dollar and turn it into a fiat currency. Payment in gold ended.
Fast-forward to the post-millennium era and we see that America, like the previous empires, ended its acquisition of gold after World War II, yet its people became spoiled by political leaders who promised ever-increasing bread and circuses. The productivity that led to its initial strength was dying off, and it was spending more than it was bringing in. Finally, it sought to maintain its hegemony through warfare, thereby creating a dramatic drain to its wealth.
Like other empires before it, the US is now on the verge of relinquishing the crown of empire. If there's any difference this time around, it's that its collapse will very likely be far more spectacular than that of previous empires. However, just as in previous collapses, those who least understand that the collapse is around the corner are those who are closest to its centre. Clearly, the majority of Americans are worried about their future yet cannot conceive of their country as a second-rate power. And those who hold the reins of that power tend to be the most deluded, delving ever-deeper into debt at an ever-faster rate, whilst expanding welfare and warfare without any concept of how it might all be paid for.
It's understandable, therefore, that those of us who are on the outside looking in find it easier to observe objectively from afar and see the coming self-destruction of yet another empire.
"Empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth." They tend to end through the gradual elimination of the free-market system, the metamorphosis to a welfare state, and, finally, through the destruction of wealth through costly warfare.
Is this the "end of the world"? No. The world did not end with the fall of Rome, Spain, England, or any other empire. The productive people simply moved to a different location—one that encourages free-market opportunity. The wealth moved with them, then grew, as the free market allowed productive people to make it grow.
Freedom and opportunity still flourish. All that's changing is the locations where they are to be found.
-Jeff Thomas
In the Victorian Age, Brits were proud to say, "There will always be an England," and "The sun never sets on the British Empire." So, what happened? Why are they no longer the world's foremost empire? Why did they lose the majority of their colonies and wealth?
Well, first, let's look back at the other aforementioned empires and see how they fared. Rome was arguably the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Industrious Romans organized large armies that went to other parts of the world, subjugating them and seizing the wealth that they had built up over generations. And as long as there were further conquerable lands just over the next hill, this approach was very effective. However, once Rome faced diminishing returns on new lands to conquer, it became evident that those lands it had conquered had to be maintained and defended, even though there was little further wealth that could be confiscated.
The conquered lands needed costly militaries and bureaucracies in place to keep them subjugated but were no longer paying for themselves. The "colonies" were running at a loss. Meanwhile, Rome itself had become very spoiled. Its politicians kept promising more in the way of "bread and circuses" to the voters, in order to maintain their political office. So, the coffers were being drained by both the colonies and at home. Finally, in a bid to keep from losing their power, Roman leaders entered into highly expensive wars. This was the final economic crippler and the empire self-destructed.
Spain was a highly productive nation that attacked its neighbours successfully and built up its wealth, then became far wealthier when it sailed west, raiding the Americas of the silver and gold that they had spent hundreds of years accumulating. The sudden addition of this wealth allowed the Spanish kings to be lavish to the people and, as in Rome, the Spanish became very spoiled indeed. But once the gold and silver that was coming out of the New World was down to a trickle, the funding for maintaining the empire began to dry up. Worse, old enemies from Europe were knocking at the door, hoping to even old scores. In a bid to retain the empire, the king entered into extensive warfare in Europe, rapidly draining the royal purse and, like Rome, the Spanish Empire self-destructed.
In the Victorian era, the British Empire was unmatched in the world. It entered the industrial revolution and was highly productive. In addition, it was pulling wealth from its colonies in the form of mining, farming and industry. But, like other countries in Europe, it dove into World War I quickly and, since warfare always diminishes productivity at home whilst it demands major expense abroad, the British Empire was knocked down to one knee by the end of the war.
Then, in 1939, the game was afoot again and Britain was drawn into a second world war. By the end of the war, it could still be said that there would always be an England, but its wealth had been drained off and, one by one, its colonies jumped ship. The days of empire were gone.
Into the breach stepped the US. At the beginning of World War I, the US took no part in the fighting, but, as it had experienced its own industrial revolution, it supplied goods, food, and armaments to Britain and her allies. Because the pound and other European currencies could not be trusted not to inflate, payment was made in gold and silver. So the US was expanding its productivity into a guaranteed market, selling at top dollar, using the profits to create larger, more efficient factories, and getting paid in gold.
Then, in 1939, it all happened again. Although the US eventually joined both wars, they did so much later than Britain and her allies. At the end of World War II, the US had a lively young workforce, as they had lost fewer men to the war. They also had modern factories, which had been paid for by other nations, that could now be used to produce peacetime goods for themselves and the rest of the world more efficiently than anyone else.
And (and this is a very big "and") by 1945 they owned or controlled three quarters of the world's gold, as they'd drained it away from the warring nations in the early days of the war. This allowed the US to invite the post-war leaders to Bretton Woods to explain that, as the holders of the world's wealth, they'd dictate what the world's default currency would be: the dollar.
But this was all threatened by the fact that, when the now-poorer nations of the world sold their goods to the US, they, too, beginning with the French, wished to be paid in gold.
In the subsequent years, the gold in Fort Knox traveled back to the east, from whence it had come. In 1971, this flow was shut off, as the US, still the foremost empire, had the power to simply remove all intrinsic value from the dollar and turn it into a fiat currency. Payment in gold ended.
