3 ms·

It's more complex than that. The cost of slaves is non-zero regardless of how you shoulder the burden of them; feeding, keeping them in line, giving them tools

It's more complex than that. The cost of slaves is non-zero regardless of how you shoulder the burden of them; feeding, keeping them in line, giving them tools for their tasks, and so forth. What would've excluded the use of early steam engines for them would've been their higher cost versus their potential output. Plus, industrialization didn't start with the steam engine, it started with the water wheel and windmill. Whether it was grinding grain, cutting wood, or even running power hammers (some smithies were found around rivers), the industrialization effort before the steam engine was nearly three or four hundred years earlier than the official starting of the late 18th century as told in popular narratives. In fact, I believe there's evidence of industrialization in Europe happening as early as the 11th century in some countries (again, windmills and water wheels running milling and other labor intensive operations). Another problem with the Roman economy was the lack of complex financial arrangements and instruments. There wasn't any conception of the modern loan or corporate bonds in their world which are integral to the acceleration of industrialization and the growth of capitalism. Rome basically couldn't industrialize because its people and its norms were incongruent with the possibility. And even if some ancient engineer magically did create a simple two stroke engine, there wouldn't be any incentive to invest as to produce them with regularity. At most, they would've been a curiosity of the wealthy with little usage beyond some minor conveniences.

Aunche 4y ago
The Romans also didn't have paper or a printing presses, so knowledge only circulated among a relatively small population of elites.
- ladyattis 4y ago
  Yep, it's a problem that couldn't be solved in Rome as it lacked many essential tools that the so-called Industrial Revolution depended upon. I can't imagine Rome or Sassanid Persia achieving such an industrial breakthrough.
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  But was that such a big factor? After all, most of the population even in 17thC England was illiterate. Industrial innovation was, at least initially, primarily driven by a small educated elite.
notahacker 4y ago
Agreed. It's also true that the early Industrial Revolution cotton mills used slave-picked cotton, because although millions of slaves continued to exist and their produce was imported even after slavery itself was banned in Britain, slave labour couldn't possibly compete with industrial mills in output of finished goods. (And not just because the early mill workers often earned little more than the cost of procuring, securing and covering the subsistence of slaves) The UK had the tech to build mills and the financial system to fund the capital costs of building them though (and a larger, more global market to sell mass produced cotton to)
dr_dshiv 4y ago
> There wasn't any conception of the modern loan or corporate bonds in their world which are integral to the acceleration of industrialization and the growth of capitalism Yes! Great theory. Financial innovation seems as big a driver of industrialization as the discovery of coal or oil.
pookha 4y ago
Why would complex financial agreements keep the Romans from large scale automation? The motivation for something like an industrial revolution (automation) is just connectivity within an economy. If I know that the people on this island are paying 3x more for Roman ketchup than I will make 10x more ketchup and sell it for a profit on that island. I have a hard time believing that this wasn't happening all the time in Rome...The Romans had modularized home construction so that they could scale and that doesn't happen without financial incentives and some level of an industrial revolution. Rome's problem was always crony captilism and the fact that any Voltaire's that might have existed would have been violently executed by the state. Without freedom of thought you have no Industrial Revolution.
- notahacker 4y ago
  If the large scale automation involves technology research and Colosseum-sized capital investments like the Industrial Revolution did, you either need the state or its wealthiest citizens to be interested, or complex financial arrangements for the people that are interested in pursuing that to be able to raise funds A lot of Rome's more ingenious feats of engineering were geared towards military uses or grand public works in the name of Emperors and aristocrats. There wasn't really the same infrastructure for smart engineers that dreamed they could become wealthy from researching and building a new process for making garments at a lower cost (and they were missing lots of intermediate improvements the British had). Ancient Rome had more freedom of thought than, say, modern China, but a lot less entrepreneurial culture.
- ladyattis 4y ago
  >Why would complex financial agreements keep the Romans from large scale automation? Because the ability to amortize your costs is a boon for outpacing smaller firms. Basically, the more cash you can get your hands on that you can defer the lump sum payment on the more you can build out and thus the more you can produce. It basically becomes a positive feedback loop (this includes state subsidies indirect and direct which I'll leave as a generalized foundation for the sake of a clearer argument). >The Romans had modularized home construction so that they could scale and that doesn't happen without financial incentives and some level of an industrial revolution. Modularity was born out of the immediate demand for the product (housing). Note that modern, capitalist, economies build on the basis of volume whether it's housing, smart phones, clothes, and so on. And it can do this due to the fact that costs are amortized over the payment of debt along with the state subsidization as mentioned. Essentially, capitalism fuels itself through debt and state based subsidies (ex. interstate highways subsidize trucking yielding higher profits than would be possible if interstate highways were wholly private). This includes the inducement of markets (ex. prior to the trans-continental railroad the US markets were regional at best and most international trade was by sea for commodities such as cotton, gold, or ores). Also, Roman upper class had no social need to turn their profits into more profits. They would often build themselves villas, have lavish feasts, and many other temporary luxuries in their place as their social standing was more based in that than in sheer monetary/accounting wealth. >Rome's problem was always crony capitalism and the fact that any Voltaire's that might have existed would have been violently executed by the state. Without freedom of thought you have no Industrial Revolution. This here is your primary error, capitalism did not exist prior to the the 17th century (merchant capitalism) at the earliest. Yes, there were loans but nothing to the complexity or legal arrangements that even a modern small business loan has in terms of legal and social dimensions. Today, debts can be carried by corporate entities. In the past though, loans were only to be held by the person or people who agreed to them. It was a rare concept that loans or debts could be owned by someone else (ex. one nation conquering another taking on their debts which is a new concept) which is an important construct for financial capitalism to emerge from industrial capitalism.
w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 4y ago
"And even if some ancient engineer magically did create a simple two stroke engine, there wouldn't be any incentive to invest as to produce them with regularity. At most, they would've been a curiosity of the wealthy with little usage beyond some minor conveniences." To confirm this, ancient greeks invented a simple steam turbine, and was regarded as a "party trick". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Aunche 4y ago

