Random Thread

[Raphael]

And now for something completely different: Middle Eastern history question:

Who ever thought that the Mamluk system was a good idea, and why? I mean, if you have a situation where the best armed, best weapons-trained, and best organized group in society is a group of men who are officially, under the law, enslaved people, well, then you don't really have to be some kind of brilliant sociologist to figure out that the men in question aren't likely to stay enslaved forever. But despite that, Middle Eastern rulers seemed to be genuinely surprised when their enslaved troops ended up taking power from them. So it's a complete mystery to me why any Middle Eastern rulers ever thought that this arrangement would work out for them in the long run.

[zompist]

Who ever thought that the Mamluk system was a good idea, and why? I mean, if you have a situation where the best armed, best weapons-trained, and best organized group in society is a group of men who are officially, under the law, enslaved people, well, then you don't really have to be some kind of brilliant sociologist to figure out that the men in question aren't likely to stay enslaved forever.

At the same time you're convinced that Putin has nothing to fear from his Chechen thugs?

It is a pretty interesting phenomenon, and I'm no expert, but my understanding is that mamluks originated in the 8th century— that is, 400 years before the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt. So it was an institution that worked till it didn't. As to why it was ever considered a good idea: it was a way of forming an army with no local attachments, personally responsible to the rulers, thus perhaps less of a threat than ambitious vassals. And the first mamluks were Turks, the best fighters of the medieval era.

But the fact that they were originally slaves is just a bit of eccentric local color. One of the biggest threat to kings has always been their own army— see especially Roman history.

[Raphael]

At the same time you're convinced that Putin has nothing to fear from his Chechen thugs?

Oh, if most of the soldiers, cops, and paramilitaries of Russia would be Kadyrov's men, I'd be worried about them if I were Putin, but AFAIK that's not the case.

It is a pretty interesting phenomenon, and I'm no expert, but my understanding is that mamluks originated in the 8th century— that is, 400 years before the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt. So it was an institution that worked till it didn't.

Oh, interesting, thank you, that explains a lot.

As to why it was ever considered a good idea: it was a way of forming an army with no local attachments, personally responsible to the rulers, thus perhaps less of a threat than ambitious vassals.

Yes, that does sound like an advantage.

But the fact that they were originally slaves is just a bit of eccentric local color.

Perhaps not even that specifically local - I think I've heard somewhere that some of the oldest parts of the European hereditary nobility started out as knights who were legally personal serfs of their monarchs, too - though those became pretty powerful pretty quickly.

One of the biggest threat to kings has always been their own army— see especially Roman history.

Yes, of course. Come to think of it, it is a bit weird that the system of forcing people to bear arms and fight for you against their own will has worked so relatively well so often and in so many places, including in modern conscript armies.

[Travis B.]

But the fact that they were originally slaves is just a bit of eccentric local color.

Perhaps not even that specifically local - I think I've heard somewhere that some of the oldest parts of the European hereditary nobility started out as knights who were legally personal serfs of their monarchs, too - though those became pretty powerful pretty quickly.

The ministeriales are lesser known than the likes of the mamluks and the janissaries, but were no less significant in reality.

[Raphael]

And another blog post - this one is sort of an expansion of stuff I posted in this thread a while ago:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... t-ricardo/

[rotting bones]

According to Terrible Writing Advice's self-published novel, the major difference between mamluks and today's non-citizen immigrants brought in to work at specific jobs is that in medieval times, all non-nobles were more or less enslaved under the divine right of kings. Modern societies, by contrast, go to great lengths to construct narratives of choosing one's own profession (regardless of how much real choice one has).

(Personally, I liked the novel. It could use an editor, though.)

And another blog post - this one is sort of an expansion of stuff I posted in this thread a while ago:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... t-ricardo/

Mainstream economics has become the high priesthood of free trade. If you want to know how the world really works, study business, grand strategy and selections from the literature on economics that don't blatantly violate the facts established in the first two disciplines. IIRC, geoeconomics openly discusses the points you mention. For example: https://youtu.be/lswiu1K1Vnk

[zompist]

And another blog post - this one is sort of an expansion of stuff I posted in this thread a while ago:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... t-ricardo/

Didn't we just talk about Ricardo?

If you want a good book that directly attacks Ricardo and neoliberalism in general, try Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans; my review is here.

[Raphael]

Didn't we just talk about Ricardo?

Yes, last month, here in the Random Thread. What drove me to write that post was reading a second book repeating his claims, a few weeks after I had read the first one. If it hadn't been an e-book, I might have thrown it against a wall.

If you want a good book that directly attacks Ricardo and neoliberalism in general, try Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans; my review is here.

Thank you. I think I read it a while after you blogged about it, but it's a bit vague in my memory, and I don't think I remember the parts dealing directly with Ricardo. Perhaps I should re-read it.

[Ares Land]

According to Terrible Writing Advice's self-published novel, the major difference between mamluks and today's non-citizen immigrants brought in to work at specific jobs is that in medieval times, all non-nobles were more or less enslaved under the divine right of kings. Modern societies, by contrast, go to great lengths to construct narratives of choosing one's own profession (regardless of how much real choice one has).

Yep. You'll find a great many people in modern western society that would totally go for the Saudi-Emirati model of openly enslaving immigrants.

(Personally, I liked the novel. It could use an editor, though.)

And another blog post - this one is sort of an expansion of stuff I posted in this thread a while ago:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... t-ricardo/

Mainstream economics has become the high priesthood of free trade. If you want to know how the world really works, study business, grand strategy and selections from the literature on economics that don't blatantly violate the facts established in the first two disciplines. IIRC, geoeconomics openly discusses the points you mention. For example: https://youtu.be/lswiu1K1Vnk

[/quote]

Economy pundits are about twenty to thirty years late to the party and will go to absurd length to defend free trade. The actual, top people in the field are more cautious.

(I think Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is true within the limits of the model. Results may vary when applying it to the real world.)

[Raphael]

(I think Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is true within the limits of the model. Results may vary when applying it to the real world.)

Part of the limits of the model seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it assumes that which products are available, what it takes to produce each of them, and how good everyone involved is at producing each of them, are constants. In real life, being good at reacting to, handling, and ideally, initiating changes in each of these factors is an important part of economic success.

[Ares Land]

(I think Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is true within the limits of the model. Results may vary when applying it to the real world.)

Part of the limits of the model seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it assumes that which products are available, what it takes to produce each of them, and how good everyone involved is at producing each of them, are constants. In real life, being good at reacting to, handling, and ideally, initiating changes in each of these factors is an important part of economic success.

I believe that's correct. It's like Schumpeter's creative destruction. Sure, I mean, replacing obsolete industries is good for the economy on paper... In practice turning coal miners and steel mill workers into graphic designers may turn out to be a bit of a problem.

[Raphael]

Sure, I mean, replacing obsolete industries is good for the economy on paper... In practice turning coal miners and steel mill workers into graphic designers may turn out to be a bit of a problem.

Banerjee and Duflo's book actually discusses that problem at some length.

Edit: My own view is that that's less of a problem in a local economy that was always diverse, so that if one profession declines, it's a relatively small part of the community that gets in trouble, than if most people are miners or steel workers.

[rotting bones]

Yep. You'll find a great many people in modern western society that would totally go for the Saudi-Emirati model of openly enslaving immigrants.

In America, I hear people were recently lamenting a decline in the social value of "hard work" when lots of poor workers left their jobs because they felt they weren't being adequately compensated.

(I think Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is true within the limits of the model. Results may vary when applying it to the real world.)

I agree that comparative advantage points out an important angle that people before Ricardo missed. The problem is that its application tends to be overly general in most accounts.

[Ares Land]

In America, I hear people were recently lamenting a decline in the social value of "hard work" when lots of poor workers left their jobs because they felt they weren't being adequately compensated.

Not just in America; we hear the same thing here.

[alice]

In America, I hear people were recently lamenting a decline in the social value of "hard work" when lots of poor workers left their jobs because they felt they weren't being adequately compensated.

Not just in America; we hear the same thing here.

I've heard that here for many years now, occasionally directed at myself.

[rotting bones]

In America, I hear people were recently lamenting a decline in the social value of "hard work" when lots of poor workers left their jobs because they felt they weren't being adequately compensated.

Not just in America; we hear the same thing here.

I've heard that here for many years now, occasionally directed at myself.

Sorry you had to hear that.

[zompist]

Part of the limits of the model seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it assumes that which products are available, what it takes to produce each of them, and how good everyone involved is at producing each of them, are constants. In real life, being good at reacting to, handling, and ideally, initiating changes in each of these factors is an important part of economic success.

That's quite right, and it's pretty much exactly what Chang says.

To defend Ricardo a bit, however: he was writing in the 1810s. Society wasn't changing very fast, and no one really thought that (say) Portugal would ever do anything but produce wine, much less be able to enact policies to manage change. Also, he was primarily arguing against mercantilism, specifically the idea that nations traded in order to amass silver (i.e. run a trade surplus). Mercantilism was a zero-sum conception of the world, even worse for developing economies since people thought that letting Portugal develop more would impoverish England, etc.