Fast-forward to the post-millennium era and we see that America, like the previous empires, ended its acquisition of gold after World War II, yet its people became spoiled by political leaders who promised ever-increasing bread and circuses. The productivity that led to its initial strength was dying off, and it was spending more than it was bringing in. Finally, it sought to maintain its hegemony through warfare, thereby creating a dramatic drain to its wealth.
Like other empires before it, the US is now on the verge of relinquishing the crown of empire. If there's any difference this time around, it's that its collapse will very likely be far more spectacular than that of previous empires. However, just as in previous collapses, those who least understand that the collapse is around the corner are those who are closest to its centre. Clearly, the majority of Americans are worried about their future yet cannot conceive of their country as a second-rate power. And those who hold the reins of that power tend to be the most deluded, delving ever-deeper into debt at an ever-faster rate, whilst expanding welfare and warfare without any concept of how it might all be paid for.
It's understandable, therefore, that those of us who are on the outside looking in find it easier to observe objectively from afar and see the coming self-destruction of yet another empire.
"Empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth." They tend to end through the gradual elimination of the free-market system, the metamorphosis to a welfare state, and, finally, through the destruction of wealth through costly warfare.
Is this the "end of the world"? No. The world did not end with the fall of Rome, Spain, England, or any other empire. The productive people simply moved to a different location—one that encourages free-market opportunity. The wealth moved with them, then grew, as the free market allowed productive people to make it grow.
Freedom and opportunity still flourish. All that's changing is the locations where they are to be found.
-Jeff Thomas
democrat and RINOs traitors are the prime actors in this
indifference among the People allowed this to happen
and those that swore Oaths still sit and do nothing
It's possible the next super power might not have to be a predator, and may come from a different, somewhat unexpected direction. Argentina has always had the capability to become a dominant force, and with Milei's reformations, may become dominant in the Americas, at least, if not beyond.
Is there a possibility for an African empire? The current suicidal craziness of the Sahel non-entities may force Nigeria's hand to become the controlling force in the western part of the continent, but there's not much wealth outside of Nigeria itself. None of the other former colonies can exercise much power, so the temptation/opportunity is there.
If China does finally collapse, could we see a rebirth of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (GEACS), originally envisioned by militaristic Japan in the early 20th century? A confederation of like-minded states that could include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and possibly others could wield significant financial and military power along some of the most important trade routes in the Indo-Pacific arena.
Finally, there's India, with a growing population and ambitions, careful not to let itself be drawn into complicated alliances. If it outlasts China, it will have little opposition for power (except possibly the aforementioned GEACS).
Understand, this is pure speculation on my part. I have no confidence any of my guesses could be the right answer, but you have stimulated my intellectual juices.
I haven't the answers to your questions.
I think humanity has wasted half a century squabbling over crumbs when we should have been working toward the immense possibilities of the 'high frontier.'
America could lead the way if we experience a virus that kills only sociopathic politicians and power seekers.
Science fiction dreamers always depict a human spacefaring society as unified and communal, either under autocratic imperial rule, or a more Utopian Star Trek kind of system, where everyone has sort of magically come together. I think The Expanse scenario is more likely, with some developments nationalized, and others more commercial ventures, continuing competition for resources and treasures.
Today, we suffer the blowback of this. Even to the point that the creation of Israel feels like it was DESIGNED to create contention. But to require extreme levels of protection for the fragile new country.
Was this all by design. And is this not a parallel thought to "Sector Rotation" in stock investing. Where this is geographical rotation in Globalist Investing.
Maybe my pattern recognition is being stretched. But I feel we are being manipulated at every step. And the next issue is almost predictable.
CO2 based climate change is nothing more than a basis for taxing humans for breathing, and making it look like humans are damaging a planet beyond repair by doing so. Guilt really does make people easier to control.
And silencing the opposition... Since when? To this level? And rubbing in our faces that there are 2 sets of standards "No prosecutor would prosecute HRC" vs. "For Trump. A non-crime is a felony, and talking to his lawyers is a RICO violation, brought to you by Liars, Lovers, and Losers"...
We are rats in cages. They know we will attack each other. But once about 1/3rd of the rats realize there are people outside the cage, causing the problem... Then finding a way to get out of the cage, and removing the real threat becomes the goal.
And they know that. So we get even worse laws (new FISA), and more restrictions, and more things including in "terrorism"... Because they know what they do.
Hopefully, we find 10,000 patriots who no longer have anything but our legacy to protect!
Ourselves along with others that channel productivity into survival will at least save the most productive, the most moral among us to survive and rebuild, hopefully with the knowledge of the centuries, millenniums of what NOT TO DO!
Lesson going forward: It is not our job, nor ability, to vanquish evil but it is in our job, our ability and our interest to Sequester evil the best we can when and where we find it.
It's in our own self interest to ensure the best of us survive and the worst of them do not.
The catch? . . . identifying good and evil correctly.
https://fit.instructure.com/courses/6...
I am like Hugh Akston from a philosophical standpoint, but like the early Dr. Stadler from a science/engineering standpoint. I also realize that from a philosophy standpoint that I am not perfect, but I can live with myself.
There are a few things that I can accept based on a preponderance of evidence that Ayn Rand rejected because what she deemed insufficient proof.
If your point is that there is no place with unfettered freedom, I agree, and there has not been any such place on earth in millennia.