Hitler's Germany did not have any undesirables, yet it too was funded with borrowed money that it couldn't pay back.
I'm sure it was totally the social programs and not The entirety of the Jewish controlled world, including the 3 largest world powers attacking them that caused them to collapse, nope it was because they had socialism in their name. Remember Germany went from a wartorn ruin to a world power in less than a decade because of the pro-German policies of the National Socialist government.
Even further back than that, Rome did not have niggers (sand or otherwise) on its welfare system. They were all "whites", or at least, Mediterranean Europeans. Still collapsed.
Rome's collapse was due to many Many reasons; mass influx of a foreign, alien culture (northern Europeans), a sprawling size that made management of distant territories with the available technology nearly impossible, the increased reliance on foreign auxiliaries in military who had more loyalty to their commanders than to the Roman State as a whole which ties into the insane amounts of political backstabbing, petty power plays, and civil wars. Claiming it was because of "socialism", when the Roman system didn't resemble modern/Post-Marx socialism at all is extremely short sighted. Also saying that an empire that lasted between 800 and well over 2000 years (depending on what you count as "Rome") collapsing means that it's economic system is faulty is incredibly dumb.
Whenever you allow a government to borrow money on behalf of a tax-paying people, they will do so, because it buys votes, and they will never be held accountable for the debt.
I don't see how that is relevant.
Reject all economic left. Communism, socialism, all of it. Anything that allows others to dictate how money is spent, is evil and unsustainable.
You've just described virtually every economic system ever implemented.
It seems like you're trying really hard to force this "Socialism bad" meme but the examples you picked show the exact opposite, Germany was elevated from a burning ruin to a world power, and Rome lasted for 2000 years before collapsing to unrelated reasons (but wasn't even really socialist in any modern sense of the word, unless you think anything less than Ancap is socialism).
Germany went from war torn country to world power on borrowed money, money that they couldn't pay back. Yes, the Jews went to war with them, but they were fucked financially before the war even started. They couldn't make their repayments on what were essentially bonds.
Rome ultimately collapsed because it kept increasing the welfare programs to its citizens, while inflating their currency. There was no money left to pay for their armies because it was going towards feeding (and entertaining) their people. The foreign mercenaries were not loyal to Rome because they were not getting paid enough to be.
Yes, there are lots of reasons for why they failed, but ultimately it all boils down to economics. If Germany did not borrow money to fund its growth, there would be no economic miracle, but there would be no massive army to go to war with either. You don't need tanks and battleships to kick out certain groups from a country.
If Rome didn't have a welfare state, they could spend their money on maintaining their military, and they wouldn't need to inflate the currency to do so.
It's all due to economics. Nothing else really matters.
It's all due to economics. Nothing else really matters.
I'd say the exact opposite, economics (especially in the way you're talking about it) has utterly miniscule role to play in history,in Rome's case it is a symptom of other problems, not the root cause.
I don't believe you know very much about Rome if you think welfare was even in the top 100 reasons why it collapsed.
Saying "Rome went into debt and ran out of money so their economic system is bad" is incredibly short sighted and is ignoring the actual reasons why their economy failed so you can blame it on welfare and then somehow tie that to modern ideas of socialism, that weren't even invented until hundreds of years after the Eastern Roman Empire fell even using the latest possible date (1453, fall of Constantinople).
Economics is everything.
The only (with the exception of the religion or "glory") reason to invade another country is to seize their land, their assets, and gain control of the tax-paying population. If the land has no people there, no town, no resources, no anything. No-one cares about it.
Just because marx and the modern definition of socialism didn't exist until 1453, doesn't mean that it never occurred before in history.
Rome failed because they ran out of money. We can debate WHY they ran out of money, but if they didn't have the expense of providing food, entertainment, and all the other benefits that they got, to the people of Rome they wouldn't have had to hyperinflate their currency to pay for it all.
(post is archived)