|
by
Bill Bonner
America’s
WAT (War Against Terror) was a subject of discussion at the
Foundation for Economic Education conference I attended in Las
Vegas.
"We
have to pursue this thing," said a panelist, or words to
that effect. Speaking for what may well be a majority view, he
suggested that "the U.S. should launch pre-emptive
strikes at Iraq...Syria...and even China!"
The
logic was impeccable. These countries may want to do us harm.
We have the means to stop them. What’s standing in our way?
Not much.
"Beginning
in 1899," explains Gary North, "the United States
has steadily replaced Europe in the expensive, risky business
of empire. Our carrier fleet patrols the world’s seas. Now
we have become the primary target of hatred and revenge.
People don’t like to be pushed around by foreigners, whether
in Greece in the era of the Athenian League, or today."
By
431 BC, Athens had become a empire, with subject states
throughout the Aegean. In that year, on some pretext I can’t
recall, the first Peloponnesian War began – between Athens
and its allies... and Sparta.
Pericles
decided that the best offense was a good defense. He brought
the Athenians within the city’s walls – hoping that the
enemy would exhaust in futile attacks.
But
bubonic plague broke out in the besieged city and killed a
quarter of the population – including Pericles. Thence, a
nephew of Pericles, Alcibiades, stirred the Athenians to an
offensive campaign. A great armada was assembled – to attack
Syracuse, a city in Sicily allied with Athens’ foes.
The
campaign was a complete disaster. The armada was destroyed and
the army sold into slavery. Sensing a shift in the wind, other
Greek city-states broke with Athens and went over to Sparta.
In 405, the remaining ships in the Athenian fleet were
captured at the battle of Aegospotami. Not long after,
Athens’ walls were breached and the city became a vassal
state to Sparta.
We
recall this history of the Peloponnesian Wars because Athens
was probably the first empire in the western world. Since
America seems lured to empire, what happened to Athens might
be of interest.
In
early April, the International Herald Tribune reported that it
is now respectable to describe the U.S. as an empire.
"Today,"
said the IHT, "America is no more superpower or hegemon,
but a full blown empire in the Roman and British sense."
"No
country has been as dominant culturally, economically
technological and militarily in the history of the world since
the Roman Empire." adds columnist Charles Krauthammer
But
Paul Kennedy goes further, pointing out that the imbalance is
even greater than in the Roman era. "The Roman Empire
stretched further afield, " he points out, "but
there was a another great empire in Persia and a larger one in
China."
Today
China is no competition. It is just another country on
America’s hit list.
Being
a citizen of a Great Empire is not all bad. Most people
incline their chins a degree skyward at the mere thought of
it. And minding other peoples’ business can be distracting
and entertaining...as evidenced by the editorial pages of the
world’s newspapers.
But
since American liberty is being sacrificed to the security
needs of maintaining an empire, we can’t help but wonder –
is it worth it?
For
an answer, we turn to Marc Faber who addressed the subject in
a recent issue of his excellent, Boom, Gloom and Doom Report.
Faber
gives us a passage from Robert Kaplan’s book: Warrior
Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos:
"Our
future leaders could do worse than be praised for their
tenacity, their penetrating intellects and their ability to
bring prosperity to distant part of the world under
America’s soft imperial influence. The more successful our
foreign policy, the more leverage American will have in the
world. Thus, the more likely that future historians will look
back on the 21st century United States as an empire
as well as a republic, however different from that of Roman
and every other empire throughout history."
Even
after 227 years, dear reader, America’s stock continues to
rise. That it has gotten dangerously high has been the subject
of the last few of our Daily Reckonings.
The
modest republic of 1776 has become the great power of 2002 –
with pretentions to empire than need no longer be denied. That
its citizens will not be freer is understood. But will they
not be richer under an empire than they would have been under
a humble republic? Will they be safer? Will they be happier?
If
so, pity the poor Swiss. In their mountain fastnesses, they
have only had themselves to boss around...and only their own
pastures, lakes and peaks to amuse their eyes...and only their
own industries to provide employment and sustenance. And their
poor armed forces! Imagine the boredom...the tedious waiting
for someone to attack. What glory is there in defense? Oh, for
a foreign adventure...!
But
would the Swiss really be better off if they, too, had an
empire to run?
All
of the available evidence – from history – suggests an
answer: no. If the past is any guide, early military successes
are inevitably followed by humiliating defeats. Financial
progress is always trailed by national bankruptcy and the
destruction of the currency. And the good sense of a decent
people is soon replaced by a malign megalomania which brings
the whole bunch to complete ruin.
But
who cares? It is not for us to know the future...or to
prescribe it. Instead, we get out our field glasses and
prepare to watch the spectacle.
A
great empire is to the world of geo-politics what a great
bubble is to the world of economics. It is attractive at the
outset...but a catastrophe eventually. We know of no
exceptions.
After
the battle of Pydna in 168, Rome became the leading empire of
the western world. Here, we turn back to Marc Faber for his
description of the Roman Empire.
"Until
the rule of Augustus (who was installed as the first ruler of
the Roman Empire in 27 BC), the Romans only used pure gold and
silver coins. In order to finance his vast infrastructure
expenditures, Augustus ordered that government-owned mines in
Spain and France should be exploited 24 hours a day, a measure
which increased the money supply significantly and also led to
rising prices. (It is estimated that between 27 BC and 6 BC,
prices in Rome doubled.) In the second half of his reign (6 BC
to AD 14), Augustus reduced coinage drastically, as he
recognized that the expanded money supply had led to the rise
in prices.
"Upon
his death in AD 14, his stepson Tiberius, whom Augustus had
married off to his colorful daughter Julia (who pursued a very
successful career of nymphomania), was installed as emperor.
Under Tiberius, the rate of new coinage was far inferior to
that during Augustus's reign, which inevitably led to a real
scarcity of money in the empire, but, at the same time, to a
vast surplus in the coffers of the royal treasury (fiscus).
Thus, when Tiberius was assassinated in AD 37, he left his
successor, the insane Caligula, 700 million denarii in the
royal treasury - about 30 times the sum Augustus had left.
"Caligula,
whose spending had been lavish and necessitated the
expropriation of the properties of a number of wealthy
families he falsely accused of plotting against him, was then
succeeded by the equally mad Claudius, and upon his death by
Nero. By then, the accumulated fiscal surpluses of Rome had
been spent and the large trade deficits Rome maintained with
its colonies led Nero to debase Rome's currency. In AD 64, he
proclaimed that henceforth the aureus would be 10% lighter in
weight. So, whereas in the past, 41 aurei had been minted from
one pound of gold, the ratio now become 45 aurei to a pound of
gold.
"Nero
then tried to force the re-minting of the old coinage,
debasing in the process the aureus by 10% and the denarius by
25%, but this was only partially successful because the
well-to-do either hid their wealth or emigrated to remote
provinces where they hid from the Roman tax collectors.
"However, Nero had set a precedent. Between his being
deposed in AD 68 and the sacking of Rome in the second half of
the 5th century by the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals, a
succession of emperors continued the practice of increasing
the supply of money in the empire by debasing the denarius,
which in the end only had a 0.02% silver content!"
Fighting
terrorism in the Roman era was expensive – as it is today.
Rome became dependent on imported capital and imported goods
– just as America is today. But Rome must have had its own
Alano Greenspanus – for each new emergency was met with more
cash...just as it is today.
Were
the Romans better off for it?
May
16, 2002
Bill
Bonner [send him
mail] is the president and CEO of Agora Publishing and the
author of the daily e-mail The Daily Reckoning. Click
here for your free subscription.
Copyright 2002 by LewRockwell.com |
HOME >>
