[dragonwriter]

> The Roman Empire was unstoppable until they over extended themselves with endless war and tried to solve it by debasing their currency. It may not happen anytime soon, but America won't lead the world indefinitely forever, its only 244 years old for shit sake.

Sure, but Britain didn't lead the world forever, either, and it's not exactly like the £ collapsed leaving everyone who held it in ruin.

American won't lead the world forever doesn't mean much unless but it's collapse will be so sudden and unexpected as to leave no opportunity to unwind dollar positions without catastrophic loss.

It might be worth hedging against that, but digital collectibles are a poor hedge for that circumstance. Physical resources for community self-sufficiency and physical defense against the ravening hordes are the hedge you need if you take that threat seriously.

[morpheos137]

It is a common trope to compare America to Rome. Economically America has almost nothing in common with Rome. Rome was a non-industrial economy mainly based on plunder or at least transferring products from the provinces to the central government and upper class in terms of taxation (in kind, e.g. Egyptian grain, and monetarily denominated). When the Empire stopped expanding new wealth, for the most part stopped being created. Perhaps there is a little bit of a comparison with 19th century America and expanding to the west in manifest destiny but in modern America economic growth is driven by technological change. Not conquest.

[prichino]

This is the rise and fall of civilizations, while expansion is possible in the sense of, the majority of people can "win" at their culture (or have a clear path to), a civilization is successful. In Rome, and America this usually means economic improvement. In Egyptian times, this meant falling in line with the religion. Carroll Quigley has a very nice framework for what is a civilization. Let's just say he was a very influential historian, mentor of one rather recent US president.