Jump to content

The inevitability of debt


Recommended Posts

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that debt is an arbitrary construct.

 

Considering how debt ceilings and spending limits are raised on a whim and markets are indexed and currencies manipulated accordingly, the whole thing is a house of cards. 

 

It's a global casino. The United States runs it and makes up the rules and is the biggest player in the game and has the muscle to put down anyone who decides to call in their markers. 

 

I love the board game Monopoly. Using it as an example, imagine if one player had the power to decide the value of every property on the board and the money in the bank at any given moment.

 

Now, a few cooperating  players go along with the game because they're still winners according to their needs.

 

As more players join the game, it becomes a pyramid like ponzi scheme. A proverbial house of cards. 

 

In a Bernie Madoff type ponzi scheme, the investors lose everything and the top guy goes to prison.

 

In the global casino game of Monopoly, the house always wins or else everybody loses. The muscle backs it up. 😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfDI will add something I didn't say in my thoughts in the original post. ... The USA isn't the first government to kick problems, deep problems, down the road. To be blunt, the USA has a heritage of kicking financial problems down the road to the detriment of the folk down that road, ala the war between the states which began when the usa was founded. Today the global system the usa has constructed is safe but I can see the inevitable problem that will generate a calamity down the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes debts are forgiven.

As ProfD already pointed out, much of the debt America claims to "owe" is a mere construction.
The United States OWNS the very institutions she claims to be indebted to!

Think about this......

The Federal Reserve...which holds the bulk of America's debts....is actually a private institution made up U.S. banks and American citizens!

And when it comes to owing money to China, Brazil, etc......
Why would the U.S. "borrow" dollars from China or Brazil when they don't even MAKE dollars but other forms of currency???

U.S. Dollars are LITERALLY made in the United States alone.
Any nation that has dollars to lone the U.S. actually GOT them from the U.S.!!!!
They are borrowing only the money that they are holding from various purchases and trades or foreign aid.

It's a big joke...a game being played to PRETEND that they are in a lot of debt so that they'll have an excuse not to spend the money on the things they need to spend it on like housing, healthcare, education etc...
Anytime you ask for Universal Healthcare or free college....they'll just point to the debt clock and say "the nation can't afford it".

image.png.6f4f3805b88d1d0934e8e47f2338f1cb.png

America's debt is MADE UP.....ARTIFICIAL.
It exists only on paper.

And even for those who believe it's real and that we really owe other people or countries.....as long as we are THE Superpower nation and no other nation is stronger than us militarily....who's gonna make us pay up?
Who's gonna call in the chips?

It's a game.
The U.S. Constitution gave the U.S. Treasury the right to literally print as much money as the nation needs and even control it's value to prevent inflation.....but she abandoned that system for the Federal Reserve so that they could PRETEND to be "in debt" to avoid it's domestic responsibilities, as I said earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 yes, the usa manages and controls the global financial system , in an even greater way than the british empire that did so beforehand. But what you guys are missing is the globe, the entirety of humanity. The USA is free in its system to cheat, others are not, but all of this is based on an uncertain factor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richard murray

More so than cheating, I'd call it a FLAGRANT DISREGARD for the rules and financial obligations.

As long as the U.S. has the strongest military on the planet, it doesn't have to pay or even acknowledge it's debts....and she knows it.
Other nations MUST....for the simple fact that when it's time to pay the Piper, they aren't strong enough to intimidate him.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

But what you guys are missing is the globe, the entirety of humanity. The USA is free in its system to cheat, others are not

It has already been established that the USA is the apex in the grand scheme of things. 

 

 @Pioneer1 just nailed it. Those who would like to cheat are welcomed to try it at their own peril. 😎

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 or @ProfD yes but the us military as all militaries will fail one day. My point isn't that the usa isn't powerful or that other countries do not have its same power, but that the usa military is on an inevitable path of failure and with so many countries relying on the usa military, its failure will lead to massive issues. Its not about doom and gloom. When the roman empire imploded it survived but the damage was extensive to its western section and eventually it went on a path of slow erosion. so I am not suggesting the world will blow up or the usa will not be in existence, but the chaos to most in humanity will occur because the basis of too many governments internally or externally is one thing that isn't guaranteed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

...the usa military is on an inevitable path of failure and with so many countries relying on the usa military, its failure will lead to massive issues.