The Romans also didn't have paper or a printing presses, so knowledge only circulated among a relatively small population of elites.

ladyattis 4y ago
Yep, it's a problem that couldn't be solved in Rome as it lacked many essential tools that the so-called Industrial Revolution depended upon. I can't imagine Rome or Sassanid Persia achieving such an industrial breakthrough.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
But was that such a big factor? After all, most of the population even in 17thC England was illiterate. Industrial innovation was, at least initially, primarily driven by a small educated elite.

notahacker 4y ago

Agreed. It's also true that the early Industrial Revolution cotton mills used slave-picked cotton, because although millions of slaves continued to exist and their produce was imported even after slavery itself was banned in Britain, slave labour couldn't possibly compete with industrial mills in output of finished goods. (And not just because the early mill workers often earned little more than the cost of procuring, securing and covering the subsistence of slaves) The UK had the tech to build mills and the financial system to fund the capital costs of building them though (and a larger, more global market to sell mass produced cotton to)

dr_dshiv 4y ago

> There wasn't any conception of the modern loan or corporate bonds in their world which are integral to the acceleration of industrialization and the growth of capitalism Yes! Great theory. Financial innovation seems as big a driver of industrialization as the discovery of coal or oil.

pookha 4y ago

Why would complex financial agreements keep the Romans from large scale automation? The motivation for something like an industrial revolution (automation) is just connectivity within an economy. If I know that the people on this island are paying 3x more for Roman ketchup than I will make 10x more ketchup and sell it for a profit on that island. I have a hard time believing that this wasn't happening all the time in Rome...The Romans had modularized home construction so that they could scale and that doesn't happen without financial incentives and some level of an industrial revolution. Rome's problem was always crony captilism and the fact that any Voltaire's that might have existed would have been violently executed by the state. Without freedom of thought you have no Industrial Revolution.

notahacker 4y ago
If the large scale automation involves technology research and Colosseum-sized capital investments like the Industrial Revolution did, you either need the state or its wealthiest citizens to be interested, or complex financial arrangements for the people that are interested in pursuing that to be able to raise funds A lot of Rome's more ingenious feats of engineering were geared towards military uses or grand public works in the name of Emperors and aristocrats. There wasn't really the same infrastructure for smart engineers that dreamed they could become wealthy from researching and building a new process for making garments at a lower cost (and they were missing lots of intermediate improvements the British had). Ancient Rome had more freedom of thought than, say, modern China, but a lot less entrepreneurial culture.
ladyattis 4y ago
>Why would complex financial agreements keep the Romans from large scale automation? Because the ability to amortize your costs is a boon for outpacing smaller firms. Basically, the more cash you can get your hands on that you can defer the lump sum payment on the more you can build out and thus the more you can produce. It basically becomes a positive feedback loop (this includes state subsidies indirect and direct which I'll leave as a generalized foundation for the sake of a clearer argument). >The Romans had modularized home construction so that they could scale and that doesn't happen without financial incentives and some level of an industrial revolution. Modularity was born out of the immediate demand for the product (housing). Note that modern, capitalist, economies build on the basis of volume whether it's housing, smart phones, clothes, and so on. And it can do this due to the fact that costs are amortized over the payment of debt along with the state subsidization as mentioned. Essentially, capitalism fuels itself through debt and state based subsidies (ex. interstate highways subsidize trucking yielding higher profits than would be possible if interstate highways were wholly private). This includes the inducement of markets (ex. prior to the trans-continental railroad the US markets were regional at best and most international trade was by sea for commodities such as cotton, gold, or ores). Also, Roman upper class had no social need to turn their profits into more profits. They would often build themselves villas, have lavish feasts, and many other temporary luxuries in their place as their social standing was more based in that than in sheer monetary/accounting wealth. >Rome's problem was always crony capitalism and the fact that any Voltaire's that might have existed would have been violently executed by the state. Without freedom of thought you have no Industrial Revolution. This here is your primary error, capitalism did not exist prior to the the 17th century (merchant capitalism) at the earliest. Yes, there were loans but nothing to the complexity or legal arrangements that even a modern small business loan has in terms of legal and social dimensions. Today, debts can be carried by corporate entities. In the past though, loans were only to be held by the person or people who agreed to them. It was a rare concept that loans or debts could be owned by someone else (ex. one nation conquering another taking on their debts which is a new concept) which is an important construct for financial capitalism to emerge from industrial capitalism.

w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 4y ago

"And even if some ancient engineer magically did create a simple two stroke engine, there wouldn't be any incentive to invest as to produce them with regularity. At most, they would've been a curiosity of the wealthy with little usage beyond some minor conveniences." To confirm this, ancient greeks invented a simple steam turbine, and was regarded as a "party trick". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile