6 ms·

Comparing economic inequality between the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty

67 points by gradus_ad 2y ago

yanko 2y ago
Empire start declining when empire interest payment on its debt start exceeding its military budget
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Empire start declining when empire interest payment on its debt start exceeding its military budget Not relevant to the ancient Romans or Han.
- vintermann 2y ago
  Interest payment to who?
epicureanideal 2y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Sounds like our elites should put some limits on themselves America's 1% owns around a third of its assets [1]. We'd have to more than double that rate to approach ancient Rome. We have problems with income inequality and political stability in the West. They are probably not informed by this comparison. [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-the-1s-share-of-u-s-wealth-over-time-1989-2024/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-the-1s-share-of-...
  - gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
    Given different bases (inevitable), it's easier to compare the Gini coeffs directly (though maybe no less misleading because of scale distortions) From TFA: The Roman Empire scored 0.46 and Han China scored 0.48. ... currently the Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 0.41.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      It’s comparing social positions in ancient societies, including one where a grain dole was the revolutionary social service, with income today. TFA isn’t the original source.
      - gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
        Your link gives the Gini for US : 0.413
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        TFA states “the researchers used a social table, which categorizes people by social position along with associated incomes” to estimate Roman and Han Gini coëfficients. The Gini being calculated for that era isn’t meant to be compared to the modern metric because it’s a different measure; the researchers were careful in couching this in a way the article is not.
        gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
        Aha I see source of the misunderstanding the original paper's IER is absolutely meant to be compared across eras. (It tries to correct for the distortions of Gini I mentioned above) Tiny bit of bad faith, IER for US is ~0.41(!), much less extractive than Han or Rome. IER is not covered by visualcapitalist.com which hints that they are not a totally good faith source as well..
- beloch 2y ago
  Roman elites were more like mafia bosses from "The Godfather" than princes. They typically started their day by hearing the petitions of those who were dependent on them. Roman elites were expected to compete with one another to produce public works, give handouts, and put on extravagant games. They were expected to serve in a sequence of public, military, and religious offices. Failure to do so could get their whole family drummed out of elite circles. Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public. Individuals who exploited the system to an extreme degree to amass wealth (e.g. Marcus Licinius Crassus) could tarnish their reputation. However, even Crassus died in military service trying (very dumbly) to attain the military glory that was expected of roman elites. In the modern world, pretty much all responsibilities that the Roman elite served now rest on governments. Billionaires are free to amass obscene wealth with almost no social responsibility. There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses. Today's system works only if the rich pay their taxes and governments regulate them to prevent excesses on the level Crassus was famous for. The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes and are subverting government power to free themselves of regulations. In the case of some countries, the rich are even seizing the reigns of power and undermining fundamental state institutions. It's a recipe for revolution.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public Roman elites made their big bucks through governorships (corruption) and campaign (conquest). > There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. > rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes* Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. > It's a recipe for revolution To the extent we are, it’s towards an imperial transition where the elites take a greater share.
    - 2y ago
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Could. Beware of trying to read modern political topics in ancient history. It is a trend that never goes out of fashion, but complicates understanding of really distant times and polities. Both Han China and the Roman Empire were fairly long-lived entities. The US hasn't even made it yet to half of Han China's lifespan, and maybe an eighth of the Roman state lifespan (too many people don't realize that Byzantium was a Roman state). Deriving lessons from their longevity is tricky, though. The structure of the economy changed profoundly in the meantime. For example, in absence of engines, every old empire would require a large body of non-free labour to even exist. Literacy and easier sharing of information is yet another thing that happened in the meantime. For example, country-wide rebellions are feasible, even though not necessarily more successful. If Spartacus could broadcast his message all over the Empire, his revolt could have ended up very differently. We take it for granted that continent-wide politics is basically synchronous. That wasn't the case when it took months to reach the outskirts of the realm. An eager outpost commander could start a war without the metropolis even knowing, much less condoning his action.
lolc 2y ago
Fun thing to study and read about. The differences are quite small though. Wouldn't the error bars dwarf the differences? I'd assume you could tweak various assumptions and easily arrive at another conclusion. I know that the Romans were good at record keeping for their time. But I understand the best population estimates for the Roman empire are based on economic metrics like agricultural modeling which in turn must make assumptions about wealth distribution. As for the Han, I don't think they've left us a complete census either. To quote "How Many People? Ancient Demography" [0]: > We generally estimate uncounted women, children and elderly males by using demographic modeling based on model life tables – data tables which project mortality simulations based on real-world populations. But how do you know what tables to use? The answer here has typically been that you comb the evidence you have (grave inscriptions, fragmentary census records that survive in Egypt) to create a statistical snapshot of your population and then try to match that, as best you can, to one of the extant models that ‘best fits.’ [...] > That leaves the question of how many enslaved persons and those too poor to be counted in some of our figures. [0] https://acoup.blog/2023/12/22/collections-how-many-people-ancient-demography/ https://acoup.blog/2023/12/22/collections-how-many-people-an...
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  If the culture in question inhumates their dead, there is some chance to map the real structure of the population from excavated cemeteries. Exceptions still apply (executed criminals or suicides were often buried around the gallows instead of in cemeteries), but this is still a reasonable way to sample populations. Cultures that prefer cremation, uh, that gets really complicated. We can't tell female ashes from male, nor tell the age of the deceased from them, even if the urn makes it through the centuries unscathed. And with cultures that prefer more destructive burials (e.g. Parsis, where the dead are eaten by carrion fowl), there is basically zero chance.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Pre-Christian Rome tended to burn their dead, so no such luck.
Y_Y 2y ago
Is there some assumption here that inequality is bad? Or that there's some ideal number? Or that there's a meaningful comparison with modern economies? I see "inequality" as a concept like "uncertainty", it can be pointed to as the source of social and economic issues, but only is undesirable that rain is seen as undesirable weather. Nobody likes being on the wrong end of these, but they are inevitable and natural (to some extent) and I think we're better off trying to acheive a society that works with an equilibrium wealth distribution. Umbrellas rather than weather control machines.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  Yes. Massive inequality is bad.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- RivieraKid 2y ago
  The main argument against consumption inequality is that it's suboptimal in terms of average happiness / utility / well-being. If I spend $1M per month and transfer $1k of that spending to someone who spends $1k per month, average well-being would increase. In the US, the top 10% are responsible for 50% of consumption. This means that higher redistribution can increase the spending of the bottom 90% by X% at the cost of decreasing the spending of the top 10% by X% (assuming no decrease in total production). Of course, redistribution has negative effects too, I don't know what level of redistribution is optimal.
  - moonlet 2y ago
    Well as shown by the original Communists, total redistribution just lets greedy people on the inside skim off the top. A taxation system with a properly constructed social safety net on the other hand, which is what I think you’re describing, is one where the wealthiest pay in the most and the least wealthy receive sufficient aid to get by.
- findthewords 2y ago
Telemakhos 2y ago
In the first two maps, there seems to be little difference between income per capita and income inequality: the regions with greater per capita income also show greater inequality. Is this because some people always end up at zero no matter the region, so that increasing per capita income from X (lower) to Y (higher) stretches the ranges of income from zero to Y and thus increases disparity?