Despite being the world police, the US military is not being stretched thin or tested by the countries relying on it. 

 

Technologically, the sheer power of the US military is unfathomable. It's way beyond anything the Romans could have ever imagined or dreamed up. 

 

The whole concept of the United Nations is that a level of conflict on the scale of a world war never happens again.

 

As long as all countries with people of color do not unite and try to overthrow the system, there's no reason for the US military and its allies to act or fail. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richard murray

I'm pretty sure you won't agree with this strategy but in my opinion, I think we are in an EXCELLENT position as AfroAmericans to not only live in the nation with the most powerful military....but even have LAWS on our side (whether they are properly enforced or not) that allows us to not only join but LEAD and CONTROL that military if we so desire!

I think we should take advantage of it.

Sure the U.S. won't be top dog forever, but while they are....it's better for us to ride that dog and enjoy as many benefits as we can.

Infact, if we were smart enough as a community and on the ball like we SHOULD be......we would have had so much power and influence ALREADY over the U.S. military that we'd be protecting Black African nations and keeping peace and stability in Africa like they're doing in Europe and East Asia right now.


Why aren't there tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Ghana or Tanzania or Angola helping bolster and build up THEIR economy and technology like we have in Germany and Japan and South Korea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD we will see

 

@Pioneer1 I think many Black Americansin the usa, maybe most, are doing what you said now. I do concur with your first point :) 

Quote

I think we are in an EXCELLENT position as AfroAmericans to not only live in the nation with the most powerful military....but even have LAWS on our side (whether they are properly enforced or not) that allows us to not only join but LEAD and CONTROL that military if we so desire!

I think we should take advantage of it.

Sure the U.S. won't be top dog forever, but while they are....it's better for us to ride that dog and enjoy as many benefits as we can.

That goal is what Frederick Douglass spearheaded alongside Sojourner Truth or Ida B Wells and followed by Web DUbois/Booker T Washington/The Tuskegee arimen/Rosa Parks/Martin/Fannie Lou Hamer/Shirley Chisholm/Fred Hampton/JEsse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Clarence Thomas/ The Obamas/Stacy Abrams and onward. 

Said people are not clones of each other, but all of them at the core of their purposes is about Black folk thriving or leading as part of the USA. I can even argue that the mythological crispus attics is the true progenitor of that movement that frederick douglass had a huge role in.

 

Where I oppose is your second point

Quote

 if we were smart enough as a community and on the ball like we SHOULD be

 

The why is key. It is a historical fact that I went in detail in this very community before, the Black community in the USA historically is anti USA + anti White. IT is a simple truth. Over time from the early 1500s to 2023 the Black populace in the USA or the british colonies that preceded it went from a majority fighting to stop the usa from being born to a populace whose members have existed in every position of highest value in the government with billionaires or millionaires forming a one percent. But whether black folk are in support or opposition to the usa, I don't think either choice makes one smart or on the ball. IT is about desire Pioneer. As I said to a black militant once. The modern black community will never join your cause en majority. The black one percent are fiscally wealthy. The black modern immigrants freely came to be part of the USA. and the descended of enslaved who are fiscally wealthy or in the military or work in government or simply are pro usa , simply are. So the anti USA segment of the modern black community is a minority in the black minority. But the IRA prove it can work, nothing is easy but it can work. The IRA was only a few hundred people but their actions got 3/4 of ireland free from the english after two thousand years of all of ireland being dominated by the english. So Black militants, go for it. Most irish didn't plan or had a part in the bombings. But the bombings of the ira which are counted more than the bombings in vietnam, which is amazing, led to the english saying, we will make a deal. And comprehend the modern irish live as two people's. They lived as two peoples during the troubles. Many irish stooged <my term choice> for the english, it is that simple , against the IRA and their cause. What is northern ireland really? by your words Pioneer, the northern irish are the smart on the ball folk who stayed with the remnant of the english empire. But communities are complex. Sometimes you are on the losing side Pioneer.  But whether losing or winning if you are true to yourself, you are not dumb. Stick with it, and your time will come and if it doesn't the people who carry on your message, will have a chance, and onward. as long as the community is alive, no matter the quantity or location, the goal isn't dead. That is why when my friends offline who are pro USA talk about various things. I tell them why don't they run for offices. Get in the government apparatus. They love the USA so I support their love, in the same way I support the Black militants who want to burn it down. I don't see either are smart or dumb. Black folk for me are free to have any position to the USA, any position. Our forebears earned us the right to that. 

