Did you like this post? Subscribe to my Substack now for additional insights and content.
“There are many ruins in nations” – Adam Smith, 1777
There has been a noticeable increase in “Roman Empire” talk on social media recently, which isn't all that interesting except for the fact that in this case there seems to be a major effort to somehow associate the act of “thinking” about the “Roman Empire” with masculinity and men's supposed concern for the collapse of the United States.
Here's an interesting example written by “Eva Vlaardingerbroek”.
There is certainly something “Freudian” going on here and I personally believe her father was much more honest… That being said, in a world filled with fantastical stories, especially those about the US's impending hyperinflationary financial collapse, it's important not to get too carried away.
It is important to remember that hyperinflation is not simply “massive inflation” resulting from the mismanagement of purely monetary factors, but a much more fundamental and complete loss of trust in state institutions and the financial system.
Hyperinflation usually results from a combination of familiar calamities, such as severe economic crisis, political instability, excessive printing of money to finance large budget deficits, or a loss of confidence in the currency in response to war or other external shocks, but the scale of such numerous catastrophes and the credibility of the country in question make a big difference.
There is no doubt that the United States will eventually find itself in that situation, especially given the sordid path we have chosen over the past few decades. But the real question that always arises is when.
While our historical understanding of the “Fall of the Roman Empire” has much to inform us in drawing superficial parallels with today’s endless political and economic dramas, it is noteworthy to consider that this is not a new endeavor in our public discourse.
A quick search through newspaper archives reveals some fascinating articles detailing the financial unrest of the time (reprinted in their entirety from the Minneapolis Representative, July 12, 1893).
Clearly on the issue of money and the debate over monetary standards, metallic or otherwise, “The Fall of the Roman Empire” serves its purpose of providing a powerful historical account of the dramatic demise of a once-great civilization, and thereby offering powerful lessons for similar issues in the storyteller's place and time.
Also note that in the first of the two articles above, the theme of the “Fall of the Roman Empire” is ironically used to develop a radical argument for putting an end to metallism and adopting a purely “numerical” unit of account – a precursor argument that eventually led to today’s world of “fiat money”.
After all, much of the second half of the 19th century was spent debating metallurgy, a commodity standard backed by gold or silver, and other so-called modern “scientific” approaches to monetary standards, but it wasn’t until 1913 that an institution was organized that could actually develop enough arrogance to justify a move in the direction of a “fiat” standard: the Federal Reserve System.
And yet it took another 58 years, two epic world wars, several smaller wars, and a major recession before the nation finally severed the last cord (of which there was only one thread at the time) linking the monetary system to a metal-backed monetary standard with the now infamous “temporary” measures of the Nixon administration in 1971 (incidentally with the help of “inflation buster” Paul Volcker before he famously became Federal Reserve Chairman).
Now, after another 52 years, including nearly two decades of inflationary woes, numerous recessions, massive operations to defeat a major “Cold War” rival, several major wars in the Middle East and many smaller ones elsewhere, a steadily increasing federal debt fueled by ever-greater budget deficits, and the Federal Reserve appearing to continually pay out ever-larger portions of its precious credit to secure the next, increasingly larger bailouts to help “stabilize” the economic system, we are finally coming to a common conclusion about the shortcomings of the “fiat” money system.
Considering all that has been said above, it may seem as if the real “catastrophe” has finally arrived, that we are on the brink of a “great catastrophe”, at the final tipping point into a hyperinflationary slump that will engulf the entire financial system and destroy the futures of millions of people.
But even the ancient Roman Empire didn’t collapse overnight – its influence spanned almost a millennium, and it took centuries of corruption and degeneration before it completely fell apart, ushering in a horrific period known as the “Dark Ages.”
By comparison, the American Empire is a world (military) and economic power orders of magnitude more important than the Roman Empire ever was, and tarnishing itself to the status of past empires would require far more significant devolution than any simple money-centric narrative would suggest.
The key point is that hyperinflation depends (mostly) on credibility…as long as the US remains the unquestioned dominant military and economic power in the world, hyperinflation is unlikely to be an end state.
That being said, it is absolutely expected that we will see a sustained period of typical, deep-seated, uncomfortably high inflation and deflationary outbursts as the effects of the Federal Reserve’s 35 years of failed monetary policy become apparent against the backdrop of an extremely dysfunctional and unproductive federal political process.
This period, which I previously labeled “The Great Turmoil,” will continue to be characterised by a sense that “the end is near” as our financial and political systems reflect new levels of instability resulting from the continuing realisation of the costs of the massive debt we have accumulated.
Does this era really mark the end of the American Empire, as suggested by the vast number of “men” who seem preoccupied with “thinking” about the fall of the Roman Empire? … I wouldn't bet on it.