67 points by gradus_ad 2y ago

yanko 2y ago

Empire start declining when empire interest payment on its debt start exceeding its military budget

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Empire start declining when empire interest payment on its debt start exceeding its military budget Not relevant to the ancient Romans or Han.
vintermann 2y ago
Interest payment to who?

epicureanideal 2y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Sounds like our elites should put some limits on themselves America's 1% owns around a third of its assets [1]. We'd have to more than double that rate to approach ancient Rome. We have problems with income inequality and political stability in the West. They are probably not informed by this comparison. [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-the-1s-share-of-u-s-wealth-over-time-1989-2024/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-the-1s-share-of-...
- gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
  Given different bases (inevitable), it's easier to compare the Gini coeffs directly (though maybe no less misleading because of scale distortions) From TFA: The Roman Empire scored 0.46 and Han China scored 0.48. ... currently the Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 0.41.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    It’s comparing social positions in ancient societies, including one where a grain dole was the revolutionary social service, with income today. TFA isn’t the original source.
    - gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
      Your link gives the Gini for US : 0.413
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        TFA states “the researchers used a social table, which categorizes people by social position along with associated incomes” to estimate Roman and Han Gini coëfficients. The Gini being calculated for that era isn’t meant to be compared to the modern metric because it’s a different measure; the researchers were careful in couching this in a way the article is not.
        gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
        Aha I see source of the misunderstanding the original paper's IER is absolutely meant to be compared across eras. (It tries to correct for the distortions of Gini I mentioned above) Tiny bit of bad faith, IER for US is ~0.41(!), much less extractive than Han or Rome. IER is not covered by visualcapitalist.com which hints that they are not a totally good faith source as well..
beloch 2y ago
Roman elites were more like mafia bosses from "The Godfather" than princes. They typically started their day by hearing the petitions of those who were dependent on them. Roman elites were expected to compete with one another to produce public works, give handouts, and put on extravagant games. They were expected to serve in a sequence of public, military, and religious offices. Failure to do so could get their whole family drummed out of elite circles. Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public. Individuals who exploited the system to an extreme degree to amass wealth (e.g. Marcus Licinius Crassus) could tarnish their reputation. However, even Crassus died in military service trying (very dumbly) to attain the military glory that was expected of roman elites. In the modern world, pretty much all responsibilities that the Roman elite served now rest on governments. Billionaires are free to amass obscene wealth with almost no social responsibility. There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses. Today's system works only if the rich pay their taxes and governments regulate them to prevent excesses on the level Crassus was famous for. The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes and are subverting government power to free themselves of regulations. In the case of some countries, the rich are even seizing the reigns of power and undermining fundamental state institutions. It's a recipe for revolution.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public Roman elites made their big bucks through governorships (corruption) and campaign (conquest). > There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. > rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes* Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. > It's a recipe for revolution To the extent we are, it’s towards an imperial transition where the elites take a greater share.
  - 2y ago
inglor_cz 2y ago
Could. Beware of trying to read modern political topics in ancient history. It is a trend that never goes out of fashion, but complicates understanding of really distant times and polities. Both Han China and the Roman Empire were fairly long-lived entities. The US hasn't even made it yet to half of Han China's lifespan, and maybe an eighth of the Roman state lifespan (too many people don't realize that Byzantium was a Roman state). Deriving lessons from their longevity is tricky, though. The structure of the economy changed profoundly in the meantime. For example, in absence of engines, every old empire would require a large body of non-free labour to even exist. Literacy and easier sharing of information is yet another thing that happened in the meantime. For example, country-wide rebellions are feasible, even though not necessarily more successful. If Spartacus could broadcast his message all over the Empire, his revolt could have ended up very differently. We take it for granted that continent-wide politics is basically synchronous. That wasn't the case when it took months to reach the outskirts of the realm. An eager outpost commander could start a war without the metropolis even knowing, much less condoning his action.

