5 ms·

> >Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty.

> >Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. >What does this even mean? It means that the reason there was grain for Rome to give was because of trade and capitalism (as well as some slavery and conquering which impoverish some populations to enrich others). Capitalism (private ownership of means of production) means that I benefit if I provide things that other people want. Trade allows individuals to make exchanges that benefit them. Free trade ensures that exchanges benefit both parties, resulting in an increase of total well-being. > Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. And Rome periodically put them back into grinding poverty by reducing the size of the grain dole because it was too expensive? Funding consumption can't reduce long term poverty (give a fish vs teach to fish).

pjc50 9y ago
Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. (Also, you spotted that Rome was a slave society, but failed to make the obvious conclusion that slavery precludes free exchange of labour!)
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. Government took only 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_d... In the Scheidel–Friesen economic model, the total annual income generated by the Empire is placed at nearly 20 billion HS, with about 5 percent extracted by central and local government.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    What does the marginal tax rate have to do with it? The economic structure was not similar to modern industrial organisation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I don't understand how that's relevant. The citizens of Rome were able to keep 95% of the results of their labor. I'm certainly open to any suggestions you have about reducing my marginal tax rate to 5% if you think Rome is a good example of bringing people out of grinding poverty.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        "Citizens of Rome" meaning what? As the traditional meaning is literally the residents of Rome until 90 BCE, then reluctantly Italians. Provincials weren't citizens until 212 AD, and that still left out slaves.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
Calling the Roman economy "capitalism" seems like a bit of a stretch, given things like the Emperor's ultimate control over anything. If you roll with it you're doing a massive white wash of history to praise capitalism for eventually improving problems it faced. >as well as some slavery and conquering which impoverish some populations to enrich others). Massive understatement, roughly 15% of the population of Rome were slaves and the Pax Romana is often seen as one of the causes of the breakdown of the economy. This is a common theme with capitalism and it's enrichment periods. It's very hard to argue that most of the world benefitted from colonialism. >And Rome periodically put them back into grinding poverty by reducing the size of the grain dole because it was too expensive? Funding consumption can't reduce long term poverty (give a fish vs teach to fish). And capitalism periodically put them back into grinding poverty with massive crashes or unchecked greed. Teaching a man to fish isn't that helpful if you then own all of the poles and materials to make the poles and refuse to share.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >Teaching a man to fish isn't that helpful if you then own all of the poles and materials to make the poles and refuse to share. In a world with free markets and free trade how would this be possible? I'm having a hard time imagining a single person or even a corporation owning, for example, all of the iron across the entire globe.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    It was about the grain dole, the rich bought all the land that the soldiers owned while they were off at war and then forced the state to auction the land won to the highest bidder. This led to the free market and free trade of soldiers, where competition is not at all in the public interest.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Sorry, but stealing someone's land and turning them into a slave is not a free market. No one is putting Rome up as an ideal for its economic or political freedom. But why would the wealthy people even bother stealing the land in the first place? Because once they were able to control that capital (the land) they could produce more grain than subsistence levels and turn a profit. This incentive allowed Rome to produce so much grain they could offer a public dole in spite of its other ethical problems.

pjc50 9y ago

Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. (Also, you spotted that Rome was a slave society, but failed to make the obvious conclusion that slavery precludes free exchange of labour!)

Consultant32452 9y ago
>Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. Government took only 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_d... In the Scheidel–Friesen economic model, the total annual income generated by the Empire is placed at nearly 20 billion HS, with about 5 percent extracted by central and local government.
- pjc50 9y ago
  What does the marginal tax rate have to do with it? The economic structure was not similar to modern industrial organisation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I don't understand how that's relevant. The citizens of Rome were able to keep 95% of the results of their labor. I'm certainly open to any suggestions you have about reducing my marginal tax rate to 5% if you think Rome is a good example of bringing people out of grinding poverty.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      "Citizens of Rome" meaning what? As the traditional meaning is literally the residents of Rome until 90 BCE, then reluctantly Italians. Provincials weren't citizens until 212 AD, and that still left out slaves.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Calling the Roman economy "capitalism" seems like a bit of a stretch, given things like the Emperor's ultimate control over anything. If you roll with it you're doing a massive white wash of history to praise capitalism for eventually improving problems it faced. >as well as some slavery and conquering which impoverish some populations to enrich others). Massive understatement, roughly 15% of the population of Rome were slaves and the Pax Romana is often seen as one of the causes of the breakdown of the economy. This is a common theme with capitalism and it's enrichment periods. It's very hard to argue that most of the world benefitted from colonialism. >And Rome periodically put them back into grinding poverty by reducing the size of the grain dole because it was too expensive? Funding consumption can't reduce long term poverty (give a fish vs teach to fish). And capitalism periodically put them back into grinding poverty with massive crashes or unchecked greed. Teaching a man to fish isn't that helpful if you then own all of the poles and materials to make the poles and refuse to share.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>Teaching a man to fish isn't that helpful if you then own all of the poles and materials to make the poles and refuse to share. In a world with free markets and free trade how would this be possible? I'm having a hard time imagining a single person or even a corporation owning, for example, all of the iron across the entire globe.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  It was about the grain dole, the rich bought all the land that the soldiers owned while they were off at war and then forced the state to auction the land won to the highest bidder. This led to the free market and free trade of soldiers, where competition is not at all in the public interest.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Sorry, but stealing someone's land and turning them into a slave is not a free market. No one is putting Rome up as an ideal for its economic or political freedom. But why would the wealthy people even bother stealing the land in the first place? Because once they were able to control that capital (the land) they could produce more grain than subsistence levels and turn a profit. This incentive allowed Rome to produce so much grain they could offer a public dole in spite of its other ethical problems.