Paul wrote: Interesting and thought provoking point. Perhaps a couple of comments?
1) Is the issue really "cities"? Wasn't it the twin Roman institutions of slavery and of empire that did the actual sucking of the resources? These resources were handed to an elite who *then* choose to use those resources as luxury consumption in Rome - although it seems a similar amount of resources went to "luxury consumption" on lavish rural estates, resort towns like Pompei, or "provincial" cities (Alexandria alone had a population maybe a half million). Me: I am not sure if a large city can exist without the resource deficit. Greedy cities, of course, will cause bigger deficits. Paul: If one nets out the socially "unproductive" expenditure that "happens" to be located in cities, they might turn out to be a very efficient use of resources. Me: Again, interesting. Surely eliminating unproductive expenditures, like greed, would diminish the problem of imbalance. Paul: ... Temin points out, he carried out his research precisely with the intention of refuting the slavery and "surplus" approach (pioneered by marxists like de St. Croix and a "progressives" like Finley). Temin proposes a view of Rome as a "market economy" which Temin sees as supporting Fogel and that crowd. (Temin, Journal of Roman Studies, 2001 and Working Paper MIT). Me: In the article, slavery is very benign. Workers commit themselves to slavery to get a better deal. Paul: On Temin's "graph" (posted on Michael's blog) I wonder if someone, more knowledgeable than I, would contest Temin's view of price formation in the Roman Empire. Temin says it proves the power of supply&demand in an integrated Imperial market - a high demand closer to Rome and less so in the periphery. Someone more progressive might point to the costs of production approach and an historical context: it is well known that Rome sought to conquer Egypt and other parts of the Eastern periphery precisely because they could produce and market cheap grain (to be precise, large quantities as tribute, plus cheap market prices). The Nile Valley was superbly suited to the agricultural technology of the Ancient World (one big reason why Egypt was Egypt). Spain (and to some degree Gaul) offered a different benefit -- the opportunity to establish vast new slave plantations that Italy no longer could no longer provide. Likewise one is simply more likely to find extant relevant documentation (wholesale trade) from places that were favorable producers. Temin's "proof" is a linear regression with all of 6 prices/locations! [could a lefty could get away with that at MIT?]. Me: He explains why Roman data is so scarce in the article, so that defect might be forgiven. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