 

TO answer your question

Quote

Why aren't there tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Ghana or Tanzania or Angola helping bolster and build up THEIR economy and technology like we have in Germany and Japan and South Korea?

Maybe one day their will be. The reason why the usa is in germany is cause germany , unfortunately for germany at some level, was the faultline for usa and russia when commonly called wolrd war two ended. Russia had east of germany, usa had west of germany. they both split germany, sequentially, both countries dropped military bases in germany.  Empire's love to make other countries their chess board pieces. Same to Japan. China was communist, and the USA was unable to kill Mao , I know they tried, so the USA military had to stay there. But when Japan's people starting showing socialist leanings, the USA then gave japan money. and while china didn't need russian bases, china became a military partner with russia on simple grounds that the usa was a mlitaristic enemy of both. And the USA went on and add Taiwan, chang kia shek's running hole,  and then the two koreas which no korean made. That is why? China and Russia is why. Those two are the only two governments that militaristically are honestly opposed to the usa. Most in the countries in the continent are still being militaristically manipulated by the likes of European countries so the USA has no threat. Ghana is part of the commonwealth of nations. Why have USA troops in ghana when ghana isn't free of an impotent england? Angola has new oil money but Angola like Equatorial Guinea are ruled by the oil families. But the oil families will not get rid of that silly constitution or government system. Angola is a kingdom, that acts like it isn't. Like many oil countries, they hurt themselves accepting the dysfunctional usa or uk elected goverment/parliamentary system. So why have USa troops in Angola when Angola isn't even honest with itself? and same to the others in africa. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

But the IRA prove it can work, nothing is easy but it can work. The IRA was only a few hundred people but their actions got 3/4 of ireland free from the english after two thousand years of all of ireland being dominated by the english.

It helps to know the historical relationship between Ireland and England and the politics of that conflict.

 

Black folks cannot use the IRA as a blueprint to force the US to change. 😎

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


richard murray

 

 

Most AfroAmericans are CONFLICTED.
They are being pulled between two extremes.

 

1.One extreme are Black folks telling them that race and racism doesn't exist and they can be and do anything they want with hard-work and focus so they should strive to "be all they can be" in America.

 

2.Another extreme are Black folks telling them this is an inherently racist society and the racists have conspired to keep this system rigged against them.  They teach there is a limit to Black success and the only solution is to escape out from under the shade of White racism in America.

 

The average Black person sees a little truth in both philosophies but still wants to rise as high as they can in life despite the obstacles.....but Extremist #2 has planted seeds in their mind that prevent them from going full throttle.
Subconsciously, they see it as a "waste of time and energy" to buck a system already rigged against them....so they don't try their best for success.

 

 

 


So the anti USA segment of the modern black community is a minority in the black minority.

 

Ofcourse.
Too many Black people are PART of the U.S.A. for us to intelligently see it as an adversary.
More accurately is to see racist White Americans as the true opposition.

