Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "US criticises Germany growth model"
However, if you want a comparison with the US today, there are some interesting social and cultural ideas around the decline of literacy and the growth of religious cults.
It's the way of balance if you're struggling to grow against your competitors at all costs, QE and the like, then you attack your competitors. This behaviour was similarly observed at the time of aggressive expensive of the empire before a dramatic fall.
IIRC there is a fascinating scholarly article called something like 'The nadir of the Antoninianus in the reign of Claudius II' if you are interested in debasement. But you rather miss the point.
Britain was invaded over 400 years before the fall of the Western empire. And there was never really an economic rationale. It was more likely about geopolitics and the standing of Claudius I as a leader.
The currency debasement reached its real low point in the middle of the third century crisis. And in any case if precious metals had been found, it would not have solved the economic and political crisis. The Diocletianic reforms made a reasonable job of stopping the rot.
The Roman Empire's last expansionist adventures (with the odd exception lime Julian's expedition to Persia) were 350 years befoe the fall of the Western Empire.
A sensible analysis of the fall of the Western Empire is based upon the de-Romanisation of the military with the use of barbarian 'guests' who by a quirk of history were Arian rather than Catholic Chrisitians. These groups, excluded from integration because other faith, eventually set up their own kingdoms within the empire. There were also some nasty shocks that exacerbated the decline such as the Battle of Adrianople.
However, if you want a comparison with the US today, there are some interesting social and cultural ideas around the decline of literacy and the growth of religious cults.
What did the Roman Empire sling mud at in its last days?
not wot who.
in the last days of the empire. Extra coins in the pocket will make soldiers think of the good times they can have. Large discharge payments of either silver or land means a smart soldier is less likely to reenlist.
At the same time, when the empire did try to expand, it used up silver and gold, yet gained no new silver or gold mines to replace the old, exhausted ones. Its coinage, having started out as pure silver, now was less than pure. Britain had been invaded on the hopes of finding such treasure, but it was found to be worthless (no insult meant). For Rome to withdraw from a new province would be a sign of weakness. No matter how much it hurt to keep and no matter how many legions it tied up once taken a province was not to be given up without a fight.
Sound like a country we know?
It's the way of balance if you're struggling to grow against your competitors at all costs, QE and the like, then you attack your competitors. This behaviour was similarly observed at the time of aggressive expensive of the empire before a dramatic fall.
For all that's happening in the us with corrupt banks, pyramid schemes / QE robbing savers of their sweat and tears, NSA hooked up to every line of communication there is, illegal wars etc etc.
It seems to me the last days of the roman empire all over again, slinging mud at every opportunity.
What did the Roman Empire sling mud at in its last days?
For all that's happening in the us with corrupt banks, pyramid schemes / QE robbing savers of their sweat and tears, NSA hooked up to every line of communication there is, illegal wars etc etc.
It seems to me the last days of the roman empire all over again, slinging mud at every opportunity.
I wonder when imbalance became a concern for US economics? Never is my guess. The country alone consumes resources that would need two planet earths to support it indefinitely. The US should get their own own house in order first.
I thought you were going to explain what was wrong with the criticism
These are two longstanding and related critiques of Germany:
1. The DM rate at which they entered the Euro has given them a significant competitive advantage over Southern Europe, who cannot devalue to make themselves more competitive.
2. If there is a global trade imbalance where some countries are importing too much, then other countries must be exporting too much. If some countries are borrowing too much, then others are saving too much. Hence the critique about domestic demand.
All seems perfectly reasonable.
I wonder when imbalance became a concern for US economics? Never is my guess. The country alone consumes resources that would need two planet earths to support it indefinitely. The US should get their own own house in order first.
Leave a comment: