POL: Learn From the Fall of Rome, US warned

[Groundhog]

hxxp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned
By Jeremy Grant in Washington
Published: August 14 2007 00:06 | Last updated: August 14 2007 00:06

The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress.

While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Without turning this in to a discussion on the war in Iraq, do you think there is any value in what David Walker is saying, or do you think he is over-reacting?

[DaddyTorgo]

much value. many historians have been saying this for years now.

[rowech]

It's going to happen. War or no war. The parallels between Rome and us currently are astounding.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

It's going to happen. War or no war. The parallels between Rome and us currently are astounding.

yep. it really has very little to do with the war, that's just something that like...adds to the parallels

[Radii]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

much value. many historians have been saying this for years now.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

fact back when I was really thinking grad school + ancient history this was a major reason for that

[panerd]

I don't know that it shows any great genius to predict at some point the United States will fall from power. Are there really people that believe the US will be the #1 superpower forever? How many different countries have been on top of the world in the past 2000 years? Why would we be any different?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

much value. many historians have been saying this for years now.

How many years would this be now? In the 1980s? 1970s? 1960s? You would be right if you choose all of the above.

What if you go back to the literatures of the 1880s? There we had far greater environmental problems where many actually died directly from various pollutions and chemicals. Plus we would also see a much greater income and social disparties than today, not to mention financials crises and panics that actually directed affected peoples and communities. Plus, there were quite a bit of global threats looming on the horizon. But somehow we survived all of that.

It's going to happen. War or no war. The parallels between Rome and us currently are astounding.

The parallels between any one point of history to another can always be "astounding", if you choose what to look at.

All of this is not to say that there aren't serious problems today but one good thing about being an alarmist is that history will show someone will be right about some things along the way.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't know that it shows any great genius to predict at some point the United States will fall from power. Are there really people that believe the US will be the #1 superpower forever? How many different countries have been on top of the world in the past 2000 years? Why would we be any different?

It all depends on how you define what a "superpower" is. Much of it is artificial, at least when it is used as a comparison against other countries (i.e., the de facto superpower, usual at the expense of a fall of others). If you've read certain authors, one could come to the conclusion that the US has never been a superpower in the 20th century - whereas USSR, then Japam and then China were the true superpowers. It all depends how you look at it and what you measure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What if you go back to the literatures of the 1880s?

*insert obligatory "you were there...blah blah" joke about bucc's age*

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It all depends on how you define what a "superpower" is. Much of it is artificial, at least when it is used as a comparison against other countries (i.e., the de facto superpower, usual at the expense of a fall of others). If you've read certain authors, one could come to the conclusion that the US has never been a superpower in the 20th century - whereas USSR, then Japam and then China were the true superpowers. It all depends how you look at it and what you measure.

Superpower: An extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.

No matter how anyone wants to spin the meaning of the term, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the US was never a superpower in the 20th century. The authors that claim USSR, Japan, China et al are going on individual "powers" those countries had (financial, military, influence, etc), but none had the combination of powers that the US has/had.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Superpower: An extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.

No matter how anyone wants to spin the meaning of the term, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the US was never a superpower in the 20th century. The authors that claim USSR, Japan, China et al are going on individual "powers" those countries had (financial, military, influence, etc), but none had the combination of powers that the US has/had.

That's true but some had argued any of those factors had been overrated, when viewed in hindsight. But what does it really mean, is it something that has to be maintained. If so, at what cost?

[Buccaneer]

Superpower: An extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.

To be facetious, by that definition, Israel is the most powerful nation on earth.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

To be facetious, by that definition, Israel is the most powerful nation on earth.

Except for the Vatican.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The parallels between any one point of history to another can always be "astounding", if you choose what to look at.

All of this is not to say that there aren't serious problems today but one good thing about being an alarmist is that history will show someone will be right about some things along the way.

Those who do not study their history are condemned to repeat it. Everyone will keep saying, that won't happen to the US and sure enough it will. I'd say within fifty years. Does it means the country becomes nothing? Hardly. We are in for a major fall from the top of the heap though.

Every 100 years or so a new country gets it's shot. This time around it's going to be China.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

Except for the Vatican.

That certainly had been true historically but one could argue that their influence had been waning over the past generation or two.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by rowech

Every 100 years or so a new country gets it's shot. This time around it's going to be China.

China has already screwed up its shot. If you don't have the good sense to make lead-free toys when the rest of the world has advanced to lead-free electronics, you are ultimately going to destroy your reputation in the marketplace, no matter how cheap your stuff is.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by clintl

China has already screwed up its shot. If you don't have the good sense to make lead-free toys when the rest of the world has advanced to lead-free electronics, you are ultimately going to destroy your reputation in the marketplace, no matter how cheap your stuff is.

Definitely will hurt them in the short term. They'll recover in the long term.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by clintl

China has already screwed up its shot. If you don't have the good sense to make lead-free toys when the rest of the world has advanced to lead-free electronics, you are ultimately going to destroy your reputation in the marketplace, no matter how cheap your stuff is.

No, the cheap stuff overrides the lead/toothpaste/petfood stuff. Their cheap stuff exports might see a short term dip, but won't even register, in the grand scheme of things.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Crim

No, the cheap stuff overrides the lead/toothpaste/petfood stuff. Their cheap stuff exports might see a short term dip, but won't even register, in the grand scheme of things.

No, it doesn't. The one thing that is more important than cost to businesses is reliability. Poor reliability wipes out cost savings, and wipes them out rapidly. And a bad reputation takes a long time to recover from. I guarantee you that either Mattel has cut its ties with the toy manufacturers who burned it, or Mattel is basically dictating to them exactly what processes they will follow in the future, no matter how much it costs the manufacturer to make those corrections.

[Buccaneer]

Don't you guys remember all of the cheap junk we used to get from Japan in the 1960s? (Come to think of it, I guess not.) Made in Japan = cheap plastic crap (toys and electronics). It took them 20 years to change the perception of US and European buyers to now they are known for their high quality of goods.

[sachmo71]

Who is going to play the barbarians? No country will last forever, but I think the US will adapt as much as any other country. We may be in for some rough times, though.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Who is going to play the barbarians? No country will last forever, but I think the US will adapt as much as any other country. We may be in for some rough times, though.

The Mexicans? The radical Muslims? I agree with you, this a point where the analogy begins to come apart. Thing is, all analogies only work up to a point; I do see the comparison as valid, though not as a predictor.

[Toddzilla]

Thing will get significantly better in January 2009, I believe. On or about the 20th.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Thing will get significantly better in January 2009, I believe. On or about the 20th.

Again...it has nothing to do with him. The Congress is what makes this country go and their spending is out of control. Hasn't mattered who is in charge. The country has to stop spending money on stuff the government was not setup to do. Unfortunately, it won't happen because who wants to run on the platform of eliminating a bunch of crap that helps people out of their problems. (many times self-created)

Therefore, more and more people search for ways to get stuff from the government, making it spend even more money. Again, who is going to put a stop to it? It's only a matter of time. It can't go on forever.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by rowech

Those who do not study their history are condemned to repeat it. Everyone will keep saying, that won't happen to the US and sure enough it will. I'd say within fifty years. Does it means the country becomes nothing? Hardly. We are in for a major fall from the top of the heap though.

Every 100 years or so a new country gets it's shot. This time around it's going to be China.

50 years? Could happen.

Doubt it will. 100 years? Same.

History has and always will be cyclical. The "those who do not study their history or they are condemned to repeat it" lines are usually written in error. The fact is, it doesn't matter WHAT the US does, it will eventually fall off the top of the heap. We could be talking military issues or economic issues or disease issues or anything else that you can think of. But it'll happen.

