Another LJ friend of mine made the assertion in his journal that America is the new Roman Empire. I'm not sure if he meant that to be a disturbing thought or not, but to me it is--even though there's a "like it or not" truth to the observation. It wasn't the first time I've heard it, though; I recall hearing a commentator a couple months ago arguing that since America was inescapably in that role now and will be for at least the immediate future, we'd do less damage--and perhaps even some good--if we stopped pretending we weren't.
I'm not sure I agree with that, of course. If we go with economic terminology rather than historical analogy, the United States is essentially a natural monopoly on the political stage. Economic theory--at least until very recently--held that monopolies, even natural ones, needed to be regulated in ways non-monopolies weren't for markets to do well. (And those more Keynesian theories may be coming back into vogue, as people realize that while removing regulation from markets does indeed "take the brakes off the economic engine," there is a reason engines have brakes.) It might be argued that "political monopolies" need comparable restrictions in order for other states to thrive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2002-07-19 18:29 (UTC)I'm not sure I agree with that, of course. If we go with economic terminology rather than historical analogy, the United States is essentially a natural monopoly on the political stage. Economic theory--at least until very recently--held that monopolies, even natural ones, needed to be regulated in ways non-monopolies weren't for markets to do well. (And those more Keynesian theories may be coming back into vogue, as people realize that while removing regulation from markets does indeed "take the brakes off the economic engine," there is a reason engines have brakes.) It might be argued that "political monopolies" need comparable restrictions in order for other states to thrive.