It has always been my belief that if the Roman Empire knew as much about economics as we do today, they would have conqured the world, or more likely, lasted way longer. So much of what they were doing was terrible economic policy. Debasing their currency, crushing the midle class, slavery, exempting the elite from taxation, forcing people to stay in their old jobs, forcing children to follow in the footsteps of their parents, decreasses in investment in infrastructure, failure to solve a chronic trade deficit with India, all examples of terrible economic policies enacted by the empire.
Maybe one should actually try reading MORE about the Roman Empire first?
The argument that Rome was a "war economy", reliant on constant conquests is blatently untrue. The WRE, ERE survived for centuries without significant conquests/sacking of enemy towns.
The Romans did "debase" their currency. However, the Romans were facing the unique problem that they weren't producing enough metals to base their currency on. If anything, its a matter of too much "riches" rather than anything.
There was SIGNIFICANT social mobility in the Roman Empire. Barbarians rising to become Emperors, if not trusted generals and nobles, the equesterian class and etc........ there were different trends of course within different dynasties but arguing that people were "stuck" to their old job is absurd.
The idea that "elites" were exempt from taxation is similarly laughable. We know from Republic Rome that the elites were expected to maintain basic services/utilities/ baths if they were to remain elected and in power. Its a matter of patronage, and certainly nothing like our modern day civil service but just how do you think the Romans maintained their armies, if not via taxation?
No idea about India, but given Rome economic strength and trade, I doubt it.
The decrease in investment did not cause the fall of the Roman Empire. May I suggest that its the inverse which is more likely.
They deviated pretty heavily from the general recomendations of modest inequality, in order to sustain a higher class capable of undertaking private investments, while maintaining a midle class that can consume the benfits of those investments. Most notably in slavery. Slavery is to a midle class, and the economic benefits that brings, what matter is to anti-matter. Look at the south, it never industrialized to the extent the north did primarily because it lacked a midle class. It lacked a midle class because slavery deppressed wages for white-non-slave-owners. Why hire a free man when I can get a slave to do it for me, and whoose employment will cost less over time?
Except you're laughably wrong. Roman slavery was NOT the equivalent of 17th century slavery.
Slaves in the Roman era could own money, property and etc, and we learn of multiple slaves who did rise up to own property and join the Senator class, much less the lesser ranked equesterian. There's that pesky social mobility again. The inverse of course is that not all slaves were equal. Slaves assigned to work as labourers in mines were lowly paid and unlikely to advance, but THEN again, free coal miners during Industrial England were facing just as horrible conditions and pay.
Author
Topic: Improved Farming, Rebooted: Agricultural Revolution (Read 148963 times)