 

 


But the IRA prove it can work, nothing is easy but it can work. The IRA was only a few hundred people but their actions got 3/4 of ireland free from the english after two thousand years of all of ireland being dominated by the english. So Black militants, go for it. Most irish didn't plan or had a part in the bombings. But the bombings of the ira which are counted more than the bombings in vietnam, which is amazing, led to the english saying, we will make a deal. And comprehend the modern irish live as two people's. They lived as two peoples during the troubles. Many irish stooged <my term choice> for the english, it is that simple , against the IRA and their cause. What is northern ireland really? by your words Pioneer, the northern irish are the smart on the ball folk who stayed with the remnant of the english empire. But communities are complex.

 

As ProfD already pointed out, we can't really use the IRA as a viable example for us be it fighting for our independence or just living next to and getting along with White Americans.
For several reasons..........


1. And most importantly.
BOTH SIDES OF THE CONFLICT ARE WHITE.

The Brits and Irish are both White Caucasians and respect eachother as such.  Beause of this, there are LIMITS as to how much force the British were and are willing to use to put the Irish back in line.
I've been to Europe before and used to go to Canada a lot.  White authority will ALLOW their White citizens to riot, mash windows, burn cars just to blow off steam and get it out of their system.  They don't allow Black folks to do the same!

No matter what, the British have no plans to genocide the Irish like so many White Americans have had plans to do with AfroAmericans.  

 

2. The UK isn't the world's Superpower.
There are atleast 5 other nations MUCH stronger than the UK so even if the English DID try to genocide or stomp a jack boot down on the Irish...other European nations like Russia or France or Germany are likely to intervene and come to their rescue or even arm them!  That's not likely to happen in the United States.
We are the global superpower.  Other nations aren't likely to bring their ass over here and getting in shit!  They'll stand back with their hands over their mouths WATCHING...but they aren't trying to get involved.
Hell, before the U.S. was THEE Superpower...back during slavery the other nations didn't bother getting involved. The U.S. had to go to war with ITSELF in over to end the institution!


3. Unlike the Irish who have a long and deep culture to rally around, most AfroAmericans don't have a solid culture of our own.  We have a culture....but it's not OURS.  It's just various modified forms of White culture and it's too dysfunctional to support and maintain a functioning independent society.

You can't have an independent society that is MATRIARCHAL like the AfroAmerican one is today.


It won't work.
It would either collapse or get conquered.

 

 

 


Those two are the only two governments that militaristically are honestly opposed to the usa. 

 

You know....
For years...decades now..I've QUESTIONED whether or not Russia actually opposes the U.S. militarily.
It wan't until a year ago when Putin invaded Ukraine that my doubt wavered a little because I thought a war between the U.S./NATO and Russia was on the brink.
But now....a year later...my question has been resurrected as to whether or not Russia is TRULY and adversary to the U.S. or just a straw man fake opponent who never had any plans to oppose the U.S. militarily to begin with.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD for the record I said the following

Quote

But the IRA prove it can work, nothing is easy but it can work. 

I never said black militants should do exactly as the irish. I said the irish prove it can work, and i also said nothing is easy. 

I never said the irish is a blueprint for anyone else. And I never stated I feel Black people in the usa in overwhelming majority want the usa to be changed by force. I quote myself again

Quote

 I think many Black Americansin the usa, maybe most, are doing what you said now. I do concur with your first point 

 

Did you say the following as a reply to my comment or in general? 

Quote

Black folks cannot use the IRA as a blueprint to force the US to change.

Cause I didn't say either of those things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1   To your first point, I don't think most black folk in the usa have conflict, most know what they want and stick to it, and I personally can accept it.

 

To your second, I will just say nothing. It is not that I concur but no point in me commenting

 

To your third, you or profd inferred more in my position than I suggested, the point wasn't to suggest a roadmap or blueprint or a strategy for Black folk in particular black militants in the usa to follow. The point was to display that a community can be enslaved or oppressed by another for a long time, longer than blacks have been oppressed in the usa or the european colonies that preceded it,  and even though said time will create changes in the enslaved or oppressed community, it will not eradicate many in said community from wanting away from the enslaver or oppressor even if it has been thousands of years. The fact that the irish look like the english simply supports my point. if two people who look alike can have such a feud then clearly two people who don't shouldn't be a surprise. And, the english dominated ireland through various periods, initially england wasn't a global power when they took ireland so... the condition of the oppressor isn't the point. And lastly, in two thousand years the culture of the irish changed a lot, it is not about a culture but the reality of the want of many irish people which survived many cultural changes, financial changes, to still want what they want, which is my point to black militants in the usa. 

