Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 10 Oct 2014 in We are doomed without a wealth tax, Bigsby said:

    Reality says

    The Roman Dole created and enlarged dependent population (by both bankrupting the middle class farmers and encouraging welfare recipients), created financial/political power nexus, and brought about the down fall of the Republic as well as the Empire (Empire was just a corrupt phase of the Republic, as per Toynbee and Burke, etc.).

    The dole did not bring about the collapse of the Republic. That is a complete mischaracterization of a complex series of events.

  • On 10 Oct 2014 in We are doomed without a wealth tax, Bigsby said:

    Reality says

    What makes you think these are separate subjects? The province of Egypt was the personal possession of the Emperor. Being the boss to run the dole program at taxpayer expense was a highly profitable business for the Emperor and his cronies.

    Which has what to do with your initial comment? Your argument is misplaced in time and the weight that you are seemingly putting on it.

  • On 10 Oct 2014 in We are doomed without a wealth tax, Bigsby said:

    Reality says

    Guess how those civil wars came about? Fighting over the control of government programs and the imperial control of provinces for resource extraction for one's own cronies.

    That is not the same as your initial point, is it? Why don't you just admit you made a glib comment?

  • On 10 Oct 2014 in We are doomed without a wealth tax, Bigsby said:

    Reality says

    Roman Bread and Circus as one of the contributing reasons to its decline has been accepted ever since Edward Gibbon wrote the first modern treatise on the subject.

    Edward Gibbon wrote about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Which are you talking about? The Republic or the Empire?

  • On 10 Oct 2014 in We are doomed without a wealth tax, Bigsby said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    And yes, almost all historians and economists agree that the Roman dole, bread and circus, contributed to its societal decline. Why is that a surprise to anyone familiar with the historical facts about Rome?

    Really?

    Link a single article that agrees with this.

    What are you talking about Iwog? What he's arguing is clearly far more important than the succession of civil wars in the late Republic... Not sure how that translates as the decline of Rome mind. Wasn't it at its height more than a century later?

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 237 milliseconds to create.