2As a descendant of Romans, I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis.
9/24/2008 6:56:44 PM
this is getting good
9/24/2008 7:01:19 PM
if okay. you never answer me question. okay friend. the reason i move from Seoul maybecause important person died. in my life. okay now.
9/24/2008 7:33:22 PM
Another reason we aren't going to go all Roman Empire is because now, unlike 2000 years ago, we live in a highly interdependent economy. Or rather, if we do go down, we're taking everybody else with us. But as long as there are other countries with the capacity to keep our bloated carcass propped up, they'll do so, if only because they've invested so much in us.
9/24/2008 9:00:20 PM
America's current situation involves a cause and effect relationship where American banks pumped huge amounts of assets into an unregulated housing market in an effort to make huge profits. Unfortunately, the banks were allowed to pump these assets in irresponsible ways by loaning people money that were clearly unfit to pay back the loans in the first place. This decision by the central government is the best and most recent example of America conducting itself like Rome once did. When an American bank does this, the money that was loaned to the borrower is in essence forfeit or wasted, because that money was handed out without a realistic guarantee of a profitable return. For example, if the banks used that money to invest in a more stable market that money would of returned a profit instead of actually losing huge amounts of money. The obvious result is that the unfit borrowers are kicked out of their homes, and the banks end up owning tons of real estate with little to no chance of selling it for a profit. This can be easily compared to the over-expansion of Rome throughout the world, which left a heavy burden upon the central government and contributed heavily to its slow demise globally. Now these American banks own all of these homes scattered all throughout the country that they didn't have to invest in in the first place, and because the economy is going south, their chances of selling these homes for a profit quickly are next to nothing. Since the banks cannot sell these homes and their assets are tied to a dead market, we are now experiencing a huge financial vacuum where banks are at risk of imploding. Again, Rome also over-expanded, had poor financial policies home and abroad, and continued a backwards philosophy in regards to their management of national resources. Since there are no buyers, no one honestly knows the actual value of these homes because the housing market is tumbling. A bailout would allow the banks to hold onto these homes until they have a chance to sell them for a profit. Once they do sell them, the banks can then reallocate their assets and stabilize their own finances, which in theory will stabilize the economy once again. Rome also had a chance to break the pattern of instability by abandoning their distant outposts and managing their wealth, but their philosophy of military might slowly erroded their global strength because of their misinterpretation of human nature and the importance of over-powering your enemies with arms. Think of it like selling a piece of art painted by an elephant. To some people, this painting is a true masterpiece valued in the millions of dollars, and to others it's worth a few hundred dollars because it's just a painting by an elephant. In Rome, lavish over-indulgence was the norm, and at a certain point the value of their currency and culture was lost even to themselves. With a bailout: The banks are given a grace period to liberate themselves from their real estate investments by finding buyers in an unpredictable market and selling for an acceptable profit. This gives banks a chance at recovering by keeping them afloat in the seas of uncertainty with a 700 Billion dollar floatation device. The 700 Billion dollar amount is a mere guess by the treasury and only time will tell the actual bailout cost of this crisis. [Rome did not seek this opportunity]Without a bailout: The banks are expected to liberate themselves from their real estate investments by finding buyers in an unpredictable market. If the economy continues to go south, the chances of recovery are very low and they will sink in the seas of uncertainty. [Rome did not seek this opportunity]Basically, do we throw these American banks a taxpayer lifesaver to swim to land, or do we risk waiting it out to see if these banks can sink or swim? If the banks fail to swim and sink to the bottom of the sea of uncertainty, the probability of America finding land together is even bleaker and more unlikely. [Rome did not seek this opportunity] The question should not be whether or not we bail them out with a taxpayer lifesaver; the question should be more geared towards the way we get to land together with the most survivors as possible. The more survivors we have, the better the chances of recovering the entire economy on solid ground. This is why conditions are so important, because if we do not account for the waves, the current, the wind, and each banks ability to swim; we may be adding an anchor to the problem, instead of a sail. [Rome did not seek this opportunity]
9/25/2008 1:59:56 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I couldn't edit my last post. This just in from Berlin, Germany.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html
9/25/2008 9:19:28 PM
Frankly I don't deem myself capable of sifting through both posts, but I will handle the last one:Essentially you have a guy who fundamentally disagrees with our policies saying that our policies were wrong. Regardless of what's happened recently, I'm not sure it's cause to go jump on the opposite boat just yet, especially when his point of view comes from such a different economy.I like how the article puts blame on "Anglo-Saxon" financial engineering. Somebody in his camp out to look at the history of Germanic peoples in England.In general, it seems like a lot of their complaints stem from the fact that the shit hit the fan in America first. Some of these financial practices aren't unique to the US of A.
9/26/2008 3:37:09 AM
i cant stand how people compare the US to rome...its gay and stupid...its for dumb ass "intellectuals" with no sense of anything
9/26/2008 3:41:04 AM
God I wish it was possible to push subliterate ape-people into chit-chat once and for all.
