The downfall of empires pt.4: loss

If there’s one thing empires (the political institutions that desire to create them) need to learn – but refuse to – it’s that #military might makes the empire collapse. The same might that’s needed to make the empire, in the first place. This empire briefly made economic sense, so long as the profits from looting were higher than the costs: when this changes, a busines-savvy emperor (the little known Bussinesius the 1st), would abandon that part of the empire, not hold on to it for dear life.
This is how business is superior to politics: in business, if a sector turns lossy, then in order to not let it drag down the whole vmcorporation, it gets sold off, or stopped. That is unpleasant for the workers that put their hearts and hopes into it, but it is unpleasant only for them, not for all other employees of the business. (Citizens of the empire).
But of course we can’t hope for politicians to be reasonable and think if the good of the people; anyone that shows even the slightest propensity to care for the people, is not allowed in.
Oh and before I forget: bloody #NATO (largest terrorist organization this world has ever seen) will lead to today’s impetlrial downfall (the dynasty of the west).
It is not necessarily such a bad thing for the west to stop domineering the world, but that need not lead to an end to the cycle of rise and fall of empires, in fact unless empiredom is stopped in its tracks by the west (-ern people), it will most likely continue, to the detriment of millions.

  1. There will be economic suffering in the empire, as living standards drop dramatically
  2. There will be suffering in the regions conquered by the next empire.
  3. That empire will collapse and the cycle will start over again with some other empire.

The downfall of empires pt.3: Rome pt.2: decadence

As I started saying, decadence is sometimes blamed for #Rome’s downfall. There is possibly some truth to that: (corrollary to the roaring 1920s) the perceived, fleeting wealth of an,inflated currency (denarius) which was debased to 5% (the denarius was reduced from a silver coin, to a silver plated brass coin) temporarily made Rome’s citizens feel a sense of economic relief: the face value of the denarius remained unchanged, but there were more of them, meaning people were richer, right?
Much like the #euro: that hated currency still has the value of one euro, but it keeps getting inflated by that evil bastard #Draghi, so it’s real value is now much less than one euro (using the introductory coin’s value)
This sense of economic relief promoted a mentality of Carpe Diem, instead of the more gloomy memento mori, the imminence of death, people were reminded of before, when there was doubt about the chances of individual survival. This seizing of the days became a sort of decadence, which the people then could not afford to keep up.
So, all in all, the downfall of Rome had multiple causes, all #political: military conquest, monetary malfeasance.

The downfall of empires pt.2

Following up on

It is sometimes popular to blame Rome’s downfall on Roman decadence. There may be some truth to that: inflation, just like fiat currencies (the euro, the $, etc.), contributed heavily to the downfall. More coins were needed to pay for goods & services. Combined with reduced income from “foreign plunder”, the taxes were raised to the seats of the gods (aka sky-high) which became unaffordable for the 1,000,000 people in the city of #Rome.