Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 11, 2018 14:33:59 GMT
We tend to associate the Adam Smith-ian ideals of economic freedom, self-regulating markets and opposition to government meddling with capitalism's emergence in 18th and 19th Century Europe. But is it possible for Classical Economics (or some like-minded school of thought) to have come about in a much different time and place than that--and what would've been the implications of such a game-changing PoD? Thank you in advance, Zyobot |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 11, 2018 15:51:12 GMT
Hmm, that's a difficult one. It requires not only a certain economic state (you need some kind of capitalistic economics), but also a way of thinking. My instinct tells me that perhaps the Hellenistic philosophers could have developed simething vaguely similar, but they lacked that kind of situation and, of course, the interest. The Romans however were different. It might very well have been possible for someone there to develop such thinking, which would have clashed with the economic foundations of the state, so it would probably have been mostly ignored.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 11, 2018 16:29:24 GMT
Hmm, that's a difficult one. It requires not only a certain economic state (you need some kind of capitalistic economics), but also a way of thinking. My instinct tells me that perhaps the Hellenistic philosophers could have developed simething vaguely similar, but they lacked that kind of situation and, of course, the interest. The Romans however were different. It might very well have been possible for someone there to develop such thinking, which would have clashed with the economic foundations of the state, so it would probably have been mostly ignored. Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about them, but I wonder if Carthage could've been the birthplace of some Classical Economics equivalent. From what I've read, they seemed to have been a notably "capitalistic", merchantry-oriented society; so I think that if any people from that point in time were to foster and spread a pro-free trade, (more) Adam Smith-ian school of thought, it'd probably be the Carthaginians. But I don't know enough to be so sure about that. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 11, 2018 16:40:06 GMT
Hmm, that's a difficult one. It requires not only a certain economic state (you need some kind of capitalistic economics), but also a way of thinking. My instinct tells me that perhaps the Hellenistic philosophers could have developed simething vaguely similar, but they lacked that kind of situation and, of course, the interest. The Romans however were different. It might very well have been possible for someone there to develop such thinking, which would have clashed with the economic foundations of the state, so it would probably have been mostly ignored. Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about them, but I wonder if Carthage could've been the birthplace of some Classical Economics equivalent. From what I've read, they seemed to have been a notably "capitalistic", merchantry-oriented society; so I think that if any people from that point in time were to foster and spread a pro-free trade, (more) Adam Smith-ian school of thought, it'd probably be the Carthaginians. But I don't know enough to be so sure about that. Now that you mention it, some kind of Phoenician capitalism might actually work. Of course, one of the issues that all these city-states suffered from was the very close connection between the state and the rich. They basically also were the rulers, and weren't above using the government for their own interests. But then again, the Phoenician network could have developed something like that. It would probably work better if there were multiple roughly equal cities involved, such as Tyr and the like, but those could perhaps have shown a little more care in dealing with Alexander, and that would have spared them significant issues. And now I'm thinking about a timeline there. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 12, 2018 1:48:04 GMT
Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about them, but I wonder if Carthage could've been the birthplace of some Classical Economics equivalent. From what I've read, they seemed to have been a notably "capitalistic", merchantry-oriented society; so I think that if any people from that point in time were to foster and spread a pro-free trade, (more) Adam Smith-ian school of thought, it'd probably be the Carthaginians. But I don't know enough to be so sure about that. Now that you mention it, some kind of Phoenician capitalism might actually work. Of course, one of the issues that all these city-states suffered from was the very close connection between the state and the rich. They basically also were the rulers, and weren't above using the government for their own interests. But then again, the Phoenician network could have developed something like that. It would probably work better if there were multiple roughly equal cities involved, such as Tyr and the like, but those could perhaps have shown a little more care in dealing with Alexander, and that would have spared them significant issues. And now I'm thinking about a timeline there. That's good to hear, I'm interested in what you eventually come up with.
From what I've read so far, trading was a signature economic activity for them. And the popularity of Phoenician goods across a wide breadth of the ancient world, combined with their society wanting to keep the commerce going and thus avoid giving other powers reason to enact tariffs, seems likely to generate the needed support for free trade, as is a staple of OTL Classical Economics.
You'd likely know more than me on the subject, however.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 12, 2018 10:18:49 GMT
Now that you mention it, some kind of Phoenician capitalism might actually work. Of course, one of the issues that all these city-states suffered from was the very close connection between the state and the rich. They basically also were the rulers, and weren't above using the government for their own interests. But then again, the Phoenician network could have developed something like that. It would probably work better if there were multiple roughly equal cities involved, such as Tyr and the like, but those could perhaps have shown a little more care in dealing with Alexander, and that would have spared them significant issues. And now I'm thinking about a timeline there. That's good to hear, I'm interested in what you eventually come up with.
From what I've read so far, trading was a signature economic activity for them. And the popularity of Phoenician goods across a wide breadth of the ancient world, combined with their society wanting to keep the commerce going and thus avoid giving other powers reason to enact tariffs, seems likely to generate the needed support for free trade, as is a staple of OTL Classical Economics.
You'd likely know more than me on the subject, however.