9/26/2008 3:45:47 AM
^I think dnl is completely piss-ass drunk tonight, he's kind of taking a shit in TSB instead of just posting irrelevant single-sentence posts... Usually he gives his opinions and leaves but tonight he's just calling everything gay and/or stupid... it's uncharacteristic. [Edited on September 26, 2008 at 3:49 AM. Reason : .]
9/26/2008 3:48:36 AM
Maybe, but then again, I'm piss-ass drunk tonight, and at least I manage to compose sentences without coming across as a mongoloid sack of shit.
9/26/2008 3:49:38 AM
seriously though...the old ass roman empire and the united states are very similar...lol
9/26/2008 4:10:52 AM
9/26/2008 10:01:59 AM
there's also that time Mark Antony "fell in love" with Cleopatra so that Rome could keep grain supplies from the Nile to the Aventine constant.seriously, if we don't stop subsidising oil, its only going to cause us more pain in the long run. we may call it a "long term strategic presence in the middle east", but its really just a subsidy when it comes down to it.
9/29/2008 12:40:33 AM
This thread is a bit silly... America isn't an empire in any way when compared to Rome. Apples meet Oranges. Rome was in decline for hundreds of years. We have a relatively small, so far, economic downturn, that has been thrown way out of proportion for political gain on both sides. Obama comparing this to the Great Depression? Fo real? Scare mongering anyone? Hell, look at the Great Depression. Yeah it was terrible, but people survived and, guess what, America survived and surpassed what it had been before it. It didn't fall, it didn't collapse. America isn't Rome.
9/29/2008 12:58:59 AM
i actually see our situation more directly paralleled to late model USSR either way, i'll see you guyz in belize when we get to president palin
9/29/2008 2:47:12 AM
Address the underlying commonality between the two empires first, and then contrast how they are fundamentally different with examples of how they cannot be paralleled within reason. It's easy to say America isn't Rome, but it's far more difficult to defend that claim with supportive examples that contradict the similar early warning signs. No one is claiming what the rate of America's decline could end up being, instead the point is to discuss the problems that we share. In fact, I've already said that the decline can be averted, so I'm not sure of your implied direction. If Rome isn't America, then defend that by refuting the underlying themes.I like how on CNN right now they are talking about how some of these American mega banks were "too big to fail."Sound familiar?[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM. Reason : -]
9/29/2008 7:19:58 PM
9/29/2008 8:36:43 PM
I don't know if America will ever have a "fall", like Rome did (and keep in mind, the Roman Empire may have fallen in 1452 depending on how you define the Roman Empire), but I do think that the US will wind up having its power eclipsed (much like the UK did) by emerging powers like China and India.With the resources wasted in the War on Terror (financially, diplomatically, militarily), added with the declining state of American education, I don't know how we are going to be able to compete with growing power from the EU and Asia.
9/30/2008 5:54:29 PM
5.1.2006:
9/30/2008 10:42:33 PM
In my opinion what happened to Rome cannot occur any longer. Back then, the weapons most effective could easily be weilded by a people without a formal state (iron weapons and horses). As such, it was simply a numbers game: no matter how powerful the Roman state was, if its army was outnumbered then it could lose to any organized rabble, even one that disbanded shortly after winning. That is no longer the case. Now, with civilization comes technology which by itself produces power. As such, a technologically endowed state can only be conquered by other technologically endowed states (while a poor herdsmen can be expected to afford a sword and horse, an abrams tank is out of the question). Today states are self fulfilling. Even a vampire state which only exists to rape and pillage its own people can drag on forever (see some African states). As such, governments simply do not fail the way they used to. On a planet with 195 separate countries, only one has been without a state for an extended period of time, and even there foreign states are trying to impose a state as we speak. Compare that to Roman times when the world was the absolute reverse (mostly borderless). As such, before a future can arrive which involves the end of the organized state in North America, we should expect to see at least the whole African continent go first and then find a way for poor farmers and herdsmen to defeat an armored division in open combat.
9/30/2008 11:00:41 PM
9/30/2008 11:05:56 PM
9/30/2008 11:15:41 PM
HUR, we are not talking about ancient warfare, we are talking about warfare as it was waged between the Romans and their enemies around the fall of Rome. And at that time, I believe it was a numbers game. Afterall, Rome did not just fade away, it was crushed down by nomadic tribes it was unable to best on the battlefield. Jax883, the difference in upkeep between a sword & horse and a machine-gun & pickup-truck is not substantial in human terms. The difference being that a sword & horse can be fed the same food humans eat, where-as a technical requires access to carefully managed production facilities defended far from the front lines. A feat which can only be carried out by an organized state of some-sort. Now, a gorilla campaign can be wages using the weapons of the state against it. But what would victory look like? The better you do at vanquishing the state, the less ammunition there is for everyone, including the barbarians. This is why today's barbarians no longer raise cities to the ground; they occupy them and merely take over control of the existing state. Afterall, they need amunition and fuel, therefore they need the state. [Edited on October 1, 2008 at 1:22 AM. Reason : .,.]
