For those of us that enjoy reading and learning about the history of economics and monetary policies in the ancient world (not exactly the sexiest of subjects), this is by far the best channel on RU-vid for it.
It’s honestly fucked up how niche academic interests can get. You got mathematicians fawning over homomorphic matrix representations of non-commutative Jordan superalgebras, and biologists discussing 11 different theories that have some combination of the words Red,Black,Queen,King in their title.
Tulipomania is often cited as the first financial bubble because it was the first to be thoroughly accounted for. Financial bubbles are likely as old as civilization itself... there must have been countless times in history where people with way too much money overvalued some random commodity
I feel like it’s more correct to say that some of todays economic problems are ancient problems, rather than rome’s economic problems being modern. The fact that they originated in the far past yet still exist today is super interesting!
Hey man. I'm a plumber in NYC. I was trained by a Slovak man who worked in Paul Allen's apartment and he gets goosebumps talking about the art. Particularly some millenia old stone from some time period. I wish I could've seen it.
Basically, treat their sponsors... as junk mail. Don't actually click on it. And stay for the actual stuff they talk about. People getting paid to post stuff mostly unsolicited, stuff they would do anyway via "ad" money collected by the media owner (in this case youtube) is a bubble of its own. Lots of people who made big first part of the 2010's made enough to retire... those around 2016 to 2020 thought they could at least make a decent work at home job. But alas, ad bubble in the bubble of everything... the've been scrambling to get their own "sponsors" and soon that won't hold water. Bubbles. Bubbles. Bubbles. In the Air. Bubbles Bubbles, Bubbles Everywhere. QE monetizing bad bank loans for over a decade in a country that already can't handle debt both individual and with business and keeping rates near 0% free borrowing baby! And you get this mother of all bubbles.
So, no problems with the small army of hard-worked slaves who would be there to attend to your every need? You must a white middle-class American, I assume?
Those apartment buildings looks quite close to what was built in 19-20th century in Europe...I just came home going by a house that looks similar to the one on the picture
I love the visual presentation, it shows me so many new historical paintings and mosaic fragments I wouldn't have found myself. Would you consider adding something like a list of references for the images you use in future videos? Or maybe a discussion of where you typically source them? I would love to find more of these to pair with reading and thinking about the past
Oh RU-vid, your recommendations are incredible. And for anyone reading in the future, current_event is the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and a panic that it will signal the next crash.
Really feel bad for Domitian and the unfair bad reputation the Senate gave him after his death, as he vastly improved the economy and paved the way for the Golden Age of Antonine Rome. He was just too based for the corrupt time in which he lived
@@SethTheOrigin Roman currency was constantly being debased. The silver and gold content of the coins kept getting pushed lower by each successive emperor. Domitian is one of the only emperors to increase the precious metal purity in Roman coins. The only other was the emperor Aurelian of the 3rd century.
@@SethTheOrigin he made the denarius 95% silver, which was the purest and most valuable form of the coin until diocletian introduced the solidus (which was modeled over Aurelian's coin as mentioned in this section already). Btw the solidus is the longest undebased coin in history, keeping it's purity from the tetrarchy all the way to the reign of Alexios Komnenos, with a total of 800 years of constant value.
I have to admit that ancient economic ebbs and flows was a subject that I had never considered, but like the best of teachers, Garrett has now made me insatiably curious about it.
4:44 Speaking of Sulla, despite not being very historically accurate, I loved the way he was portrayed by Richard Harris in the 2003 miniseries "Julius Caesar". Unlike many movie tyrants, who commit atrocities with a specific motivation they genuinely believe in (like Caligula's "I am a God and I have the right to decide on your lives", or Nero's "Rome must burn so that art can be reborn"), Sulla's only motivation for killing is basically: "Meh. I just love being a d*ck, you know?" It's impossible to not love a villain like that 🤣
Learned recently that inflation from the First Punic War might have been a big reason for Rome's interest in Spain. They needed the silver as much as Carthage.
The name corporation gives it away a bit. Even though in ancient Roman terms Collegia or Universitates would be more commonly used terms. These were legal persons which had to be recognized by either the emperor or the Senate. They were a "body of people", often colleagues or specialists from their field. This collegium would further their interest, be liable via the funds of the corporate entity and could exist regardless of a fluctuation of members. So these were legal persons. These by their nature seemed to have functioned more like guilds or lobbying groups. It would likely have seemed very roundabout and pointless for a rich Roman to invest capital into company stock though. Modern corporations are a different beast altogether, I guess.
Some compare Latifundia (Latifundiums?), big farm businesses to corporations. Some were akin to shell companies that allowed politicians to profit in forbidden ways. As the man said, history rhymes.
