4 ms·

The final quote in the article is weird: : The idea of the market standardizing itself “fits a little too well into our modern neoliberal discourse,” he says.

The final quote in the article is weird: : The idea of the market standardizing itself “fits a little too well into our modern neoliberal discourse,” he says. “Should we really be using these terms to talk about societies which are so foreign to us?” It's an example of an apparently self-organizing market, but we can't call it a self-organizing market because that might accidentally help someone they don't like politically?

imtringued 5y ago
It's an example of globally optimal and locally optimal behavior being the same. There is no guarantee that this is always the case. It's exactly when the two differ (global vs local optimum) that the free market starts failing.
- QuesnayJr 5y ago
  What does that have to do with the quote, or my comment?
legulere 5y ago
Historians are completely right questioning using modern ideas on historical things. For a long time historians used the idea of nations to explain history even though that idea just originated in the 19th century. You can see this especially in how the views on the migration period are slowly changing. Saying ancient people trading was free market capitalism is on the same level as saying ancient people living together without money was communism.
- QuesnayJr 5y ago
  Communists actually do say that. Marx called it "primitive communism". The trend in economic history has been the opposite of what you say. In the 70s it was fashionable to emphasize how different ancient economies were from modern. See for example Moses Finley's Ancient Economy. The trend of recent scholarship has been to show that things in the old days are more like today than we thought. It's made the Industrial Revolution harder to explain, because all of the institutional details that seemed like they were important get pushed further and further back in time. Anyway, I thought the quote was odd because it was such a large worry for such a small point. It's interesting that standardized weights and measures didn't require a central government. I have trouble believing that this would radically change anyone's perception of the trade-offs between governments and markets, but the authors are clearly worried that their research is going to give ammunition to someone they don't like.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    To me it read more like they were just acknowledging that a result that fit too neatly into their modern view of the world could be shaped by their own unconscious bias. In general, I think it's safe to assume that social scientists speaking in a scientific context just literally mean "neo-liberal" when they say it, rather than any politically charged meaning.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  On the other hand, it makes no sense to pretend that ancient commerce was something totally different from modern commerce. People who were just like us took part in that, they had to fight the same problems of greed, fraud, uncertainty, force de majeure, safety of roads... the very word "market" is pretty old, probably one of the oldest in organized civilization. Markets were the killer feature of all ancient cities, at least from the citizen's point of view.
nabla9 5y ago
Very little from the ancient or medieval markets fit into the current free-market discourse. For example, it's a very common misconception to think that prices would be freely determined by supply and demand before modernity (price determination was very situational). Ancient societies had a very clear idea that inequality of bargaining power could lead to exploitation and destroy societies. "just price " does not exist in modern economics, but it was essential for ancient societies, even before ancient Greeks mentioned it. The quality of the product was an important determination for price. The seller could ask more if the product was fresh or well made. If the trader was seen exploiting scarcity to make excess profits was considered unethical and there were laws against it.
- QuesnayJr 5y ago
  Common misconception among who? Certainly not free marketers -- the classical 19th century argument is that if prices don't equalize supply and demand, then you get unmet supply or unmet demand. Or, you get the state using force to compel supply or depress demand. Look at what happened after the Black Death. In Western Europe you get wage increases. In Eastern Europe, where the aristocracy thought this was unfair, you get serfdom. When John Stuart Mill (who first clearly articulated the idea of supply and demand) said that supply and demand should be allowed to determine labor supply in the West Indies, Thomas Carlyle declared that economics was "the dismal science", and called for bringing back slavery. Look at Diocletian's "Edict on Maximum Prices", which set maximum prices in response to currency debasement. Did it work? The consensus seems to be "no". The idea of inequality in bargaining power is Econ 101, which introduces a whole plethora of terms for the phenomenon -- monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly, oligopsony, market power, etc.
thrower123 5y ago
You have to remember that most historians and archeologists are leftists, if not explicit marxists.

imtringued 5y ago

It's an example of globally optimal and locally optimal behavior being the same. There is no guarantee that this is always the case. It's exactly when the two differ (global vs local optimum) that the free market starts failing.

QuesnayJr 5y ago
What does that have to do with the quote, or my comment?

legulere 5y ago

Historians are completely right questioning using modern ideas on historical things. For a long time historians used the idea of nations to explain history even though that idea just originated in the 19th century. You can see this especially in how the views on the migration period are slowly changing. Saying ancient people trading was free market capitalism is on the same level as saying ancient people living together without money was communism.

QuesnayJr 5y ago
Communists actually do say that. Marx called it "primitive communism". The trend in economic history has been the opposite of what you say. In the 70s it was fashionable to emphasize how different ancient economies were from modern. See for example Moses Finley's Ancient Economy. The trend of recent scholarship has been to show that things in the old days are more like today than we thought. It's made the Industrial Revolution harder to explain, because all of the institutional details that seemed like they were important get pushed further and further back in time. Anyway, I thought the quote was odd because it was such a large worry for such a small point. It's interesting that standardized weights and measures didn't require a central government. I have trouble believing that this would radically change anyone's perception of the trade-offs between governments and markets, but the authors are clearly worried that their research is going to give ammunition to someone they don't like.
- Talanes 5y ago
  To me it read more like they were just acknowledging that a result that fit too neatly into their modern view of the world could be shaped by their own unconscious bias. In general, I think it's safe to assume that social scientists speaking in a scientific context just literally mean "neo-liberal" when they say it, rather than any politically charged meaning.
inglor_cz 5y ago
On the other hand, it makes no sense to pretend that ancient commerce was something totally different from modern commerce. People who were just like us took part in that, they had to fight the same problems of greed, fraud, uncertainty, force de majeure, safety of roads... the very word "market" is pretty old, probably one of the oldest in organized civilization. Markets were the killer feature of all ancient cities, at least from the citizen's point of view.

nabla9 5y ago

Very little from the ancient or medieval markets fit into the current free-market discourse. For example, it's a very common misconception to think that prices would be freely determined by supply and demand before modernity (price determination was very situational). Ancient societies had a very clear idea that inequality of bargaining power could lead to exploitation and destroy societies. "just price " does not exist in modern economics, but it was essential for ancient societies, even before ancient Greeks mentioned it. The quality of the product was an important determination for price. The seller could ask more if the product was fresh or well made. If the trader was seen exploiting scarcity to make excess profits was considered unethical and there were laws against it.

QuesnayJr 5y ago
Common misconception among who? Certainly not free marketers -- the classical 19th century argument is that if prices don't equalize supply and demand, then you get unmet supply or unmet demand. Or, you get the state using force to compel supply or depress demand. Look at what happened after the Black Death. In Western Europe you get wage increases. In Eastern Europe, where the aristocracy thought this was unfair, you get serfdom. When John Stuart Mill (who first clearly articulated the idea of supply and demand) said that supply and demand should be allowed to determine labor supply in the West Indies, Thomas Carlyle declared that economics was "the dismal science", and called for bringing back slavery. Look at Diocletian's "Edict on Maximum Prices", which set maximum prices in response to currency debasement. Did it work? The consensus seems to be "no". The idea of inequality in bargaining power is Econ 101, which introduces a whole plethora of terms for the phenomenon -- monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly, oligopsony, market power, etc.

thrower123 5y ago

You have to remember that most historians and archeologists are leftists, if not explicit marxists.