Pioneer you made the point that somehow the black community in the usa lacks smarts or wasn't on the ball but what I am trying to get you to comprehend is that isn't the truth. The question is this, when the usa was being founded do you think the overwhelming majority of free blacks, cause the enslaved blacks couldn't act on their wishes, were wrong for opposing the creation of the usa ? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

The point was to display that a community can be enslaved or oppressed by another for a long time... 

Ireland was neither enslaved nor oppressed by England. Some Irish folks no longer wanted to live under monarchy rule.

 

As @Pioneer1 mentioned, both parties were white folks. in the case of Ireland and England, it was a dust up between cousins.😁

 

i understood the point you were trying to make. I didn't read anything into it. That doesn't stop me from a tangential  discussion.😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

….my question has been resurrected as to whether or not Russia is TRULY and adversary to the U.S. or just a straw man fake opponent who never had any plans to oppose the U.S. militarily to begin with.


An interesting idea that I would not be surprised is true.

 

On 1/14/2023 at 9:33 AM, ProfD said:

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that debt is an arbitrary construct.


while it may not require a Phd, i don’t think it is obvious to most people that the national debt is a construct. I, and I  assume most, thought  the national debt was like the debt of a household it or a local municipality — you had to spend less than you took in or you had to borrow to make up the difference. 
 

i think if the media started by explaining this difference the public would care a lot less about the national debt. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Troy said:

I assume most, thought the national debt was like the debt of a household it or a local municipality — you had to spend less than you took in or you had to borrow to make up the difference.

 

i think if the media started by explaining this difference the public would care a lot less about the national debt. 

National debt is more like a credit card with no real limit and zero interest and monthly payments being optional. 😁

 

There are media programs that discuss about economics (debt, spending, inflation, etc.). For some reason, they do it in such a way that's like explaining differential equations to 1st graders. 🤣😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Troy said:

 

i think if the media started by explaining this difference the public would care a lot less about the national debt. 
 

 


Which is why they WON'T explain the difference.

If most American people realized that the national debt could escalate to $500 Trillion and it STILL wouldn't disrupt our way of life and the nation could still function pretty much as "normal"....then it loses it's effectiveness as a SCARE TACTIC.

Especially by Republican Conservatives who are always using it as an excuse to cut spending on social programs.

Same can be said of the dollar not being backed by gold.
Fear of it's "collapse" has been a SCARE TACTIC used by Conservatives for over 4 decades now.
If people realized that the dollar DOESN'T HAVE TO be backed by anything for it to still have value and spending power, most of those "gold coin" peddlers you see on late night commercials would go out of business overnight.

 






 

 

image.png.395d6b1982bd361dbeffc79253e4609d.png

 

                                              🙄  -Let me guess, give YOU some of those dollars???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shortly before leaving office, in his finite wis-dum, former POTUS George W. Bush admitted the economy was a house of cards. 

 

Sure enough, the house of cards was on the brink of collapse in 2008. Former POTUS Obama strolled into office and bailed out the banks. How?

 

POTUS Obama certainly didn't reach into his pocket fresh outta Chicago and give cash to the banks. Nope.

 

Under the Obama administration, the government just moved the goal post i.e. print more money and adjust interest rates. 

 

Here's a sure fire way of knowing national debt is arbitrary and paper money only exists up to what you can get out of an ATM.

 

If a billionaire asked that their net worth be delivered to the house in the form of paper money (dollars), there wouldn't be a Brinks truck filled with a pallet of fresh bank notes.

