Will we see an empire in the next few decades?

Quote: AZDuffman

It will clobber the poor but they will again be suckers thinking Biden is looking out for them. I close on a rental unit next week, hopefully that is a hedge for me. If we go full Weimar maybe I pay it off with what is today the cost of a sushi dinner. If we even relive the 1970s the rent will triple or so.

Put your BTC and ETH into a digital wallet and have an escape plan. Carry it out. Or learn to use a paper wallet.

I've been working on it.

I am confused by your definition of Emperor. I have never known the term to imply the use of force. Japan still has an Emperor (and the UK still has a Queen and probably within 10 years a King). I know Emir is a term used in some Arab countries (such as Qatar and Kuwait).

But, its all the same thing, inherited power, all are monarchies, just different terms for the monarch (based on culture or tradition).

People born in Puerto Rico are US Citizens as if they are born in any other State or Territory, I am not sure what rights they do not have? (I agree that it should be a State if that is your point).

For your broader question, Empire is a defined as:
"a group of countries or states that are controlled by one leader or government "
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/empire

And, many other dictionaries seem to focus on the one leader aspect. So Empire in the sense of traditional monarchy controlling vast swaths of the world is unlikely. There are plenty of countries in the world that are monarchies, and I guess its always possible that they will expand. For Example Iraq attempted this with its annexation of Kuwait in the 90s, which led to the Gulf War. There is a lot of turmoil in the Middle East, and much of the Middle East and parts of Africa still have monarchies, so if we are to see another Empire by the strict definition it will likely originate in this region. Though other countries would probably not allow this to happen (we saw how quickly the coalition stopped the annexation of Kuwait). Any formal land expansion through force would be pretty challenging as there would be far greater forces to stop such an annexation.

China could also come to mind. But, it is not a monarchy (which is required for an Empire) in the strict sense of the word. Though it is great at attempting to seize territory, and it has the power and resources to make others (including America) hesitant to challenge it even in cases of clearly being in the wrong.... China is a much larger threat than most people realize, very powerful country with a huge population, massive military, booming economy.
But, due to definitions even if it does continue to aggressively expand it would not be an Empire.

Putins response to being called a killer: https://thesaker.is/putins-answer-to-biden/

Quote: Gandler

I am confused by your definition of Emperor. I have never known the term to imply the use of force. Japan still has an Emperor (and the UK still has a Queen and probably within 10 years a King). I know Emir is a term used in some Arab countries (such as Qatar and Kuwait).

But, its all the same thing, inherited power, all are monarchies, just different terms for the monarch (based on culture or tradition).

People born in Puerto Rico are US Citizens as if they are born in any other State or Territory, I am not sure what rights they do not have? (I agree that it should be a State if that is your point).

For your broader question, Empire is a defined as:
"a group of countries or states that are controlled by one leader or government "
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/empire

And, many other dictionaries seem to focus on the one leader aspect. So Empire in the sense of traditional monarchy controlling vast swaths of the world is unlikely. There are plenty of countries in the world that are monarchies, and I guess its always possible that they will expand. For Example Iraq attempted this with its annexation of Kuwait in the 90s, which led to the Gulf War. There is a lot of turmoil in the Middle East, and much of the Middle East and parts of Africa still have monarchies, so if we are to see another Empire by the strict definition it will likely originate in this region. Though other countries would probably not allow this to happen (we saw how quickly the coalition stopped the annexation of Kuwait). Any formal land expansion through force would be pretty challenging as there would be far greater forces to stop such an annexation.

China could also come to mind. But, it is not a monarchy (which is required for an Empire) in the strict sense of the word. Though it is great at attempting to seize territory, and it has the power and resources to make others (including America) hesitant to challenge it even in cases of clearly being in the wrong.... China is a much larger threat than most people realize, very powerful country with a huge population, massive military, booming economy.
But, due to definitions even if it does continue to aggressively expand it would not be an Empire.

Not sure if you are responding to me, but I think of empire [don't think I've used "emperor"] pretty closely to the Oxford definition. I also don't think the English Monarchy ever really went out of business.

Would you say that Rome wasn't an empire, or that it had a king?

Today's empire is financial, it always was closely related to the money power.

Quote: petroglyph

Quote: Gandler

I am confused by your definition of Emperor. I have never known the term to imply the use of force. Japan still has an Emperor (and the UK still has a Queen and probably within 10 years a King). I know Emir is a term used in some Arab countries (such as Qatar and Kuwait).

But, its all the same thing, inherited power, all are monarchies, just different terms for the monarch (based on culture or tradition).

People born in Puerto Rico are US Citizens as if they are born in any other State or Territory, I am not sure what rights they do not have? (I agree that it should be a State if that is your point).

For your broader question, Empire is a defined as:
"a group of countries or states that are controlled by one leader or government "
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/empire

And, many other dictionaries seem to focus on the one leader aspect. So Empire in the sense of traditional monarchy controlling vast swaths of the world is unlikely. There are plenty of countries in the world that are monarchies, and I guess its always possible that they will expand. For Example Iraq attempted this with its annexation of Kuwait in the 90s, which led to the Gulf War. There is a lot of turmoil in the Middle East, and much of the Middle East and parts of Africa still have monarchies, so if we are to see another Empire by the strict definition it will likely originate in this region. Though other countries would probably not allow this to happen (we saw how quickly the coalition stopped the annexation of Kuwait). Any formal land expansion through force would be pretty challenging as there would be far greater forces to stop such an annexation.

