StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One idea that has been discussed numerous times is the idea of giving some premodern civilization, fictional or real, access to either modern technology or technology more advanced than they have (giving the romans muskets and suchlike). However one idea I though of would be what if we refined those civilizations conceptions of economics.

Lets say someone goes back to the Roman Empire, medieval India, Song dynasty China, Sengoku Japan or whatever and gives to a few hundred prominent thinkers as well as merchants and officials tasked with finance in those areas copies of a book translated into the native language of the time on the subject of economic theory, basically outlying what you would get in modern Intro to Micro/Macroeconomics textbooks (although without listing the history of OTL economic thinkers such as Smith, Keynes, Marshall and so forth), translated as needed and including graphs to illustrate ideas such as opportunity costs, production probability curves, the laws of supply and demand, externalities and so forth.

Would a book containing such insights accelerate humanity's development/the development of said civilization or would it just be a curiosity?

Zor

If you could make policy-makers believe what they were reading it might have beneficial effects in certain basic ways.

For example, governments that historically had major problems of inefficiency associated with the way they minted/printed currency (like imperial China during parts of its history) might well stop and rethink, resulting in less disruption of the Chinese economy caused by unpredictable currency issues.

[I can cite and explain where I'm getting this from in more detail; the short form is that it's mostly from the book 1491 by Charles Mann]

On the other hand, in a lot of other respects just understanding economics isn't enough to get you out of the low-income 'trap' state that pre-modern economies occupied. You need certain technologies to be in play. You need a surplus that not only exists most of the time, but exists all of the time, so that you can be reasonably sure no famine will result from you diverting effort away from life-sustaining pursuits (like agriculture) to more 'optional' pursuits (like mass producing goods).

To be somewhat glib, considering the general incompetence demonstrated by modern economists this century, they'd probably end up causing complete and utter economic collapse and the books would be burned on a bonfire.

Sarcastically, I'd say nothing would happen because it's not like modern world leaders pay attention or act upon good economic theory.

It may be problematic because certain things in economics happen because a, society operates that way and b, society operates that way because certain technologies allow it.

well, if you can convince the Spanish government that bad money drives out good you could avoid the rape of the Americas, saving millions

I suspect things would still proceed along horrible lines, but the mass death would be somewhat decreased without the huge consumption of slaves in the gold and silver mines.

I'm completely useless at economics for the most part so bear with me:

Does modern economics require higher level math that would be largely outside the scope of most cultures before the 1800s, i.e. Rome, Greece, medieval Spain, the HRE, etc? Or can it be explained in small words for the most part?

madd0ct0r wrote:well, if you can convince the Spanish government that bad money drives out good you could avoid the rape of the Americas, saving millions

Given how a large portion of the gold went to matters of national survival (in fact, most of it in the 16th century), like financing wars against the rest of Europe, it wouldn't matter. The gold was needed now to pay for the wars. Without it, the Spanish Empire would have fallen within a generation.

If the choice is "let enemies ravage your land" or "ravage the land of others in order to survive, though it may have adverse consequences in the future because this one book says so" it is a very easy choice for any state.

**********************
As to the others, it does not matter. Production will always limit what theory can do and this will not do anything to change the basic limits imposed by pre-industrial production. It might make a bit of a difference in Rome because it is the closest to a globalized and industrialized economy you get before the UK went off after conquering India, but in the end, it is not as if that economy was already rolling at highest efficiencies seen until the 18th century. So...not much one can do.

So a more useful product for pre-modern societies would be books detailing the technology and applications thereof of the transitional period between pre-industrial and industrial eras?

Elheru Aran wrote:So a more useful product for pre-modern societies would be books detailing the technology and applications thereof of the transitional period between pre-industrial and industrial eras?

Maybe, but even then you need the resources and tech base to transform that into reality. Considering that technological process was pretty much a process of many steps building on each other....I mean, if you give a manual on how to build a steam engine to a smith from Rome, he could probably built it. And then what would it power?

Mines? Meh, Rome has plenty of surface mining and strip mining already accessible.
Railroads? Whole other level of technology. That might actually be the most interesting to Romans. And maybe there is just enough steel and Iron to do so on a theoretical level.
But- that steel and iron is already used for other things. Things like buildings. And equipping the military. And consumer goods etc. pp.
What do you cut?
And it is not just railroads. You need the whole support infrastructure. Even more importantly, you need to be able to guard the tracks or locals/barbarians will just steal the iron. And you need industrial-grade steel. Good luck with that.

Elheru Aran wrote:I'm completely useless at economics for the most part so bear with me:

Does modern economics require higher level math that would be largely outside the scope of most cultures before the 1800s, i.e. Rome, Greece, medieval Spain, the HRE, etc? Or can it be explained in small words for the most part?

I actually did some informal research on this matter in the past. The number of published papers actually using what you would deem to be higher math can be counted on fingers and as far as I know none of these has been in any way influential; they would be mostly fine with 17th century math.

A more significant problem might be the widespread usage of computational models that require vast amounts of simple calculations, since they will not have access to computers.

If everyone involved (in, for example, Rome) believed in the economics papers and honestly wanted to use the ideas therein about how to expand/glorify/strengthen Rome, it might make a difference. Because while Thanas correctly points out that the Romans did not invent the Industrial Revolution for many good reasons, it is possible that some if not all of those factors might have been overcome if the Romans had known what they were trying to do.

If they had been thinking of economic capital in an abstract sense, rather than thinking of wealth in terms of 'land' or 'gold' or one of a few other specific commodities. If they had been able to persuade their most influential and wealthy men to invest in new economic enterprises. They did, after all, have plenty of scholars and engineers.

However, this would require not only supplying the ancient Romans with the texts, but somehow using magic mind control to convince them everything in the texts is right, even when it contradicts centuries-old cultural traditions.