 

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing would just produce bank notes with whatever denomination the billionaire wants to use. It would essentially be the equivalent of a paper check. 

 

National debt and currency isn't really worth the paper on which it is printed. It's all made up.

 

You could literally wipe your azz with a billion dollars if that toilet paper is assigned a value. 🤣😎


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is what we should expect in an economy as massive and as wealthy as the United States.

If we were to stick to the old fashioned "gold standard" where all of the money HAD to be backed by gold or some other limited resource....it would arrest the development of the economy.
In order to fund government the way it should and keep society running, currency limits should be WISELY implemented and not locked in the way a lot of right-wing analysts suggest. 
They are living in an 1800s fantasy.

I don't know if there's enough gold on the planet to back up the money needed to run the Eastcoast alone!
It takes trillions a year if you add the Federal, State, and Local industries as well as the financial activity of private companies and citizens.

But according to right-wingers like Glenn Beck.....recall all of the green dollars and re-issue them when every cent can be backed by gold or silver on demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

The concept of debt is indeed a multifaceted aspect of the global economy. In navigating this intricate landscape, it becomes crucial to delve into the broader economic and geopolitical factors influencing debt dynamics. It's not just about national debt but also about the interplay of international trade, diplomatic relations, and global financial architecture. When it comes to personal debts, I've personally found that creating a realistic budget and exploring debt consolidation options can make a difference. Also, I usually turn to a Mortgage Broker in Chelmsford for tailored information and expert advice that aligns with my financial situation and goals. The right guidance from financial experts is essential to avoid financial pitfalls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes @ModestoGarr having a powerful military allows any country to be indebted. The british did the same thing. Even if the king owes the landlords, the landlords can't collect from the king because of his army. 

The true backing of the usa economy is the us military. as long as it is the strongest, the usa can have an untold level of debt BUT, the big problem with relying on a military is the simple truth of all militaries... sooner, or later, for one reason or another, a military losses its quality and when a military is the support for a financial system being allowed, in its absence comes devastating consequences. The USA doesn't have to have a functional/efficient economy because of it's military but history shows, through its imperial predecessors,  it will pay hard if it keeps that up one day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 10:42 PM, richardmurray said:

Sooner or later anyone who owes has to pay, one way or the other. 

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2211&type=status

now01.png

Owing and being in debt is slightly different....

Debt usual includes an additional  cost for Time and Usage called Interest and or fees(charges) and finally false equivalences....Predatory

Owing is Equal exchange....owning* exactly the same goods and  services rendered in return.

Yes the two have been conflated and or one changed

 

Debt is helpful....What is wrong with debt is Interest (usury)

 

Most if not All Western Governments Banking and Financial Institution are Owned by International Bankers*

National debt is paid to international bankers....Inflation

Inflation in its various forms lead to wage slavery of the citizenry - your time is rented(Indentured)

Debt is the new form that Neo-colonialism takes.....International Law states that Odious Debt need not be repaid by the State and its Citizenry but of the Government and the members(personal to) of that government that took the loan.

 

One of history biggest secret is why the Jews were so hated everywhere they go....Their Practice of Usury - usual leads to the Enslavement of the Borrower.

DeuterONOMY 23:19-20 & ProVERBS 22:7

*Bond/age as in agreement/arrangement. 

*Global and Central Banking Elite....Money Changers/Printers - Money creation 

The Creation of Fractional Reserve and Fiat Money

The Money Masters - The Rise Of The Bankers

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, frankster said:

Debt usual includes an additional  cost for Time and Usage called Interest and or fees(charges) and finally false equivalences...

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...unless...

On 11/23/2023 at 11:46 AM, richardmurray said:

The true backing of the usa economy is the us military. as long as it is the strongest, the usa can have an untold level of debt...

One has the power to crush their creditors.🤣😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

Good Advice.

 

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

unless...

One has the power to crush their creditors.🤣😎

That's what the Romans thought...until they could no longer field an Army big enough to meet that of their rivals (The Visigoths and Vandals) - Due to Bad Credit.

