Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Roman model

November 1, 2013

The Roman Empire existed to serve the needs of its namesake city....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(40)

CMReeder

Nov-02-13 8:13 AM

"Chuck, I agree that traditional empire building isn't what we see today. It isn't as centralized and it does focus more on economic influence rather than military force. However, I think for those on the other side of the fence, the difference may not what they notice in their daily lives."

So it is not 'empire building'. What you are describing is oppression and inequity caused by unregulated capitalism.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 7:26 PM

Erik said, "Every nation has their own energy base to heat homes and fuel industry." Really, every nation? I do find that hard to believe. Erik said, "Again, you think there is not enough energy." Yes, I do. And, if we do tap all the fossil fuels the planet possesses, we still won't have enough and we will have an environmental mess.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 7:17 PM

Erik said,"Do you realize that you could take the entire world's population and put them in the state of Oklahoma and the population density would be lower than that of the largest cities in the world?" Interesting fact. Don't see what that has to do with whether or not the Earth contains enough materials needed to provide the world's population with the lifestyle of the developed world.

Erik said," We are feeding more and more people with less and less land everyday, thanks to our horrible, capitalistic, consuming system. We are developing ways that third world nations can grow crops on soil that they thought was unusable." You forgot to mention the global shrinking of water tables. The other comments in your post are unworthy of comment.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-01-13 7:08 PM

DavidBross:

Energy - Now that hydraulic fracturing is available, the world is finding natural gas and oil reserves nearly everywhere!

Every nation has their own energy base to heat homes and fuel industry.

Again, you think there is not enough energy.

How simple-minded and narrow of your thinking in a world where the inventors do not believe in limits or boundaries, but seek to break them or find new ways.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-01-13 7:06 PM

DavidBross said:

" I don't believe there is enough arable land, clean water, not to mention energy supplies, as well as raw materials to make finished products with to give the world's population the living standard enjoyed by developed nations"

Do you realize that you could take the entire world's population and put them in the state of Oklahoma and the population density would be lower than that of the largest cities in the world?

You are regurgitating liberal pabulum that is not fact-based.

We are feeding more and more people with less and less land everyday, thanks to our horrible, capitalistic, consuming system.

We are developing ways that third world nations can grow crops on soil that they thought was unusable.

You are close-minded and ignorant of advancement.

You give mankind little credit for developing the technologies and methods for making life easier for all.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 6:23 PM

Leaningright: Significant disparity always leads to unrest. One can address the problem before the unrest takes over. Or, one can wait til it happens and then deal with it. I prefer the former. And yes, it would include, but not be limited to, a reduction in consumption by the US.

Enigma: I don't believe there is enough arable land, clean water, not to mention energy supplies, as well as raw materials to make finished products with to give the world's population the living standard enjoyed by developed nations. This has nothing to do with productivity or ability to pay. I believe there simply isn't enough stuff on the planet.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Nov-01-13 5:15 PM

"I also think that the multitudes are going to realize, eventually, that there isn't enough "stuff" (food, water, natural resources,etc.) on the planet for everyone to live a life that is considered normal in developed countries even if they could afford things at today's prices."-David

There would be if everyone was producing. It's just that simple. We are nowhere near the limits of productivity that the earth can sustain. But if you want to support the whole world on the production of less than half of it, as is happening now, it won't work. The economic problems of the world are not caused by the rich, but by those who do not work. I've never had a job working for a poor man, but I've seen lots of poor people who don't want to work, and expect me to pay taxes to support them in their 'poverty', so they can complain that it isn't enough. The truly needy are a small percentage of those at the government trough.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

leaningright

Nov-01-13 3:23 PM

"What I think Erik, is that a small segment of the world's population consumes a large portion of the world's resources and that this imbalance will lead to significant disorder and unrest." -David Bross -

So i guess a pecking order will need to be established then. What are we to do David, lower our standards of living? It would be the USA you are talking about David ,right?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 2:55 PM

I also think that the multitudes are going to realize, eventually, that there isn't enough "stuff" (food, water, natural resources,etc.) on the planet for everyone to live a life that is considered normal in developed countries even if they could afford things at today's prices.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 2:39 PM

What I think Erik, is that a small segment of the world's population consumes a large portion of the world's resources and that this imbalance will lead to significant disorder and unrest.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hopeforfuture

Nov-01-13 2:38 PM

"I doubt the women working in the clothing factory in Bangladesh that collapsed would agree with those statements."-David enigma You may be right. They probably would have preferred that their families would have starved to death instead. Maybe you would prefer isolationism? What part of giving people a chance for a better life don't you like? One accident in one factory and you're ready to condemn the people of the world to a life of poverty.-enigma

Yeah what those people in the sewing factories Need is a Union. That will fix those evil factory owners 'just like they did to our sewing factories'. There is a bright spot those jobs might come back to the US, Oh wait they can't there are to many Gov regulations.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-01-13 1:45 PM

DavidBross:

You seem to think these people do not improve.