Similar objections apply in ancient or medieval China, or in other places where a relatively strong economy existed.

the chinese case is interesting, as there was a period they experimented with paper money, and suffered crippling inflation from it.
It was also a case for both Rome* and China* and most of human society that the role of merchant was looked down on compared to the zero sum warriors.



*I'm so going to have my ass handed to me on this one

Elheru Aran wrote:I'm completely useless at economics for the most part so bear with me:

Does modern economics require higher level math that would be largely outside the scope of most cultures before the 1800s, i.e. Rome, Greece, medieval Spain, the HRE, etc? Or can it be explained in small words for the most part?

Yes. Modern economic theory makes heavy use of functions and derivatives - concepts which require an understanding of calculus, which wasn't really available pre-1600s.

Simon_Jester wrote:If everyone involved (in, for example, Rome) believed in the economics papers and honestly wanted to use the ideas therein about how to expand/glorify/strengthen Rome, it might make a difference. Because while Thanas correctly points out that the Romans did not invent the Industrial Revolution for many good reasons, it is possible that some if not all of those factors might have been overcome if the Romans had known what they were trying to do.

If they had been thinking of economic capital in an abstract sense, rather than thinking of wealth in terms of 'land' or 'gold' or one of a few other specific commodities. If they had been able to persuade their most influential and wealthy men to invest in new economic enterprises. They did, after all, have plenty of scholars and engineers.

The wealthy elite did invest in a lot of new economic enterprises, it is how many became wealthy in the first place. But the simple fact is that without modern insurance and modern means of productions land is the best investment there is, for it is as secure as can be and carries pretty high RoI.

Many of these groups would make offerings to their respective god or gods in hopes of favorable weather/crops. I don't know that you could get these leaders to accept modern economic or social policies until they are able to move away from their superstitious beliefs. Many of these societies didn't yet have equal treatment for women, and several still had slavery - those type of beliefs/value systems are, IMO, in direct conflict with modern economic systems...

Slavery or unequal treatment of women were not a problem. The CSA's slavocratic economy flourished, considering their agrarian "role" in the labour division and the type of product they mainly produced... well, the main product was misery, cotton the byproduct, but anyway, having even direct slavery or unequally treating humans based on race, gender etc. hasn't precluded the rise of the mightiest capitalist empires. Indeed, at some point it starts being counterproductive, but that's a rather late point. 1800s are a very long way from the type of civilization we're talking about.

biostem wrote:Many of these groups would make offerings to their respective god or gods in hopes of favorable weather/crops. I don't know that you could get these leaders to accept modern economic or social policies until they are able to move away from their superstitious beliefs. Many of these societies didn't yet have equal treatment for women, and several still had slavery - those type of beliefs/value systems are, IMO, in direct conflict with modern economic systems...

Not really. Slavery is a resource and in fact the only way in Antiquity to produce any kind of surplus big enough to feed a lot of artisans.

I wonder: what's the ratio of agricultural labor force to...everyone else in the labor force where the shift to an industrial society happens? Or differently said, how many people (other than himself and his dependents, of course) must a farmer be able to feed before you have enough surplus labor to necessitate organizing industrial-scale enterprises?

I took the % of pop farming for 140 countries in 2005. Those countries naturally range from fully pre-industrial to fully developed



Remember. Development is happening as you go down the curve. It's also bloddy imprecise since a rich farming area naturally produces more food per man hour compared to scrubby desert.

Like most things in the economics of developmehnt, it's not a magic flip point, it's just a situation where the increased number of artisans starts to feed back into farming productivity (metal ploughs) which frees up more farmers to be artisans which leads to a larger industrial base (cheaper and faster to build barns with corrugated sheet roof) which frees up more people und so weiter.

I don't think this scenario would change much. Basic economic theory doesn't really give that much new information, it just formalizes it. Every merchant understands the laws of supply and demand, city dwellers grasp the idea of external effects. Economic idea are the most powerful if they are combined with political ideas and real world history. Smith was successful because his works gave the idealogical framework for Britain's merchant class, Marx gave answers why the workers suffered so much and how to change it, Keynes explained the economic crisis and how to solve it.
Economic thinking can have major influence, For example, if you introduce Marxism into the Roman republic, the civil wars may have had a different outcome. Maybe even the reforms of the Gracchus brothers would have happened, since that would have been better than communism. You could maybe make Augustus introduce national healthcare and a retirement system, similar to Bismarck, to create a bond between the state and the masses. This could create a middle-class oriented Roman empire that has enough inner cohesion to not fall apart.

Eh....no. The Roman welfare system for Rome was already running at peak capacity and nothing more could really be done.

I operate a bit on half-knowledge here, but I remember that the welfare was mostly focused on the city of Rome and was mostly in form of public services and grain gifts? That is a top-down approach. I imagine a Bismarck-like social insurance system, with people as active part, and on a empire-wide level (maybe first only Italy, then spreading out). That would be a significant change to how the Roman society worked. Same net transfer of resources, but different organization.

Then the problem is that they know technology can increase productivity but they don't know the technology to do that. Did the romans have technology that would prove this trend, that more advanced and diverse industrial base increases the efficiency of food production?

Welf wrote:I operate a bit on half-knowledge here, but I remember that the welfare was mostly focused on the city of Rome and was mostly in form of public services and grain gifts?

No, parts of it were extended to all of Italy.

That is a top-down approach. I imagine a Bismarck-like social insurance system, with people as active part, and on a empire-wide level (maybe first only Italy, then spreading out). That would be a significant change to how the Roman society worked. Same net transfer of resources, but different organization.

It wont work because the resources are not there. The Romans were able to have cities of 1 million+ population because they were able to exploit all of Europe. There is no way to get a higher level of efficiency with that technology.