(It's interesting to contrast a purely premodern point of view— Kautilya in the Arthasastra. He believed that the state should favor foreign trade, to the point of foregoing taxes on it. This is probably mostly because kings wanted to have foreign luxuries; but Kautilya also recognizes that foreign plants and animals may cause economic development. For a contrary view, there's Pliny who thought that trade was a waste of good Roman silver.)

[Moose-tache]

For a contrary view, there's Pliny who thought that trade was a waste of good Roman silver.)

That's because it was. Rome had a trade deficeit with China, causing large amounts of silver to permanently leave the country. During much of its history, Rome had a problem with deflation caused by an inability to increase the money supply (not just because of trade deficeits, but because the sources were limited), and thus a tendency away from investment and toward hoarding. When your currency is bullion, a serious trade deficeit can prevent development. Of course, once the mines in Potosi start pouring silver into Europe, limiting foreign trade becomes a lot stupider.

[zompist]

For a contrary view, there's Pliny who thought that trade was a waste of good Roman silver.)

That's because it was. Rome had a trade deficeit with China, causing large amounts of silver to permanently leave the country. During much of its history, Rome had a problem with deflation caused by an inability to increase the money supply (not just because of trade deficeits, but because the sources were limited), and thus a tendency away from investment and toward hoarding. When your currency is bullion, a serious trade deficeit can prevent development. Of course, once the mines in Potosi start pouring silver into Europe, limiting foreign trade becomes a lot stupider.

OK, some of this is wrong, unless you mean the Byzantines (i.e. the people who called themselves Roman but didn't control Rome). No Roman coins have been found in China, though Byzantine ones were. The eastern trade was with Persia and India.

So far as I know, the Roman problem was inflation, though this is usually alleged to come from adulterating the coins. In Republican times, the denarius was the largest coin; by Diocletian's time it was merely 1/1000 of a solidus.

Also to my knowledge, Rome was not a great industrial or mercantile empire. Rome itself produced almost nothing. It had taken over mercantile areas, but the economic powerhouse was and remained in the east. I think you could make a good case that Rome throttled this powerhouse without really creating anything to replace it. Perhaps not coincidentally, Rome was a slavery-based economy, and slaveholders are not that interested in entrepreneurship or invention.

Finally, though I agree that bullion transfers can have a big effect sometimes, people have always been smart enough to use something else if bullion isn't available. Pliny was a moralistic old fart, and we shouldn't take him too seriously when, in the big picture, he was living at the absolute height of the empire. The Roman empire didn't fall because women bought too many foreign luxuries.

[Moose-tache]

I understand that coins printed with "Dear future numisthmatists: this is from the Roman Republic" found under Chinese temples aren't terribly common. But the Chinese sent silk west and got silver in return, which they melted down to make their own coinage (and yes, there were several steps between Rome and China, so it's not always clear it was Roman silver). This trade picked up speed over time, and it was probably only "a trickle" as Thorley put it during the Republic. But the west-to-east flow of silver did happen.

As for deflation and inflation, both occurred at different times. As you say, inflation was alrgely a result of debasement, with the biggest losses occuring during the first century or two of the empire. The need to debase the currency speaks to the finiteness of specie. Deflation was a real problem during certain periods, but I don't have my notes with me. I should know better than to start a conversation about classical monetary policy while trying to pack

In any case, the original question was mercantilism as it pertained to Rome, and the question of trade as a zero-sum game. I think it's fair to say that Mercantilism became increasingly stupid over time, and during the Roman empire it was at its least stupid (say, hovering around 40-60% stupid). Ideas like "Make sure your Carpathian micro-state has its own separate nutmeg colony so you don't have to buy nutmeg at market rates" that were assinine in the 18th century would have made more sense in the first half of the first millennium (if they had nutmeg, that is).

This is partly because greater international integration means that vertical integration is less essential and doesn't provide the same supply chain security that it used to. But also, it's because of (proto-)Capitalism. The money that the Duchy of Vladiblork spends on a nutmeg colony could instead be reinvested in heavy industry. If they can make their money grow faster, they can have all the nutmeg they want through dependency economics. An Aegean city-state that's been producing nothing but wheat and squid for a thousand years and has no nacient Capitalist class doesn't have any way to make their money grow faster than the nutmeg island. So you want the nutmeg, you want the island. The tragedy of Mercantilism is that people kept thinking this way long after it made any sense. The history of the 18th and 19th centuries are full of various European powers emptying their treausries to seize this or that Carribean island, when they would have been better off just paying a premium for the damn nutmeg and spending the rest of their money on road infrastructure, just because if you buy nutmeg from France the terrorists have already won or whatever.