There is evidences that ancient Athens had a securities market, and sold % of ships to diversify risk, and complicated financial stuff like that. It had a stock market where this securities where sold and traded along with a bunch of other products, Athens had little agriculture output, it was mostly focused on trade and manufacturing. So prosperous that its treasury rivaled that of the giant empire of Persia. Often going toe to toe, and even invading Egypt at one point, crazy to think they could do it with only 1 cities worth of manpower (although it was quite large, 200k people) but the real strength was monetary, they could fund the wars. So i think Rome was probably much more advanced financially than what sources survived, since they had all the knowledge of the Greeks at their disposal.
Videos like this one reveal just how complex the Roman economy was, and help explain why when the Western empire collapsed the system that followed it over the centuries was so relatively impoverished.
I think it's quite importiant to point out that even though some tendencies in the ancient Roman economy mirror modern day capitalism, Roman society was in no way capitalist. People often conflate capitalism with an economy that makes use of currency and has markets in general, but capitalism is someting quite more specific then that. Capitalism is an economic system that is caracterised by commodity production trough the application of wage-labour. And most importiantly: the accumulation of capital trough the extraction of surplus value from wage labour. And while there was ofcourse commodity production and wage labour in ancient Rome, the vast majority of it's economic output was trough the application of slave labour. So even though the ancient Roman economy had shades that hinted at capitalism, I would not call it a capitalist economy. Just like I would not call the current world economy a slave economy just because some aspects are still run trough the application of slave labour. Ironic though that the word "Proletariat" (the word to discribe the modern industrial working class) is derived from the ancient Roman term "proletarius": those who were only good for creating offspring and nothing else in the economy. But I guess that's just because Karl Marx was a giant Roman history nerd.
Dude, ALL financial crisis are state caused. Buying options and failing doesn't cause the entire economy to crash. Diocleciano's edicto maximo was literally price fixing to try and curb rising deflation caused by the lack of gold to make denarii (because the gov' coined so much denarii) - The 2008 and the 1929 economic crisis were caused by the state too. in 2008 they legally allowed giving massive loans to people who could'nt pay because "gov has to bail us out" and in 1929 the Federal reserve failed to act its constitutional role as lender of last resort and diminished the quantity of money in the market by one third, allowing banks to overloan (to ppl who couldn't pay), go bankrupt and legally allowing them to refuse people trying to withdraw their money. criminal indeed, and also very similiar to roman financial crises.
While mullet price bubbles are interesting, it is hard to see a price "crash" Is there evidence that the price dropped significantly in a short amount of time? Even in this video it suggests that the only real factors were availability and tastes changing, both of these were surely gradual. Even if there was a crash it would only affect a few middle men as there is no major investment needed to fish specifically for red mullet. I am assuming there would be some middle men who are buying from the fishermen and selling to the elites or there would have been a whole lot of relatively rich fishermen. If one red mullet equals an average yearly income then you could do pretty well over a year with a crude rod and line.
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly when or how the mullet "crash" happened. All we know is that prices increased to dizzy heights - and then, after an interval, that they were much lower. However rapid the price collapse was, it's probably true - as you suggest - that fishmongers bore the brunt of the economic pain.
@@Kyle_Schaff I did actually mean what I said in a helpful sense. Sorry you took offensive but being so overly sensitive must be a handicap in your life. Being thin-skinned and neurotic must be difficult. My sympathies.
Nice touch with JP Morganus Chase since they are a primary stock holder of the Fed and probably have roots going back to Venice...and ancient Roman aristocrats.
It's not improbable, that the biggest of economic bubbles in Rome was the rise and fall of the significance of differing skills... in later Rome, one cannot underestimate how much of the peoples investment was in the training of slaves (be that in the forms of Skilled Craftsmen, Farmers, Builders, Intimate Entertainers, or Gladiators)... indeed, with the resource of new slaves becoming more finite, and the "industries" becoming more complex, many even a non-elite Roman could make money upon such markets, but even so, was prone to great risk of his investment (in the form of time rather than money) going to waste, as the chosen trade became obsolete... also, early in Roman history, investment into institutions that would give you a good public image (thus acquiring popularity) were really a big thing, since popular power would be converted to economic opportunity within society... later, this became investment into good lawyers and orators, to argue your cause (as a form of corruption, but also popularity making...) rural land, or estates were secondary to those, because, in the times, those working the land were more of a commodity than land itself in most parts of the empire...
Art is one of the worst things that you can invest in; its value is unreliable and unpredictable. Many people launder money through purchase and sales of artwork. It’s gamed and we’re not in on the information;it is not something you want to do.
How did the distribution system and infrastructure affect the Roman economy.... if they had faster sail boats like in the early modern era of the 17th century(no slaves), containerized goods for quick removal and adding to boats, canals with locks and boat lifts, efficient organized navy to deal with piracy(think Royal Navy of the 18th century), would it leant to cheaper goods for the market and guaranteed prices for the seller? 🤔
You have a great channel. History comforts me. I think you find meaning and comfort in it also, in the sense that the longer you can see back into history, the further you can see into the future. The future is not bright, but in the grand scale of things, this doesn't matter. We live, we reproduce, we die. That tiny bit in the middle is our responsibility, we can live happily, grow wise and die, or live otherwise. Your channel helps us choose the better option. Best wishes.
