The American Empire has already peaked and is on the downhill slide.

[Kutnupe14]

We are swiftly going the way of Rome. And for the same reasons. Thanks to woefully ignorant leftist dullards being in charge of the education system, students learn NOTHING about anything that didn't happen in their lifetime, never-mind 1600 years ago. All they do learn is stupid, nonsensical crap like "White Privilege", "Socialism Is Awesome", and "White Men Are To Blame For ALL Of The World's Ills."

And then these special snowflakes who are qualified to be nothing more than Mop-Jockeys and French Fried Potato Procurement Technicians are stupid enough to wonder why their degree in Liberal Arts is worth less then toilet paper.

Riiiiiight. Lol... the Rome fell due to their educators teaching about "white privilege."

Kut (thinks YOU may want to review your history, 1600 years ago and prior)

 

[BugI02]

I also just don't see their culture and influence catching on in other countries.

But ... but ... there's a 'chinese' restaurant on just about every block in Columbus

 

[BugI02]

Riiiiiight. Lol... the Rome fell due to their educators teaching about "white privilege."

Kut (thinks YOU may want to review your history, 1600 years ago and prior)

But you must admit, Kut, that there are barbarians outside the gates (of America). So there is one similarity. Two if you count Flint.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We are swiftly going the way of Rome. And for the same reasons. Thanks to woefully ignorant leftist dullards being in charge of the education system, students learn NOTHING about anything that didn't happen in their lifetime, never-mind 1600 years ago.

Like what caused the collapse of Rome? Or the differences between an agrarian based empire reliant on slave labor to maintain it's economy and mercenaries to defend it's territories that were far too large to effectively govern with then-modern communications and logisitcs vs the modern US?

 

[cobber]

It was actually the greatest generation that done us in.

LBJ and the Great Society laid the foundation for the collapse of America.

All of the pernicious effects we see in society were hatched in the mindset the 1960s Dems created.

Last great US president? Eisenhower.

 

[Jludo]

It was actually the greatest generation that done us in.

LBJ and the Great Society laid the foundation for the collapse of America.

All of the pernicious effects we see in society were hatched in the mindset the 1960s Dems created.

Last great US president? Eisenhower.

He's rolling in his grave, I was in DC a few weeks ago and you drive past the pentagon, then it's Arlington National, then next, practically overlooking Arlington, is the Military industrial park. BAE, Raytheon they all have huge buildings right there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He's rolling in his grave, I was in DC a few weeks ago and you drive past the pentagon, then it's Arlington National, then next, practically overlooking Arlington, is the Military industrial park. BAE, Raytheon they all have huge buildings right there.

It's a short trot for them to pick up their checks.

 

[jamil]

Like what caused the collapse of Rome? Or the differences between an agrarian based empire reliant on slave labor to maintain it's economy and mercenaries to defend it's territories that were far too large to effectively govern with then-modern communications and logisitcs vs the modern US?

Violins. It was the violins. Wait. Wrong millennium.

 

[jamil]

It's a short trot for them to pick up their checks.

Stop picking on my crony capitalists.

 

[Alpo]

Looking back at the Empires of past centuries, it is difficult to draw equivalence. Typically, those empires controlled the colonial governments, subjugated the peoples and exploited them for economic benefit. The worst is probably Great Britain and the opium trade in China. Despicable.

Having said that, the pursuit of economic profits overseas should be watched carefully. There is no doubt that, left to their own devices, corporations will perform as poorly and with less morality even than Britain. We are a country of law, first and foremost. But what that means to multi-national corporate activities in the 21st century is anyone's guess.

ps. I wish we would stop talking about our "exceptionalism". No one likes a braggart. And the politicians who say it the most are the least "exceptional".

 

[BugI02]

Looking back at the Empires of past centuries, it is difficult to draw equivalence. Typically, those empires controlled the colonial governments, subjugated the peoples and exploited them for economic benefit. The worst is probably Great Britain and the opium trade in China. Despicable.

