Ducz on 28/6/2006 at 09:19
Roman economy was primitive in sense that it was based on farming as any other ancient country. Trade and finance were additions towards it, taking into account that Republic era senatores banned senatores from trading land or goods. On a smaller scale, the economy of Grek cities (especially those post-alexandric like Alexandria), based on trade and specialisation, like Athenes in the sphere of pottery, was superior to that of Rome itself. Not to mention that emperores had no economical thinking: for example Rome would import vast numbers of cheap wheat from Egipt and Africa, reducing the Italian market, which once provided most of their manpower.
The empire sustained itself because of the good military organistation, based on the Marian idea of combinig merceneries with drafted troops. As long as these major forces were kept at bay and served the empire it could thrive. Yet once the political system became more corrupted, the empire would shatter.
It is hard to compar ancient countries to those further on. One has to remember that ancient times, at least before the Roman limes, knew no offical boundries of shapes of countries. The people were the country itself: that's why each proclamation of Rome was made in the name of The Senat and the People of Rome, not in the name of some abstract structure. The empire lasted so long was not only because of its military organistation and the (good in the beginning) muncipal system, but also becauase its enemies were to scarce to overpower it while the Roman political system was solid. Once a crack in it was made it created a flood which annihilated the empire. Yet because of the crude communication and transport methodes of Rome's rivals it would take that much time to knock down such a collosal entiety.
Sap'em on 28/6/2006 at 15:16
interesting viewing. As a yank, it can be a bit tough to follow at times, but I got the jist of it.
Quote:
Also, sometimes I am a bit amazed at how everyone uses oil for everything. When I first heard it some years ago, it was pure comedic science fiction. It's not about the billion of cars, it's about converting oil to electricity, using it in farms, using it in manufacturing plants, using oil to make 'clean energy'. I just keep imagining buying a tub of oil and pouring it down my oven to make it work, and then pouring some in the computer, in the automatic doors. It's used for everything and no one has a problem with it.
on a tangent - Look up "going off the grid". Most survivalist/minimalist types all agree that a propane (pouring the oil directly into the appliance) is the most efficient means of powering your refigerator. :weird: They even have the maths to prove it.
frozenman on 28/6/2006 at 16:35
Roman's are sweet because in all their genius they didn't understand how to make CURVES in the road/aquaducts. "Hm theres a fucking mountain in the way shit bring in the slaves."
aguywhoplaysthief on 28/6/2006 at 17:40
You know, I find it rather amusing, that as one of the most vocal critics of capitalism on these boards, capitalism is just about the most perfect system for dealing with peak oil.
As fossil fuel prices rise, demand will go down for nonessential oil-based products almost automatically (if not a little late for sure) as people cut consumption. When the manufacture of cars becomes impossible, then the sale of the less resource intensive bicycle will go up, opening up a new opportunity there. But, since bikes are made from oil, the demand for hand-built wood/metal bikes may eventually increase if the oil price continues to go up from there. Since the economy cannot afford such large-scale shipping, local business will become profitable, and people will move into that.
If it gets very bad, and food prices start to skyrocket, then people (in order to take advantage of the opportunity) go into the field of sustainable agriculture to meet the demand because that is profitable.
As extraction costs for raw materials go up to higher levels, then people are motivated to get into the material recycling business because they can make good money from it. Many materials that are very important (plastics, metals, etc.) can be extracted, and recycled or re-used. Just imagine us digging up landfills in the pursuit of old copper wiring or plastic wrap, or a whole new business in refurbishing old computers because the manufacture of new chips becomes too costly! Most of it's stupidly expensive now, but it won't be if the dire peak oil predictions come true - it will be good businesses, and a great industry for those unemployed by extraction and manufacture to get into.
Honestly, there are so many great ways to deal with a rise in fossil fuel prices that I can't even write them down fast enough.
Peak oil seems like a fantastic business opportunity if you ask me. In fact, I'm thinking about learning more about sustainable agriculture right now, and I could always brush up on my wood-working skills. :)
I
gaurantee you that any crisis will be severely exacerbated because the government tries to interfere in this, probably by price supports and redistribution from those who pioneer (and therefore profit from) the new technologies, to the people who are stuck in the industrial age. That's called socialism, and it will be a major problem in the future. In fact, if the worst of peak oil comes true, it may do more to decentralize wealth than anything government could ever do.
Swiss Mercenary on 28/6/2006 at 17:52
Capitalism a perfect system to handle Peak Oil?
Not if it'll be too bloody late when it rolls around. You can't just develop, perfect, and mass-produce an alternative energy extraction method overnight. If there won't be enough affordable oil to run the world's farming equipment, 'supply and demand' won't fill any empty stomachs.
aguywhoplaysthief on 28/6/2006 at 18:03
True, but we won't just run out of oil overnight either. It will go down by a certain percentage, and as it does so, things will get trimmed down in the order of necessity. The massive growth economies won't be able to afford an industrializing pace any more, so that predicted pressure will slow at a rate resembling the price increase.
I think the biggest problems will be political - war, social strife expressed through the ballot box, etc.
Swiss Mercenary on 28/6/2006 at 20:38
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
True, but we won't just run out of oil overnight either. It will go down by a certain percentage, and as it does so, things will get trimmed down in the order of necessity. The massive growth economies won't be able to afford an industrializing pace any more, so that predicted pressure will slow at a rate resembling the price increase.
And that's where the worry comes in. I mean, sure, we could run head-first into a disaster. Or we very well might not. I personally am not overly thrilled with the possibility that we may.
TheGreatGodPan on 28/6/2006 at 21:50
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Peak oil seems like a fantastic business opportunity if you ask me. In fact, I'm thinking about learning more about sustainable agriculture right now, and I could always brush up on my wood-working skills. :)
I hope you're not falling for the (
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1568) broken window fallacy.
Capitalism would be the best system for minimizing the harm caused by lack of a resource, but that doesn't make a reduction in the availability of a resource beneficial.
I don't think any of this "peak oil megadisaster clusterfucknation" hysteria is right, but if it was, and you are the only perceptive fellow who has the straight dope on what's really going down, then the smart thing to do would be to invest in whatever we'll need after the crash. You'll make out (relatively, since things will still suck) rich and help out your fellow man when they so desperately need it. Of course, if you're wrong we'll laugh at you like all the people who stocked their basements/shelters to the brim before Y2k
aguywhoplaysthief on 29/6/2006 at 00:24
Certainly, wealth would go down, so of course it wouldn't be good for the economy. I'm not arguing with that, I'm just saying that it opens up new opportunities that people will take, so it won't be as disasterous as some fear.
I think there are certainly a great number of things that people can do to prepare for a decline in industrialization that wouldn't require a huge personal investment at all.
Deep Qantas on 29/6/2006 at 01:09
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Certainly, wealth would go down, so of course it wouldn't be good for the economy. I'm not arguing with that, I'm just saying that it opens up new opportunities that people will take, so it won't be as disasterous as some fear.
How is that different from broken window fallacy?
Crappy stuff happens. People have to figure a way around it.