International Bankers have no borders just money....Without money even mighty militaries grind to a halt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah @frankster ever since the 1970s, the usa went full into the idea of financial manipulation through the market though again, the military helps. without military power this does not happen

 

exactly @ProfD exactly, its genius as long as its true

but @frankster the roman empire rebounded and retained itself under justinian. the move from roma to nova roma had a financial element, but also a militaristic + cultural element, militaristically  the roman empire had overreached but culturally, the christian community had become a menace that forced potent changes of the roman empire from a publicly multiracial government to a christian government and that eventually led to its end. The banking wasn't what killed it. 

I will also add, the roman empire centered at roma + nova roma didn't know how to operate as a small country. leading is one thing, but following is another and the roman empire had a problem following. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

yeah @frankster ever since the 1970s, the usa went full into the idea of financial manipulation through the market though again, the military helps. without military power this does not happen

History has proven that what is gained by forced must be held by force....way too expensive economically and socially(cost in lives) 

 

35 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

exactly @ProfD exactly, its genius as long as its true

but @frankster the roman empire rebounded and retained itself under justinian. the move from roma to nova roma had a financial element, but also a militaristic + cultural element, militaristically  the roman empire had overreached but culturally, the christian community had become a menace that forced potent changes of the roman empire from a publicly multiracial government to a christian government and that eventually led to its end. The banking wasn't what killed it. 

Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople are not the same unless you consider the USA a continuation of the British Empire...neither is New York - York or Amsterdam.

 

35 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

I will also add, the roman empire centered at roma + nova roma didn't know how to operate as a small country. leading is one thing, but following is another and the roman empire had a problem following. 

Rome is dead....it lives on only as the Vatican which is a Bank parading as a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@frankster

Well, I don't know the quantity but I am certain through the three letter organizations the usa has killed many throughout all humanity, in or outside the usa. That is force. 

 

The roman empire's government was always one. The closest government i can think of to the roman empire in modernity is sudan's before their official split. Before Sudan split into two sudan,  they were two heads in one government, the southern head controlled the south and the northern head controlled the north but both were needed in all international affairs, they still had one embassy. Both sides were consulted by all outside governments. And the head of the south sudan or north sudan were not in the capitol.  THis was what happened in Rome. Rome split into a two headed government, sometimes four headed, but always one body. The parts of the body had their capitols everywhere but Rome, which degraded as a city even though it was still the official capitol. Nova Roma, is the name of constantinople by the roman people themselves. But the key is, Constantine ended the multiple parts, thus why he wanted a new capitol city representing this new restructuring. 

 

Now why is the comparison you made false. Well, the usa is an offshoot of the british empire. The USA is like the visigothic empire or the holy roman empire of charlemagne. Which is an offshoot of the roman empire based in its northern colony germany. remember the franks came from the lands most call germany today. and germany was to the roman empire what the 13 colonies were to britain.

 

Brasil has had four capitol cities while its government changed from a regal to a military junta to some form of elected official: salvador in bahia, rio de janeiro, sao paulo, brasilia. Each capitol change reflected a change in brasilian government in the same way nova roma represented a change in the roman empire's government.

But, the government of the british empire was never going to be new york. 

 

I agree 100% to you that the roman empire is dead, it died in my eyes when the last roman empire died fighting the city state of nova roma from the ottomans. But, the culture of the roman empire like most grand empires, outlast its existence. We see this in the british empire even now [ the love of english in modern humanity comes from the bitish empire who emphasized that]and it will be for the usa empire as well [all the governments with elected officials plus the international organizations will exist in the future in ways based on the usa's influence]. Empire's culture outlast empires.  I argue against you to where the roman empire lives on. In my view, all of europe mimicks the roman empire in various ways. To restate the roman empire lives on in all of europe, but it was very influential to every corner of europe, so it is warranted. Yes the vatican speaks the latin language of the roman empire. But I argue, Nova Roma , istanbul or constantinople, is the biggest reflection to what old rome looked like, a truly multiracial city. And istanbul is the most populated city in europe or at least is running an easy second. The parisian arrondissments is clearly an allusion to the roman city planning. 

