Why an economic crisis is inevitable. - page 19
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
a strong version of the paradox - (relative) growth in welfare leads to the destruction of the state
Right, example: ancient Rome. While they were poor they conquered the ancient world. As soon as they got rich, they disappeared. But it really kicked in with the advent of capitalism and a developed, global marketplace.
developed, global market, capitalism and so on, came about (oh man) before the Iron Age... when in the hell
the end of the Bronze Age is a classic crisis of capitalism :-)
Right, example: ancient Rome. While they were poor, they conquered the ancient world. Once they got rich, they disappeared. But it really took off with the advent of capitalism and a developed, global marketplace.
We can look at it from a different perspective - how complacency leads to degradation. The development of state technology of government leads to the possibility of unworthy people taking and holding power, which were all Roman emperors. Capitalism has nothing to do with the problems of the Roman Empire.
We can look at it from a different perspective - how complacency leads to degradation.
The chain looks a little different: poverty, hard work, growth of prosperity, opening to the world, loss of competitiveness, destruction, dictatorship, closure of the domestic market, hard work, growth of prosperity, opening of the domestic market to the world, loss of competitiveness and so on in a circle.
Stronger predators take over the domestic market of the state and deliberately destroy local industry, plundering it. And when the country is on the verge of exhaustion, a dictatorship is imposed, recovery begins, the bull fattens up for later, new robbery and skinning.
The chain looks a little different: poverty, hard work, welfare growth, opening to the world, loss of competitiveness, destruction, dictatorship, closure of the domestic market, hard work, welfare growth, opening of the domestic market to the world, loss of competitiveness and so on in a circle.
Stronger predators take over the domestic market of the state and purposely destroy local industry, plunder. And when the country is on the verge of exhaustion, a dictatorship is imposed, reconstruction begins, the bull fattens up for later, new plundering and skinning.
It's a strange fantasy. I try to find an example of this in history or modern reality and there is none.
The beginning of the Roman Empire, what phase is that?
We can look at it from a different perspective - how complacency leads to degradation. The development of state technology of government leads to the possibility of unworthy people taking and holding power, which were all Roman emperors. Capitalism has nothing to do with the problems of the Roman Empire.
No, Rome invented, in addition to Roman law, organised crime and corruption.
They tried to stay ahead of what was coming from below. The history of Rome is a history of limiting (and concentrating in the right hands) corruption.
And organised crime was just then, i.e. it was not forbidden and became feudalism in the end.
It's a strange fantasy. Trying to find an example of this in history or contemporary reality and there is none.
The beginning of the Roman Empire, what phase is that?
Just for the record, ponder the story of General Pinochet.
Shouldn't you get a memorial?
Shouldn't you get a memorial?
Well, if there's a burning desire, I'll allow it.
That's all you can do. You haven't even supported a single topic of yours. Immediately you crawl away, wriggling slippery.