5 ms·

The blog has multiple such awesome series. So far my favourite is "Bread, How Did They Make It?": https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-m

by brazzy 6y ago

The blog has multiple such awesome series. So far my favourite is "Bread, How Did They Make It?": https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they... Gave me a real epiphany when it explained how subsistence-farming peasants had no incentive to increase productivity because they had no way to realiably store or invest a surplus into productivity enhancements - any material asset they had could be taken away too easily. Instead they would invest a surplus into social capital by "banqueting the neighbours", which could save their lives in case of a bad harvest. And this is exactly what we see in places like Africa today and tend to belittle: people have little incentive to save and invest because there is a strong expectation that they'll share any "riches" with their friends, family and neighbours. But this is entirely rational when you live in a society not far removed from subsistence farming, threatened by civil wars and with relatively weak civic institutions: social capital is simply more reliable than material capital.

jiggawatts 6y ago
That's interesting, and it meshes well with my perspective that before modern "material wealth" really took off, the only real wealth people had was measured in calories.
- brazzy 6y ago
  It goes beyond that and into risk management, and how "material wealth" requires institutions to protect it.
- pjc50 6y ago
  "Material wealth" dates to prehistoric times, that's why we keep finding all these shiny objects in graves, including ones shipped remarkable distances. What people did with it, and the relationship between status, wealth, society, and material conditions, is a much wider field. "Banking" is continuous back to 1472: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Monte_dei_Paschi_di_Siena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Monte_dei_Paschi_di_Sien... but recognisable systems of credit existed in Roman times.
stockholm 6y ago
Goes well with the African proverb “the best way to store food is in your friend’s stomach”
- brazzy 6y ago
  Yes, it's exactly what's behind that proverb.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Attempting to paraphrase into Expanse Belter: Sekrip gut bi setashang. Kopeng mogut bi bikang. (Money is good at a station. Friends are better at a [distress] beacon.)
pjc50 6y ago
> social capital is simply more reliable than material capital. See also Amartya Sen's eye-opening Nobel-winning work on famines in the modern era; he explains these mostly in terms of social capital. They don't tend to happen in situations where the country as a whole is short of food, but in situations where a particular sector of the society is unable to make a claim (economic/political) on it.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  There is a californian saying that water flows uphill towards money. I wouldn't be surprised if the irish had an equivalent for food.
- faceplanted 6y ago
  Except a materialist would simply say that those people lack the social capital because they lack the material capital. Lack of Social Capital stopped them getting the access to the food, but those people without social capital seemingly always just _happen_ to be poor, almost as if social capital is simply a path _to_ material capital that you need to cash out into capital to actually have any power.
zeveb 6y ago
> But this is entirely rational when you live in a society not far removed from subsistence farming, threatened by civil wars and with relatively weak civic institutions: social capital is simply more reliable than material capital. Heck, I worry about that in our society as well. The generations after the Baby Boomers have not saved terribly much, and as they begin to age and retire the social pressure to support them will get higher and higher (which is good: one doesn't want folks to be indigent). But ultimately that is likely to mean legalised raids on the retirement accounts of those who did spend. Why save today if it will just be confiscated in a couple of decades? Might as well spend today and enjoy whatever one buys. Or buy portable wealth …

by brazzy 6y ago

jiggawatts 6y ago

That's interesting, and it meshes well with my perspective that before modern "material wealth" really took off, the only real wealth people had was measured in calories.

brazzy 6y ago
It goes beyond that and into risk management, and how "material wealth" requires institutions to protect it.
pjc50 6y ago
"Material wealth" dates to prehistoric times, that's why we keep finding all these shiny objects in graves, including ones shipped remarkable distances. What people did with it, and the relationship between status, wealth, society, and material conditions, is a much wider field. "Banking" is continuous back to 1472: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Monte_dei_Paschi_di_Siena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Monte_dei_Paschi_di_Sien... but recognisable systems of credit existed in Roman times.

stockholm 6y ago

Goes well with the African proverb “the best way to store food is in your friend’s stomach”

brazzy 6y ago
Yes, it's exactly what's behind that proverb.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Attempting to paraphrase into Expanse Belter: Sekrip gut bi setashang. Kopeng mogut bi bikang. (Money is good at a station. Friends are better at a [distress] beacon.)

pjc50 6y ago

> social capital is simply more reliable than material capital. See also Amartya Sen's eye-opening Nobel-winning work on famines in the modern era; he explains these mostly in terms of social capital. They don't tend to happen in situations where the country as a whole is short of food, but in situations where a particular sector of the society is unable to make a claim (economic/political) on it.

082349872349872 6y ago
There is a californian saying that water flows uphill towards money. I wouldn't be surprised if the irish had an equivalent for food.
faceplanted 6y ago
Except a materialist would simply say that those people lack the social capital because they lack the material capital. Lack of Social Capital stopped them getting the access to the food, but those people without social capital seemingly always just _happen_ to be poor, almost as if social capital is simply a path _to_ material capital that you need to cash out into capital to actually have any power.

zeveb 6y ago

> But this is entirely rational when you live in a society not far removed from subsistence farming, threatened by civil wars and with relatively weak civic institutions: social capital is simply more reliable than material capital. Heck, I worry about that in our society as well. The generations after the Baby Boomers have not saved terribly much, and as they begin to age and retire the social pressure to support them will get higher and higher (which is good: one doesn't want folks to be indigent). But ultimately that is likely to mean legalised raids on the retirement accounts of those who did spend. Why save today if it will just be confiscated in a couple of decades? Might as well spend today and enjoy whatever one buys. Or buy portable wealth …