 

The vatican does have alot of banking activities but don't underestimate religion. I have seen things, the religious aspect of the roman catholic church matters to many. admittedly not me, but its more than just a bank. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@frankster

Well, I don't know the quantity but I am certain through the three letter organizations the usa has killed many throughout all humanity, in or outside the usa. That is force. 

Yes.

Military force is immensely more expensive.

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The roman empire's government was always one.

By the time of Constantine it was a Tetrarchy....Having several Despotic Rulers each trying to destroy the other in an attempt to reunite the once great Roman Empire

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The closest government i can think of to the roman empire in modernity is sudan's before their official split. Before Sudan split into two sudan,  they were two heads in one government, the southern head controlled the south and the northern head controlled the north but both were needed in all international affairs, they still had one embassy. Both sides were consulted by all outside governments. And the head of the south sudan or north sudan were not in the capitol.

It was a peace agreement to facilitate negotiations between both sides as the South fought for its independence Until Garang died in a fiery crash

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

THis was what happened in Rome. Rome split into a two headed government, sometimes four headed, but always one body. The parts of the body had their capitols everywhere but Rome, which degraded as a city even though it was still the official capitol. Nova Roma, is the name of constantinople by the roman people themselves. But the key is, Constantine ended the multiple parts, thus why he wanted a new capitol city representing this new restructuring. 

They did not speak the same Language and often fought each other...They were not a even Federation but a Confederation at the most - Alliance

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

Now why is the comparison you made false. Well, the usa is an offshoot of the british empire. The USA is like the visigothic empire or the holy roman empire of charlemagne. Which is an offshoot of the roman empire based in its northern colony germany. remember the franks came from the lands most call germany today. and germany was to the roman empire what the 13 colonies were to britain.

Yes....an Offshoot - an offshoot is not the same as the Original

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

Brasil has had four capitol cities while its government changed from a regal to a military junta to some form of elected official: salvador in bahia, rio de janeiro, sao paulo, brasilia. Each capitol change reflected a change in brasilian government in the same way nova roma represented a change in the roman empire's government.

But, the government of the british empire was never going to be new york. 

If the British Government move to NY.....Would still be the British Government

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

I agree 100% to you that the roman empire is dead, it died in my eyes when the last roman empire died fighting the city state of nova roma from the ottomans. But, the culture of the roman empire like most grand empires, outlast its existence. We see this in the british empire even now [ the love of english in modern humanity comes from the bitish empire who emphasized that]and it will be for the usa empire as well [all the governments with elected officials plus the international organizations will exist in the future in ways based on the usa's influence]. Empire's culture outlast empires.

True

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

I argue against you to where the roman empire lives on. In my view, all of europe mimicks the roman empire in various ways. To restate the roman empire lives on in all of europe, but it was very influential to every corner of europe, so it is warranted.

If that be the case one can still finds influences of Ancient Egypt in nearly all Western Countries.....Does that make them part of the Ancient Egyptian Empire?

You are confusing Peoples and Countries with Government and Empires....They are related and do overlap but not the same.

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Yes the vatican speaks the latin language of the roman empire. But I argue, Nova Roma , istanbul or constantinople, is the biggest reflection to what old rome looked like, a truly multiracial city. And istanbul is the most populated city in europe or at least is running an easy second. The parisian arrondissments is clearly an allusion to the roman city planning. 

 They are claiming a Heritage to create an aura of legitimacy.

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The vatican does have alot of banking activities but don't underestimate religion. I have seen things, the religious aspect of the roman catholic church matters to many. admittedly not me, but its more than just a bank. 

Religion is a Useful facade....The Vatican is Primarily a Bank and a Library(Information Media outlet/Inlet) - Both are repository of Power.

You think Constantine cared about religious truths or power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...