10/1/2008 1:20:38 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/09/30/nobel.literature.ap/index.html
10/1/2008 7:51:56 AM
You can view Mr. Engdahl's comments in a few ways. One is that he implies that America was never the center of the literary world, and so, given that we were never on top to begin with, I don't view his comments as a statement that American cultural influence is diminishing.
10/1/2008 11:28:25 AM
i woudl encourage all to read the entire article, not just the bolded parts (^^)
[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason :
10/1/2008 11:29:36 AM
Oh I did, but I didn't feel like bringing up the other issues that aren't relevant to the conversation at hand.I would point out that while there are large portions of the United States that may be insular and ignorant, I would question whether that really applies to the academia and especially the literary community here in the United States.I also think that Engdahl's comments are more reflective of a eurocentric view that is equally narrow minded. His comment about writers working in Europe because they'd be beaten to death in Asia or Africa is a bit of a stretch. What about democratic nations in Asia like India, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan? Pacific nations like Australia or New Zealand? What about South America, in nations like Brazil, Argentina, or Chile? That assumption would also equally apply to the United States as well, another rather popular destination for struggling academics from overseas who need a safe haven.I'd also throw in that the comment is probably equally an attempt by Europeans to reassert themselves, to say that they are still relevant in a world where their influence is also in rapid decline.[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : Added last comment]
10/1/2008 11:39:29 AM
lame.
10/1/2008 11:59:18 AM
10/1/2008 1:03:48 PM
^You are reading that out of context. I'm referring to our future development, not our present day accompishments...hence the entire thread.http://www.nationalmathandscience.org/index.php/blog/friedman-ids-the-problem-weve-found-the-answer.html
10/1/2008 1:31:57 PM
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3213636.html
10/1/2008 1:33:00 PM
This is the same argument that was made in the 80's. We are falling behind, we are screwed, the end is nigh. Instead of the USA falling behind, some of what Friedman is seeing is rather the rest of the world catching up to us (and Europe), which isn't a bad thing. This was inevitably since we educate the rest of the world. (where do people go to earn advanced degrees? It isn't China). A little anecdotaly, I have been completely unimpressed with the quality of some of the Chinese/Indians graduate students I have met. You say well, China is producing 10 millions science degrees a year (just a random number) and the USA is producing, say, only 2 million. But I would argue the disparity in quality of degrees is great. From what I have seen, Chinese universities focus very little on abstract and creative thinking that is critical in science. Only time will tell, but I'm not to worried about it.
10/1/2008 1:46:12 PM
10/2/2008 12:44:22 AM
The lagging behind of American education only really applies up until high school, our universities are still the best in the world.So that has little to do with any nobel prizes, nobody's winning a nobel prize coming out of high school AFAIK.Besides, that was a nobel prize in literature, I don't think Rome fell because the barbarians were writing more entertaining books.[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 1:13 AM. Reason : ]
10/2/2008 1:13:04 AM
10/2/2008 3:04:34 AM
message_topic.aspx?topic=542182&page=9
10/2/2008 8:26:48 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/arts/2008/03/09/bomur109.xml
10/9/2008 4:52:05 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425_pf.html
10/10/2008 12:32:13 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm
11/21/2008 9:53:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGHODRNJqRo
11/21/2008 9:54:04 AM
message_topic.aspx?topic=549953
11/25/2008 1:03:43 PM
^^^ I read most of that report. I enjoyed the tech predictions. Robot servants and human cognitive enhancement got rated as plausible.
11/25/2008 9:34:57 PM
The problem with America today is evident in this thread.
11/26/2008 3:09:58 AM
^agreed
11/26/2008 3:12:42 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5435148.ece
1/4/2009 10:56:13 AM
I don't really know how one can compare the US to Rome.Our culture is far more advanced.Our communication is instant.Our Economy isn't based on the Iron AgeWe don't have power centralized in one figure that can lead to constant civil unrest for well over a century. I mean, Rome began to crumble with a succession of terrible emperors.We face no threat of invasion from an outside military.And Rampant inflation? Really?If anything, these articles indicate that general journalistic ability is the one aspect of society that has eroded terribly in the age of the 24 hour news cycle.
1/4/2009 2:14:23 PM
People keep writing these articles b/c they hope that if people read about it and see if mentioned enough that they'll believe it. What a bunch of kooks.
1/4/2009 11:40:12 PM
what is it with these failed Euro powers? First Russia projects their failure to enforce their own Soviet Union on us, as if we're on the cusp of balkanization. Now the Brits are projecting their own failure to maintain a dominant global hegemony upon us, too.We Americans will refuse to be cowed into accepting their legacy of geopolitical impotence. Hell, we invented Viagra, motherfuckers. USA #1, bitches[Edited on January 5, 2009 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ]
1/5/2009 12:06:22 AM
Well simple math dictates that the US won't be the most dominant economy in the 21st century and with waning economic dominance, there will be waning military dominance.But fall apart like the Roman Empire? I don't believe so.
1/5/2009 1:12:14 AM