Posted on 08/02/2010 9:40:20 PM PDT by Milhous
In the latest two-part interview with Jim Rickards by Eric King, the former LTCM General Counsel goes on a lengthy compare and contrast between the Roman Empire (and especially the critical part where it collapses) and the U.S. in it current form. And while we say contrast, there are few actual contrasts to observe: alas, the similarities are just far too many, starting with the debasement of the currencies, whereby Rome's silver dinarius started out pure and eventually barely had a 5% content, and the ever increasing taxation of the population, and especially the most productive segment - the farmers, by the emperors, to the point where the downfall of empire was actually greeted by the bulk of the people as the barbarians were welcomed at the gate with open arms. The one key difference highlighted by Rickards: that Rome was not as indebted to the gills as is the US. Accordingly, the US is in fact in a far worse shape than Rome, as the ever increasing cost of funding the debt can only come from further currency debasement, which in turn merely stimulates greater taxation, and more printing of debt, accelerating the downward loop of social disintegration. Furthermore, Rickards points out that unlike the Romans, we are way beyond the point of diminishing marginal utility, and the amount of money that must be printed, borrowed, taxed and spent for marginal improvements in the way of life, from a sociological standpoint, is exponentially greater than those during Roman times. As such, once the collapse begins it will feed on itself until America is no more. Rickards believes that this particular moment may not be too far off...
In this context, Rickards presumes, it is not at all surprising that both individual Americans and domestic corporations have set off on a massive deleveraging and cash conservation wave: the subliminal sense that something very bad is coming, is becoming more palpable with each passing day. The bottom line is that the Fed, just as our founding fathers had warned, could very well end up being the catalyst to the downfall of American society as it cannibalizes all productive output and transfers the wealth to the oligarchy, while paying for this transfer in the form of unrepayable indebtedness. Ostensibly, had the army of Ancient Rome agreed to be paid in paper instead of (even diluted) precious metals, thus creating the first central bank in history, the collapse of that particular overstretched empire would have been far quicker. On the other hand, it would have prevented the disaster of Central banking in its current form, as civilization would have learned about its evils far sooner. Alas, that did not happened, and it now befalls upon the current generation to realize just how much of a destructive influence central banking truly is. If Jim Rickards is correct, however, the realization will be America's last, just before US society disintegrates.
Must hear two part interview can be found here:
Richardson offers a measure of hope in the form of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. A simplified remnant of the Roman Empire, which lasted a thousand years and featured: a religious foundation, sound money, low taxes, and an agrarian base.
********************
The Byzantines also kept to their own territories for the most part, and kept their military modernized rather than massive - again with some qualifications and exceptions.
(1,000 years is a long time)
Professor Joseph Peden observed similar parallels regarding oppressive taxation and regulation, with corresponding disaffection from the ‘little people’ in what would be ‘fly over country’, had there been Air Imperium.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/peden1.1.1.html
So Texas will be the new Byzantines ?
All for naught if non tax payers and morons continued to be enfranchised.
That's what killed this Republic.
We've been doomed since 1964...
Works for me! I'm in...
Even as a dictatorship Rome lasted 600 more years. The United States is not a dictatorship. Not yet.
Thanks for the link.
The United States is not an empire. Here endeth the lesson.
The sun never sets on the American military.
How many empires are you aware of that kept recalcitrant allies in-line by threatening to withdraw their military forces from the allies’ lands.
Certainly the Romans did. I would much rather have Roman soldiers occupying my city-state and allowing me trade with the wealthiest nation in the world than have barbarians raiding my villages.
No they didn’t. Cite an example.
Conscientious people naturally seek stability over chaos. Some regions willingly joined the Roman Empire for the sake of stability. (Sorry, it’s too late for me to provide links tonight.)
Richards talks about our contemporary world’s preference for a global leader for stability’s sake. He also talks about German industrialism combining with Russian resources to provide an alternative should the US falter in its leadership role of providing stability.
Attacking America’s founding religion and dropping greenbacks from a helicopter promote chaos, not the stability that the world so desperately seeks.
After the death of Herod Agrippa I, the procurators were put back in charge, however in 66 A.D. the Jews instigated a rebellion against Roman rule. In 70 A.D., after a 143-day siege which began at Passover, a Roman military force consisting of about 30,000 troops under the command of Titus battered the walls and entered the city. They destroyed everything, including Herod's Temple, exactly as spoken by Jesus Christ 40 years earlier. The population and the great number of Passover visitors who had been trapped there were brutally slaughtered, with an estimated 600,000 to 1,000,000 people killed. Roman General Titus took the precious booty and treasury of the Jerusalem Temple back to Rome, where many suspect it remains to this day. (arch of Titus)
Julius Caesar did much the same thing when the Gauls, led by Vercingetorix, revolted against Roman rule. If you want me to, I can cite many more examples. On the other hand, I am not aware of a single instance where Rome threatened to withdraw from allies lands in order to punish them. I don’t believe it ever happened and will await with baited breath for an example of the Romans doing that.
The Roman consul Mummius, with 23,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry (probably two legions plus Italian allies) with Cretans and Pergamese, advanced into the Peloponnese against the revolutionary government of the Achaean League. The Achaean general Diaeus camped at Corinth with 14,000 infantry and 600 cavalry (plus probably some survivors of another army beaten earlier). The Achaeans made a successful night attack on the camp of the Roman advance guard, inflicting heavy casualties. Encouraged by this success they offered battle the next day but their cavalry, heavily outnumbered, did not wait to receive the Roman cavalry charge but fled at once. The Achaean infantry however held the legions until a picked force of 1000 Roman infantry charged their flank and broke them. Some Achaians took refuge in Corinth, but no defense was organized because Diaios fled to Arcadia. Corinth was utterly destroyed in this year by the victorious Roman army and all of her treasures and art plundered.
Conference in Corfu
I hadn’t realized before that Corfu was actually the center of Phaeacian culture mentioned in the Odyssey, and a major Greek power from 700 BCE to 400 BCE. After this it declined in importance, and willingly joined the Roman Empire to protect itself from raids in 229 BCE.
The question is whether Rome voluntarily left lands that were under Roman protection in order to punish recalcitrant inhabitants. I don't believe it ever happened but I will wait for you to cite an example that proves me wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.