Look at Japan. They went rom poverty to an industrial giant.... but it took time.

Now, Japan does not make the world's electronics as they once did.

Even in China, we are seeing wages rise very fast.

That is the result of our buying things from them. Now, the Chinese people are able to afford cars, making them the largest auto market in the world and rising fast.

India is rising fast.

You look at a snapshot and lament the conditions while I see the progress of the entire world toward economic equality without massive gov't interference, control or wars.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 1:31 PM

Chuck, I agree that traditional empire building isn't what we see today. It isn't as centralized and it does focus more on economic influence rather than military force. However, I think for those on the other side of the fence, the difference may not what they notice in their daily lives.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Nov-01-13 1:27 PM

Third world political and economic conditions have a lot more to do with working conditions and the lives of these people. We're helping individuals by giving them employment and experience that helps them far more than it hurts them.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Nov-01-13 1:23 PM

My jaw has dropped to table level as I read some of these posts, particularly:

Enigma: "We paid for what we took and in the process elevated every society that we touched."

We paid with blankets infected with diseases. While Ecuador may have gotten payment from Chevron, Brazil and Peru are feeling the "touch" of American owned Chevron oil spilled.

Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid... so many have bought into USA-the greatest, the best, God's gift to the World.

Not everybody wants what we have. Native Americans didn't. We forced it on them, took their land, took their culture. We forced it on Africans. Give me a break with how beneficial we have been to everyone we have touched, We wouldn't sleep at night if we knew all the "good" we've done around the world, so maybe it's a good thing some things are truly top secret.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Nov-01-13 1:08 PM

Enigma and Erik- Working under the existing conditions and starving are not the only two options. For example, if we were willing to pay more for clothes, electronics, etc. perhaps these women and other workers would have better working conditions and lives. The developed countries do have great influence over the working conditions in developing nations. At this point the influence is used more to make it convenient and cheaper for those in developed countries to consume resources.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Nov-01-13 1:04 PM

Excellent letter, David.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Nov-01-13 12:07 PM

"I doubt the women working in the clothing factory in Bangladesh that collapsed would agree with those statements."-David

You may be right. They probably would have preferred that their families would have starved to death instead. Maybe you would prefer isolationism? What part of giving people a chance for a better life don't you like? One accident in one factory and you're ready to condemn the people of the world to a life of poverty.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-01-13 11:43 AM

DavidBross said:

"I doubt the women working in the clothing factory in Bangladesh that collapsed would agree with those statements."

Do you think those people would be better off if we did not buy anything from them?

Advancements in technology and communication allow you to even know about the working conditions in Bangladesh.

At this nation's founding, do you think everyone was interested in the latest news from Tibet or do you think they were just trying to gather enough firewood to survive the winter?

We shed slavery, and that led most of the world to shed slavery.

Facebook and Twitter helped overthrow dictators..... thanks to our consuming.

You demonstrate a complete disregard for how much we aid the world by our advancements.

There is no utopia.

The world is changing and getting better, but it takes time.

Despite all our riches and power, we cannot change the world overnight.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Nov-01-13 11:40 AM

I understand how you can see that David but I disagree with you.

What you described with modern nations is not the same as with past Empires. Today you have alliances and international commerce. While some will say there is empire building it isn't true as it was in the past.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Nov-01-13 11:02 AM

The ideology that stemmed from the enlightenment freed countries that applied it from kings, emperors, and other dictatorships and replaced them with representative governments based upon the rule of law and economic freedom. Unfortunately, most of them are progressing into governments controlled by pressure groups and cronyism. I’ll have to agree with David to the extent that modern governments are progressing into something similar to the Roman empire.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Nov-01-13 9:33 AM

"The U.S. kept to itself until Teddy Roosevelt and his 'big stick' decided that the U.S. should push around smaller countries." - enigma

*

Yeah...sure...he and James Monroe had it all-planned-out, right from the start.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Nov-01-13 9:19 AM

Mr. Bross, what you fail to consider in your letter is how the industrialized nations have aided the rest of the world. It is because of medical and technological advances by the nations you named that the lesser developed countries also have the ability to sell their riches and enjoy a higher standard of living." - nobud74

*

Yeah...whether they wanted-to...or, NOT!!!!

*

See:

Guatemala 1954: Prime example of US imperialism.

&

CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Nov-01-13 9:16 AM

"See:U.S.-Sponsored Genocides: From Guatemala to Congo | Global Research & U.S. Interventions in Latin America"-Sham

Apparently you missed that I agreed that the Progressives started the imperialism they now decry even while continuing it. The U.S. kept to itself until Teddy Roosevelt and his 'big stick' decided that the U.S. should push around smaller countries. That is not part of the founding. While some of the founders thought it our responsibility to promote freedom around the world, they were smart enough to know that you can't force people to be free, so they led by example, not military or economic might.

BTW, YouTube is probably not the best place to study history.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Nov-01-13 9:13 AM

Finally, a really good LTE.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web