Short term? I don't see it. It will take complete and total civil upheavel for the US to drop a spot or two. What's happening now? Please. . . not even a drop in the bucket compared to the late 60's. As long as we are somewhat unified in what we do, we have:

1) a huge population with lots of disposable income.
2) a huge military with a ton of nuclear warheads.
3) no true threats to our borders.

Can that all change in a NY minute? Of course it can. Is it likely to happen within the next generation or two? Doubtful. Can we really do anything about it anyway? No. We'll fall from #1 no matter what we do, it's the way of the world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

It's going to happen. War or no war. The parallels between Rome and us currently are astounding.

It seems like a huge reach.

I mean, couldn't this statement apply to any super-power, at any time in the history of the world:

“declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”

The country faces challenges in the current landscape. Like every country, especially superpowers. Are these challenges any more dire than they were in the 1960s, 1930s, 1870s, 1850s, 1820s, etc?

This reminds of that poster who insisted that George Bush was the worst leader in the history of the world. At first, this kind of stuff was just annoying hyperbole, now, people are actually believing it.

Nothing lasts forever, obviously, but the US is a pretty damn stable "empire" if that's what it is. I'm sure it will cease to exist eventually, but there's quite a few steps (and generations) we need to get through before it's at that point.

[st.cronin]

Its actually pretty unusual for an empire to collapse catastrophically the way Rome's did. Most empires don't collapse, they just stop being Empires. It seems to me the USA has already done that a couple of times.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

Therefore, more and more people search for ways to get stuff from the government, making it spend even more money. Again, who is going to put a stop to it? It's only a matter of time. It can't go on forever.

Huge defecits have been wiped out in the blink of an eye when the economy gets rolling. Such debt has to be analyzed a different way then say, your credit card account, which people have a tendnecy to to.

[Warhammer]

Actually, the Roman Empire persisted until 1453, when Constantinople fell.

That aside, where are the barbarians? Are the Canadians the new Ostrogothic threat?

Seriously though, the one area that I see the parallel most acutely is in the public. All our public wants is food and races, and that is basically what we are receiving from our government. Rather than any leaders, what we have in Washington are basically sycophants that cling to power by pandering to the electorate. The electorate is basically uneducated about the issues that really matter and you have people on the left and right that fan the flames of public opinion.

Not to dwell on Iraq, but I find it absolutely laughable that people are bent out of shape about our casualties there. Any loss of life is tragic and cannot be replaced. But, if you would have told me that we would lose less than 5000 men in Iraq over 5 years, I would have been ecstatic. To put into perspective, we lost approximately 5600 men per year from 1965 to 1975. That doesn't match up exactly to the dates of the Vietnam War, there are a few more years in there than the actual war, but that strengthens my point. In Vietnam, we lost more troops over a more extended timeframe.

People now are beginning to be horrified by the stock market. People are horrified that lenders were giving out high risk loans. We'll be horrified until some start going under and people are out of jobs, then I'm sure the government will step in and bail many of these lenders out. Why should my tax dollars go to people that make poor business decisions? What about the mom and pop auto store that goes out of business for bad decisions, but only employs 10 people. Why should the big business be bailed out, when a small one isn't?

[Arles]

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

If that's the criteria, the US should have been done-for during the 70s. The reality is that with a global economy, everyone is now in bed with each other. The US and Chinese, US and Russians, Chinese and Europe, US and Europe, heck even the US and most Muslim states. The only people capable of knocking the US down (Chinese, Europe, maybe some other asian countries) would lose as much (if not more) as the US if there was a major downfall in our economy/society.

In the end, there will be a lot of posturing by all sides, but all major countries will make sure the checks they get at the end of each month continue to clear. And, there's no assurance of that if anyone makes a major affront on the purchasing power/situation of US consumers.