The way the economies were organised would indeed be a massive problem. There wasn't really a division between the merchant class and the like and government. But still, a coalition of city states could try to enforce something similar to free trade, at least for their merchants. That however quickly runs into the issue that others might object, and the Phoenicians never had the military power to do something about that. There however is a solution, albeit a blunt one. If something like free trade came into existence in the Phoenician cities, the Persians might be convinced that it's doing some good. If early Persian kings were convinced (very hard, but possible), you could have it spread as an idea, giving it the time and space to develop further. The Achaemenids didn't overly involve themselves with local affairs, so they might help out there. My personal knowledge is mostly about the Hellenistic kingdoms, and specifically the Ptolemies. They were the ultimate non-free trade people. Every little bit of the economy was under state control. Other Hellenistic states were less extreme, but it still was the standard for them. So, Hellenism has to either be stopped, or economic freedom must have proven to be effective under the Achaemenids to survive. |
|
kyng
Consul General
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 910
|
Post by kyng on Dec 14, 2018 17:52:40 GMT
It seems as though the emergence of Adam Smith-ian "classical economics" in late 18th-century Europe can be tied to two factors: 1) The existence of a trade-oriented economic system. This had existed in Europe since at least the Renaissance, in the form of mercantilism (and, indeed, merchant republics existed for centuries prior to the Renaissance, so this system can trace its roots back further still); 2) The Industrial Revolution, and the emergence of large-scale manufacturing enterprises (who would be the major beneficiaries of this kind of capitalistic system). That's not to say there aren't other ways for classical economics to emerge; however, I expect any place that has both of these things will see it emerging before long. It's tempting to think that, if Carthage had developed its trade-oriented economic system into something resembling mercantilism, and the Romans developed Hero's aeolipile into a proper steam engine with real-world applications (rather than treating it as a mere object of curiosity), then we could have both the factors I listed above, and classical economics would emerge in the ancient world. Of course, it's not going to be that simple  . In OTL, ancient Carthage had been dead for about 200 years by the time the aeolipile was invented - which does create massive problems for this approach. They (or someone else with a similar economic system) would probably develop classical economics once the aeolipile was: a) invented, b) developed into something useful, and c) taken there - but, the first step happened 200 years too late for Carthage, and the second and third steps never happened at all. Something tells me that a lot of stars are going to have to align here!!! |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 15, 2018 10:11:41 GMT
It seems as though the emergence of Adam Smith-ian "classical economics" in late 18th-century Europe can be tied to two factors: 1) The existence of a trade-oriented economic system. This had existed in Europe since at least the Renaissance, in the form of mercantilism (and, indeed, merchant republics existed for centuries prior to the Renaissance, so this system can trace its roots back further still); 2) The Industrial Revolution, and the emergence of large-scale manufacturing enterprises (who would be the major beneficiaries of this kind of capitalistic system). That's not to say there aren't other ways for classical economics to emerge; however, I expect any place that has both of these things will see it emerging before long. It's tempting to think that, if Carthage had developed its trade-oriented economic system into something resembling mercantilism, and the Romans developed Hero's aeolipile into a proper steam engine with real-world applications (rather than treating it as a mere object of curiosity), then we could have both the factors I listed above, and classical economics would emerge in the ancient world. Of course, it's not going to be that simple . In OTL, ancient Carthage had been dead for about 200 years by the time the aeolipile was invented - which does create massive problems for this approach. They (or someone else with a similar economic system) would probably develop classical economics once the aeolipile was: a) invented, b) developed into something useful, and c) taken there - but, the first step happened 200 years too late for Carthage, and the second and third steps never happened at all. Something tells me that a lot of stars are going to have to align here!!! I think that more primitive mass-manufacturing could also work. Some ancient cities had such industries, but of course, the main capital there was raw materials and skilled workers. We basically need a more capital-oriented style of production, where the tools are a significant cost. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 15, 2019 22:06:10 GMT
It seems as though the emergence of Adam Smith-ian "classical economics" in late 18th-century Europe can be tied to two factors: 1) The existence of a trade-oriented economic system. This had existed in Europe since at least the Renaissance, in the form of mercantilism (and, indeed, merchant republics existed for centuries prior to the Renaissance, so this system can trace its roots back further still); 2) The Industrial Revolution, and the emergence of large-scale manufacturing enterprises (who would be the major beneficiaries of this kind of capitalistic system). That's not to say there aren't other ways for classical economics to emerge; however, I expect any place that has both of these things will see it emerging before long. It's tempting to think that, if Carthage had developed its trade-oriented economic system into something resembling mercantilism, and the Romans developed Hero's aeolipile into a proper steam engine with real-world applications (rather than treating it as a mere object of curiosity), then we could have both the factors I listed above, and classical economics would emerge in the ancient world. Of course, it's not going to be that simple . In OTL, ancient Carthage had been dead for about 200 years by the time the aeolipile was invented - which does create massive problems for this approach. They (or someone else with a similar economic system) would probably develop classical economics once the aeolipile was: a) invented, b) developed into something useful, and c) taken there - but, the first step happened 200 years too late for Carthage, and the second and third steps never happened at all. Something tells me that a lot of stars are going to have to align here!!! I think that more primitive mass-manufacturing could also work. Some ancient cities had such industries, but of course, the main capital there was raw materials and skilled workers. We basically need a more capital-oriented style of production, where the tools are a significant cost. How would Ancient World-era mass production stack up against the 18/19th Century industrialization of OTL, do you think? For instance, what sorts of engineering, technological and/or logistical challenges do we run into when trying to make this scenario work? I mean, I'm sure that someone would be able to pioneer the concept of an assembly line and that other people could pick up on it as well. But designing and building actual machinery with the capabilities afforded by the Antiquity period is another issue entirely. |
|
. In OTL, ancient Carthage had been dead for about 200 years by the time the aeolipile was invented - which does create massive problems for this approach. They (or someone else with a similar economic system) would probably develop classical economics once the aeolipile was: a) invented, b) developed into something useful, and c) taken there - but, the first step happened 200 years too late for Carthage, and the second and third steps never happened at all.