lolc 2y ago

Fun thing to study and read about. The differences are quite small though. Wouldn't the error bars dwarf the differences? I'd assume you could tweak various assumptions and easily arrive at another conclusion. I know that the Romans were good at record keeping for their time. But I understand the best population estimates for the Roman empire are based on economic metrics like agricultural modeling which in turn must make assumptions about wealth distribution. As for the Han, I don't think they've left us a complete census either. To quote "How Many People? Ancient Demography" [0]: > We generally estimate uncounted women, children and elderly males by using demographic modeling based on model life tables – data tables which project mortality simulations based on real-world populations. But how do you know what tables to use? The answer here has typically been that you comb the evidence you have (grave inscriptions, fragmentary census records that survive in Egypt) to create a statistical snapshot of your population and then try to match that, as best you can, to one of the extant models that ‘best fits.’ [...] > That leaves the question of how many enslaved persons and those too poor to be counted in some of our figures. [0] https://acoup.blog/2023/12/22/collections-how-many-people-ancient-demography/ https://acoup.blog/2023/12/22/collections-how-many-people-an...

inglor_cz 2y ago
If the culture in question inhumates their dead, there is some chance to map the real structure of the population from excavated cemeteries. Exceptions still apply (executed criminals or suicides were often buried around the gallows instead of in cemeteries), but this is still a reasonable way to sample populations. Cultures that prefer cremation, uh, that gets really complicated. We can't tell female ashes from male, nor tell the age of the deceased from them, even if the urn makes it through the centuries unscathed. And with cultures that prefer more destructive burials (e.g. Parsis, where the dead are eaten by carrion fowl), there is basically zero chance.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Pre-Christian Rome tended to burn their dead, so no such luck.

Y_Y 2y ago

Is there some assumption here that inequality is bad? Or that there's some ideal number? Or that there's a meaningful comparison with modern economies? I see "inequality" as a concept like "uncertainty", it can be pointed to as the source of social and economic issues, but only is undesirable that rain is seen as undesirable weather. Nobody likes being on the wrong end of these, but they are inevitable and natural (to some extent) and I think we're better off trying to acheive a society that works with an equilibrium wealth distribution. Umbrellas rather than weather control machines.

idiotsecant 2y ago
Yes. Massive inequality is bad.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
RivieraKid 2y ago
The main argument against consumption inequality is that it's suboptimal in terms of average happiness / utility / well-being. If I spend $1M per month and transfer $1k of that spending to someone who spends $1k per month, average well-being would increase. In the US, the top 10% are responsible for 50% of consumption. This means that higher redistribution can increase the spending of the bottom 90% by X% at the cost of decreasing the spending of the top 10% by X% (assuming no decrease in total production). Of course, redistribution has negative effects too, I don't know what level of redistribution is optimal.
- moonlet 2y ago
  Well as shown by the original Communists, total redistribution just lets greedy people on the inside skim off the top. A taxation system with a properly constructed social safety net on the other hand, which is what I think you’re describing, is one where the wealthiest pay in the most and the least wealthy receive sufficient aid to get by.
findthewords 2y ago

Telemakhos 2y ago

In the first two maps, there seems to be little difference between income per capita and income inequality: the regions with greater per capita income also show greater inequality. Is this because some people always end up at zero no matter the region, so that increasing per capita income from X (lower) to Y (higher) stretches the ranges of income from zero to Y and thus increases disparity?