Having said that, the pursuit of economic profits overseas should be watched carefully. There is no doubt that, left to their own devices, corporations will perform as poorly and with less morality even than Britain. We are a country of law, first and foremost. But what that means to multi-national corporate activities in the 21st century is anyone's guess.

ps. I wish we would stop talking about our "exceptionalism". No one likes a braggart. And the politicians who say it the most are the least "exceptional".

It ain't bragging if you can back it up

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ah, Rome...and the US...

1. Rampant inflation and devaluation of currency, check.
2. Moral decline, check.
3. Overextending relative to the ability of the economy to support such expansion, check.
4. Bread and circuses supplanting productive contributions, check.
5. Establishment of a multicultural society (please note that I specifically mean incompatible customs, etc, not genetic traits) specifically in running out of enough Italians to staff the army leading to a less stable structure with more mixed agendas, and in turn, policy hinging more on personalities than rule of law, check (at least we are well on the way).
6. Increasingly authoritarian government resulting in a more resource-intense high maintenance mode of operation as opposed to the voluntary society which was the foundation of both the Roman and American republics, check.
7. Unsound fiscal policies, particularly in form of deficit spending and national debt, check.
8. Barbarians at the gate, check.
9. A people which became over time less concerned with the nation and more concerned with strictly self-serving motives (i.e., the lack of the honor that once existed in both societies), check.
10. Allowing public officials to establish private fiefdoms within the government rather than doing their supposed duty, check.
11. Increasing lack of accountability on the parts of elected officials, check.

Well, that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. You will have to understand that it has been about 20 years since I took Roman history (even though I can remember that the textbook was written by a fellow named Finley Hooper) and have forgotten quite a bit since then.

 

[oldpink]

[...]
ps. I wish we would stop talking about our "exceptionalism". No one likes a braggart. And the politicians who say it the most are the least "exceptional".

The whole "exceptionalism" point has exactly zero to do with America being populated with better people than any other nation has, or being inherently superior in any other way.
It has to do with us being the first country that went against the tide by being the first one in modern times that threw aside the chains of monarchy or other forms of dictatorship.
The story of nations for centuries has been on of tyranny, and the American Revolution was unique, exceptional if you will, by reversing what had been the normal course of history.
Is the American Experiment perfect?
Nope, but it is as close as fallible humans can expect to have.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
–James Madison

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ah, Rome...and the US...

1. Rampant inflation and devaluation of currency, check.
2. Moral decline, check.
3. Overextending relative to the ability of the economy to support such expansion, check.
4. Bread and circuses supplanting productive contributions, check.
5. Establishment of a multicultural society (please note that I specifically mean incompatible customs, etc, not genetic traits) specifically in running out of enough Italians to staff the army leading to a less stable structure with more mixed agendas, and in turn, policy hinging more on personalities than rule of law, check (at least we are well on the way).
6. Increasingly authoritarian government resulting in a more resource-intense high maintenance mode of operation as opposed to the voluntary society which was the foundation of both the Roman and American republics, check.
7. Unsound fiscal policies, particularly in form of deficit spending and national debt, check.
8. Barbarians at the gate, check.
9. A people which became over time less concerned with the nation and more concerned with strictly self-serving motives (i.e., the lack of the honor that once existed in both societies), check.
10. Allowing public officials to establish private fiefdoms within the government rather than doing their supposed duty, check.
11. Increasing lack of accountability on the parts of elected officials, check.

Well, that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. You will have to understand that it has been about 20 years since I took Roman history (even though I can remember that the textbook was written by a fellow named Finley Hooper) and have forgotten quite a bit since then.

The flaw with those that use the "Look at the Roman Empire analogy," is that it's a generic formula, and could be applied almost universally to every industrialized first world nation on the planet.

Kut (points to Japan, for instance)

 

[IndyDave1776]

The flaw with those that use the "Look at the Roman Empire analogy," is that it's a generic formula, and could be applied almost universally to every industrialized first world nation on the planet.

