A Page Turned. . .

(A Page Turned. . .)

The Roman Empire has been referenced many times in These Pages. The "Glory that was Rome" and it had been the greatest Empire in History. Until it wasn't. The Empire always had endemic weaknesses and proved ill prepared to manage crises like plague and civil war. It is remarkable that it lasted as long as it did. Over time, the Empire was divided into West and East, and the position of "emperor" was split first among four was finally consolidated back into one. However, as they say, all things must come to an end, and the Roman Empire, at least in the West, "ended" September 4th, A.D. 476.

Modern analogs to the Roman Empire would of course be the British Empire and the United States. All three had their issues, for the Empire, they were to prove fatal. For the United States it is just the Election and the Imperial nature of Donald Trump. The former President has said he would be "a dictator" on Day one and Roman Emperors did rule as dictators. Trump could be emperor and he could have ruled Rome as if he were Augustus or Hadrian. To name a couple.

One cannot say the same for Kamala Harris, at least as far as questions of leadership might go. She would not be able to govern the Empire. But she could cause economic distress. The Roman economy was subsistence based and while it did have an efficient tax system and conquests usually paid for themselves and Rome had significant precious metal reserves. However, when the Legions stopped marching and stood on the Empire's frontiers and the various mines had been depleted, the Empire began to deficit spend and the Empire's debt had risen to un-sustainable levels, the Army could not be funded. Tax collection collapsed. Couple that to the Crisis of the Second Century and its revolving door of emperors, it is remarkable that the Empire did not collapse. It did get fragmented, however, with the Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire were two splinters.

Rome needed economic growth beyond conquest and beyond its natural resources. It had trade as it controlled the Mediterranean. What might any of this have to do with Vice President Harris and her "plan ?" Harris apparently not interested in economic growth. She, like most Democrats and especially a socialist variety are anti-business and do not care about growth per se. It has been widely accepted that Harris' policies, if implemented, would be disastrous for the economy.

In contrast, Trump has been promoting his own economic agenda that is the anti-thesis of Harris. A one-to-one comparison between Trump and Harris is being made. Going forward these policies will face the scrutiny of voters and one will see the Glory of Rome and the other will see its Fall.