[Sgran]

I think a good sports analogy would be the 49ers a few years back when they kept delaying and delaying their inevitable cap crunch. The US will take some hits -- the dollar has already fallen below the Euro and will probably go down further -- but the country has too many resources and too much know-how and very good, if energy demanding, infrastructure. Washington D.C. isn't going to be sacked, but it would be a good idea to cut defense spending, invest in schools and infrastructure, and switch to a government run health care system. As for China, they're still amazingly poor and are going to be cleaning up their environment for decades, if not longer.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Seriously though, the one area that I see the parallel most acutely is in the public. All our public wants is food and races, and that is basically what we are receiving from our government. Rather than any leaders, what we have in Washington are basically sycophants that cling to power by pandering to the electorate. The electorate is basically uneducated about the issues that really matter and you have people on the left and right that fan the flames of public opinion.

Congress Approves $4 Billion For Bread, Circuses




August 18, 1999 | Issue 35•29

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Thing will get significantly better in January 2009, I believe. On or about the 20th.

Talk about not learning from history. rowech is correct, instilling more libertarian sense into Congress will help with such serious matters, including deficit spending and nation-building. The best thing we can hope for is a split Congress/Executive but unfortunately and incredulously, there are those that believe it will better with a Dem Congress and Executive.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Talk about not learning from history. rowech is correct, instilling more libertarian sense into Congress will help with such serious matters, including deficit spending and nation-building. The best thing we can hope for is a split Congress/Executive but unfortunately and incredulously, there are those that believe it will better with a Dem Congress and Executive.

I've often said the whole thing would be better if we always voted to have opposite parties in Congress and in the Oval Office. Too many times, doing nothing is the better way to go.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sgran

As for China, they're still amazingly poor and are going to be cleaning up their environment for decades, if not longer.

The environment is one of the three things constantly overlooked by people who talk about China overtaking the U.S. Parts of China are much worse off than the worst of U.S./English industrialization efforts. Focusing their energy efforts on coal may make them more self-sufficient in the short term, but will require a massive re-adjustment before they can compete with the OECD countries.

In addition you have the reluctance of nearby countries (Japan in particular, Russia as well with fears over Siberia) to see a return to Chinese dominance - the U.S. has no such rival in the Western Hemisphere; although I like where Brazil is going, they're many decades behind and would only ever get up to the level of competitor for South American influence. Mexico is way too corrupt to do anything, and shows no signs of changing as long as drugs are worth as much in the U.S. market.

The last factor is the Empire one. A huge difference between the U.S. and the Roman Empire is that (thanks to some fortuitous diseases and some ruthless early tactics) we expanded mostly over a blank slate, rather than conquering and co-opting existing cultures, who would naturally chafe at past injustices. Most people* may be ignorant enough to assume that China is homogenous and the people are the same across the country, but in reality it's similar to the USSR, replete with multiple dialects and large ethnic minorities that would be willing to split under the right circumstances. The U.S. may have had the Civil War, but almost everyone has ancestors who voluntarily chose to move to the United States, and I don't see any breaking apart of the U.S., but I could easily see one of China.

EDIT - *FOFC generally > most people

[Buccaneer]

Bishop, that's pretty good, I like what you wrote.

The way for an industralized country to become a cleaner one is to make sure it is a wealthy country.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Talk about not learning from history. rowech is correct, instilling more libertarian sense into Congress will help with such serious matters, including deficit spending and nation-building. The best thing we can hope for is a split Congress/Executive but unfortunately and incredulously, there are those that believe it will better with a Dem Congress and Executive.

I'm not sure the odds are really good of having a Democratic congress in 2009 for that matter.

SI

[Galaril]

Great points in this thread on both sides.
I agree as BishopMVP mentioned the fact that we had a open slate to expand land -wise other than the unfortunate American Indians is one key difference from Rome. As someone else above mentioned the Roman Empire lasted until 1453 , but it just didn't disappear like Atlantis. It was in large part the foundation for all of the Modern Western Eurupean countries as well as the US. The legions may have faded away but alot of the laws and science among others carried on. I like to think of the US as a continuation of Roman Empire in a way or at least a distant cousin.

I guess the US and Europe along with Russia, Japan, Australia, China, and the UN will in the next few centuries form into a few mega governments like in one of those Futuristic RTS games. And someday we will just have a world government.