Kut (points to Japan, for instance)

While hardly exclusive, as a predictive example, it is necessary that it have already completely run its course to demonstrate where the wrong path eventually leads. That purpose cannot be served by a still-functioning government.

 

[BugI02]

The flaw with those that use the "Look at the Roman Empire analogy," is that it's a generic formula, and could be applied almost universally to every industrialized first world nation on the planet.

Kut (points to Japan, for instance)

Well, when we go down how do you think those others fortunes will trend. Perhaps that's why the template fits so many cases

ETA: whither Gaul?

 

[Kutnupe14]

While hardly exclusive, as a predictive example, it is necessary that it have already completely run its course to demonstrate where the wrong path eventually leads. That purpose cannot be served by a still-functioning government.

One would ask, if a nation could ever even avoid such "mistakes." I would think it impossible. As a nation grows, it's citizens become more diverse, and it's original identity watered down.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, when we go down how do you think those others fortunes will trend. Perhaps that's why the template fits so many cases

ETA: whither Gaul?

They'll go right down with us. And in that regard, we are probably most similar to the Roman Empire. Whereas other empires fell and others filled it's place almost immediately. If we go kaput, the world will be thrown into chaos, like.... the Roman Empire.

 

[IndyDave1776]

One would ask, if a nation could ever even avoid such "mistakes." I would think it impossible. As a nation grows, it's citizens become more diverse, and it's original identity watered down.

This is a question I have puzzled over a lot. My personal conclusions are that it could happen but is not very likely. In order for it to happen, the nation would have to remain socially homogeneous, which would require either an imperial mentality with one finite group of full citizens which would be the original population and all others being relegated to a secondary status including and especially being prohibited from participation in government, or the other alternative would be to have a doppelganger of Switzerland without expansion or allowing significan numbers of immigrants--and those represent only the first step. After this, you would have to find a way to prevent personal greed and ambitions from preventing people who find their way into positions of power and/or influence from using those positions for personal gain at the expense of a parasitic impact on the society. At the end of the day, it seems that human nature being what it is would serve to prevent this from being a sustainable model in any but the most exceptional and most likely small of societies.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The flaw with those that use the "Look at the Roman Empire analogy," is that it's a generic formula, and could be applied almost universally to every industrialized first world nation on the planet.

Kut (points to Japan, for instance)

It's over simplistic to say the least. It's like taking a page covered in dots, connecting only the ones you choose, and saying "look, it was a picture of a horse this whole time!" Well, sure, but there's a lot of other possibilities if you add in the dots you left out.

Industrial nations =/= agrarian nations. Agrarian nations can only support a limited amount of specialization, a limited amount of expansion, and a bad crop year starts things turning in on themselves. There is no industry to manage shortages. There is no real economy engine outside of agriculture and trading. Resources are vastly more limited and unable to weather rough patches in terms of war, natural disaster, etc.

Rome, at the end of the day, got too big to support itself given the logistics, communication speeds, political structures, and economic engines of the day. It divided itself into chunks to try and be more manageable, but those sub-units lacked a federal system to work out disagreements and disputes over resources turned into competition, which started the whole thing spiraling. Arguing about what caused the empire to fall is like arguing which organ failed first in a cancer ridden patient. Academically it may be interesting, but if it wasn't one it was going to be the other.

Compare to the modern US economy which can grow based entirely on a consumer uptick in spending. There's no need to conquer new land suitable for farming, forests to build ships, etc. You can grow your economy with the resources on hand. What resources does a Windows operating system consume from the land? How much does it enhance the economy? That's a HUGE deal that's so often overlooked in these 'decline of xxx empire" debates tryin to compare agrarian societies to us. We can grow in standard of living without growing in footprint. Modern logistics and communication make larger and larger areas easier to manage and administer, ease shortages, etc. It's the winter in Indiana and I can put my hands on fresh fruit for a buck a pound. It's so commonplace to us we forget what a huge advantage that is. The ability to feed and provide drinking water to the entire "empire" even when half of it has a drought/flood/tornado/what-have-you? That's HUGE.