A mullet may well have cost 6000 sesterces, but that's not a bad thing if the ordinary guy normally on 1000 sesterces per year is also the fisherman who catches the mullet. The poor producers benefit from bubbles, not the rich consumers. Econ101.
Dr. Ryan, I have several questions, the answers to which, I believe will make for an interesting video (assuming you've not already covered them). I would sincerely appreciate each question to be answered for both the ancient Greeks and Romans separately in instances where they differ. My queries are as follows... 1.) What kind of instruments were popular among the ancient Greeks and Romans? 2.) How were these instruments constructed? 3.) How were the instruments played, and by whom? 4.) How prevalent was music in the daily lives of the people's of each caste? 5.) Were there proto versions of modern bands or orchestras? By that I mean, did musicians play together with different instruments to create more complex pieces? 6.) Did songs more commonly contain lyrics or were they simply instrumental? 7.) Were there popular songs that existed, and if so what were they about? 8.) Were there concerts in any capacity similar to present times? 9.) Were there famous or highly popular musicians/groups? 10.) Did musicians of the time create original songs? If so were any of them popular or widely known? 11.) Could one make a living for himself as a musician in antiquity? If so what class could they be expected to found in and we're there any in the highest classes? 12.) Were there schools for music or was music a part of any curriculum? 13.) How important was music to the people of antiquity? Did they value it and if so on what level? 14.) Where would one be most likely to encounter a musician and how prevalent were they? 15.) What was the subject matter of the majority of songs of the day? If you get the opportunity I'd love to see an in depth video on this subject. I tried to come up with as many questions as possible in hopes (should you make a video answering these questions) the video will be on the long side. Thanks in advance
I love that most financial crises in Ancient Rome were caused by government interference in otherwise functioning free markets. Prof. Antony Davies once said that whenever there's a problem people always ask the government to "do something", but never think to ask what the government can stop doing to fix the problem.
An economic depression is not equivalent to the bust phase of the business cycle. True that the latter is a part of the former, but not necessarily the other way around. Likewise, a collapse of one industry (the credit industry, for example) can not be equated to an economic recession/depression. I think you are conflating several important things in this video. A depresión can be caused by war, famine, poor fiscal policy, the bust phase of the business cycle, etc. but the bust phase of the business cycle can only be brought about by one thing: a contraction of *newly created* credit in the economy. For such credit to exist in the first place, modern “banking”, and the fiduciary media associated with modern banking, is necessary to first initiate the business cycle. Despite what your video claims, such modern fiduciary banking most certainly did not exist in antiquities. Financial depositories certainly existed, but “banks”, in the modern fiduciary sense of the word, certainly did not. Outside of factual historical observations here, your video here is mostly inaccurate.
When the currency was itself degraded consciously by the ruling class, the problem of failing " banks" or, more likely, large moneylenders would be lesser of the 2 evils.
Can't believe they don't tell you how many slaves are available with my rent payment on Rillow, what a useless forum. The scroll from the agent didn't mention the barn either.
yes... but that's not because of the villas being cheap but the fishes being unfathomably expensive, one could cost as much as 6 years of average wage, assuming minimum wage is the average (to fit better in the scenario), that would've been a single fish costing $90,000, which paints a much different picture
I think those would only be crisis for the aristocrats, not crisis for the society. It's not a crisis if the only the billionaires are becoming millionaires and the rest are unaffected.
It is incomprehensible how the English language can slaughter the name of Pompeius into Pompey. As a history conscious channel, that wrong should be righted. It is Pompeius, as it is Caesar.
No it isn't, do not comment on things you don't understand. Marxist criteria defines socialism as "workers owning the means of production". Keynesian programs of stimulus and welfare do not give workers control of their workplaces.
@@jimmydesouza4375 Ah, so do the voters own the workplaces of every industry in the economy and vote on how to run them? I don't think so. Keynesianism only recommends nationalization of certain inelastic industries like healthcare and education due to the inability of the free market to provide these services optimally. I would hardly call that socialism, Marx wouldn't either.
@@aidancollins1591 "Ah, so do the voters own the workplaces of every industry in the economy and vote on how to run them? " Quite literally yes. You understand what legislation is, no? When I said try harder I didn't mean spray diarrhea all over the place.
@@jimmydesouza4375 Apologies then. Can't wait to vote on steel production quotas, prices, and wages. Praise be to the glorious Keynesian worker boards! Joking aside, you're being ridiculous. Capital owners control production in all western economies, which makes them capitalist. Your definition of socialism would call any country that has a government that passes regulation socialist. If that's the case, I have no clue what Marx was complaining about! The German Reich was already socialist 😂 Go to an economics department of any university, even the conservatives would laugh you out of the place.