China could also come to mind. But, it is not a monarchy (which is required for an Empire) in the strict sense of the word. Though it is great at attempting to seize territory, and it has the power and resources to make others (including America) hesitant to challenge it even in cases of clearly being in the wrong.... China is a much larger threat than most people realize, very powerful country with a huge population, massive military, booming economy.
But, due to definitions even if it does continue to aggressively expand it would not be an Empire.

Not sure if you are responding to me, but I think of empire [don't think I've used "emperor"] pretty closely to the Oxford definition. I also don't think the English Monarchy ever really went out of business.

Would you say that Rome wasn't an empire, or that it had a king?

Today's empire is financial, it always was closely related to the money power.

No, I was replying to initial post, " Emperor implies you are ruling a group of people by force, while a King rules over a group of people with a common kinship. Even the Arabs have often adopted the term king instead of sultan, caliph, or sheik. "



Rome was certainly an Empire. It had an Emperor. (Though it was also a Republic at points, though still an Empire because it fits the monarch category). I don't what term you use to refer to a monarch makes a historical difference (especially when translated through multiple languages to get to English). At the end of the day, a monarch is a monarch.

But, in the initial post it was very focused on definitions, and I don't think using the classic definition financial influence counts as an Empire. And, I think the closest we will see to a modern Empire (in the sense of a monarch having total rule over multiple lands) will likely be in the Middle East or Africa.

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a movie on the Lehman Brothers collapse where the Hank Paulson character says how just a few years back you never saw such numbers. Now those big numbers are seeming small. And the worst part is Biden is talking about a second stimulus.

Get your money into other currencies. Get it into real property. Get it into stocks that will survive an inflation. There has never been anything like this. And all for what? A virus with a 99.5% survival rate?

Too Big to Fail


I remember Tom Wolfe saying something similar when he was writing Bonfire of Vanities (released 1987). He was worried that he had stepped over the realism barrier. Then reality caught up with the bankruptcies of the Financial Corporation of America and Texaco.
Bonfire of Vanities developed for Amazon Prime

In the 1980s, the United States experienced its most serious banking crisis since the 1930s and the second most serious crisis in its 200-plus year history. The crisis affected commercial banks, savings banks and savings and loan associations (S&Ls). Between 1980 and 1991, when fundamental corrective laws were enacted, some 1,500 commercial and savings banks (insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and 1,200 savings and loan associations (insured by the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) failed and were resolved by the regulatory agencies.

It almost seems quaint in comparison with 20 years later.

Quote: Gandler

I am confused by your definition of Emperor. I have never known the term to imply the use of force. Japan still has an Emperor (and the UK still has a Queen and probably within 10 years a King). I know Emir is a term used in some Arab countries (such as Qatar and Kuwait).

Chuck Noll was known as "The Emperor" a name given by the inventor of The Terrible Towel.

Quote: Pacomartin

Too Big to Fail


I remember Tom Wolfe saying something similar when he was writing Bonfire of Vanities (released 1987). He was worried that he had stepped over the realism barrier. Then reality caught up with the bankruptcies of the Financial Corporation of America and Texaco.
Bonfire of Vanities developed for Amazon Prime

In the 1980s, the United States experienced its most serious banking crisis since the 1930s and the second most serious crisis in its 200-plus year history. The crisis affected commercial banks, savings banks and savings and loan associations (S&Ls). Between 1980 and 1991, when fundamental corrective laws were enacted, some 1,500 commercial and savings banks (insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and 1,200 savings and loan associations (insured by the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) failed and were resolved by the regulatory agencies.

It almost seems quaint in comparison with 20 years later.

It was either that or "Moral Hazard" I think. Same subject.

I can watch these financial crisis movies over and over. There are enough for a college business class. Two on Enron "Crooked E" and "Smartest Guys in the Room" are a good pair to watch. I'd love to have lunch with Bethany McLean, she was the person who saw it all coming, and at a fairly young age. I wish she would do a similar article on Tesla today. That is a house of cards ripe for a financial fall.

There was a change in American business in the 1980s but like anything the roots are a decade or two before. This is explained in yet another movie, "The Big Short." Before the 1980s, banking and finance was a boring place. Borrow at 4%, lend at 6%, leave the office at 4:00. Boring. At the corporation it was a necessary evil. Want to move more Oldsmobiles? Better offer financing, so they had GMAC. Take auto loans. Collect payments. Boring.

But then it all changed. Finance arms were where the money was coming in from. GE Capital became the driver of a 10o year old industrial giant. GMAC the driver of a 80 year old auto giant. Lee Iacocca said it in passing in his book. Meanwhile, S&Ls noticed you could make more, far more, loaning to develop condos than you could if you just made mortgages for the individual condo. The USA was hardly alone, what hit Japan made the S&L crisis seem like a day at the beach.

Now here we are printing $1.6 trillion in one week. In 1981, after 200 years, the national debt hit $1 trillion to some alarm. 40 years later we are printing 60% more than that in ONE FLIPPING WEEK!

Quote: AZDuffman

Now here we are printing $1.6 trillion in one week. In 1981, after 200 years, the national debt hit $1 trillion to some alarm. 40 years later we are printing 60% more than that in ONE FLIPPING WEEK!

The good news is that we are saving lots of money now by not printing physical money, just electronic distributions now.

Quote: DRich

The good news is that we are saving lots of money now by not printing physical money, just electronic distributions now.

I really wish I had understood the fed like I do not at a much younger age. Well into adulthood I could not grasp where money comes from, though I knew something was up. I doubt more than 1/10 of the population is thinking more than "MORE FREE MONEY!" at this latest bill. So many otherwise smart people, genus level people, do not grasp what is going on.