Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos(foreignaffairs.com)
foreignaffairs.com
Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65987/niall-ferguson/complexity-and-collapse
12 comments
Thank you
I can't agree with the negative comments here. I think that his comparison to chaotic systems is right-on.
> First, debating the stages of decline may be a waste of time -- it is a precipitous and unexpected fall that should most concern policymakers and citizens. Second, most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises. All the above cases were marked by sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, as well as difficulties with financing public debt.
Long article that says little and manages to contradict the few points it makes. Read 'The Tipping Point' instead. If not, be prepared to read about a dozen different rephrasings of
>Defeat in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or on the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of imperial fall.
Long article that says little and manages to contradict the few points it makes. Read 'The Tipping Point' instead. If not, be prepared to read about a dozen different rephrasings of
>Defeat in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or on the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of imperial fall.
That seems to be a problems with Ferguson. His book, "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power", was annoying in that he makes quite a few generalizations of more complex phenomenon. In it he comes off as pro-colonialist, but completely disregards the view from the colonized. Essentially he says that the British Empire was good because it gave everyone a common basis for the modern world. However, he completely ignores all the ills that empire created.
He is pretty renowned in the Historical circle, but that book put a bad taste in my mouth.
He is pretty renowned in the Historical circle, but that book put a bad taste in my mouth.
My favorite historian about the British Empire is Peter Hopkirk.
His books primarily deal with central/southeast Asia.
Some books he's written: 1. The Great Game 2. Setting the East Ablaze 3. Like Hidden Fire 4. Trespassers on the Roof of the World.
His books primarily deal with central/southeast Asia.
Some books he's written: 1. The Great Game 2. Setting the East Ablaze 3. Like Hidden Fire 4. Trespassers on the Roof of the World.
i'd say a pretty damn good marker is the devaluing of ones official currency. it at the very least generally led to significant regime shakeups.
All governments go through systematic devaluation of their currency -- every single fiat currency has gone through this process. So if the government can:
1. Get people to refer gold/silver amounts by a certain name: Deutsche Mark, Pound, Dollar etc.
2. Then they can debase the money at a later date; converts to less precious metal.
3. Then they can move to a fiat currency, move completely away from precious metal.
4. Then they can inflate to their hearts content.
1. Get people to refer gold/silver amounts by a certain name: Deutsche Mark, Pound, Dollar etc.
2. Then they can debase the money at a later date; converts to less precious metal.
3. Then they can move to a fiat currency, move completely away from precious metal.
4. Then they can inflate to their hearts content.
The difference between the standard systematic devaluation of modern governments and serious devaluation is that most governments tend to inflate at a rate of about 2-4% per year. This rate of inflation is considered by most economists to be benign and even helpful to a degree, because people tend to react better to inflation-triggered pay raises than deflation-triggered pay cuts, and businesses often choose to just fire bad workers instead of doing the latter, which can lead to massive spikes in unemployment.
In the 70s, we had about 10-20% inflation per year. This is where we start to see people getting unhappy.
Hyperinflation is defined by economists as being 50% per month, which adds up to something on the order of magnitude of a factor of 64 per year, however, when you have hyperinflation, you usually end up talking about having to add a digit to your prices at least once a month--more generally, hyperinflation is when there's so much inflation your currency is no longer considered to have any permanent value. Look at Zimbabwe and their use of scientific notation.
In the 70s, we had about 10-20% inflation per year. This is where we start to see people getting unhappy.
Hyperinflation is defined by economists as being 50% per month, which adds up to something on the order of magnitude of a factor of 64 per year, however, when you have hyperinflation, you usually end up talking about having to add a digit to your prices at least once a month--more generally, hyperinflation is when there's so much inflation your currency is no longer considered to have any permanent value. Look at Zimbabwe and their use of scientific notation.
For all the value that it derives from anything other than industrial use, gold is just the fiat currency of the collective imagination.
The "fiat" comes from dictating the value. Physical commodities intrinsically have some value stability baked-in. A lone government would have a harder time causing inflation of a gold-backed currency than otherwise.
http://laudyms.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/niall-ferguson-compl...