Read on Twitter
This post on Roman-era peasants https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/">https://acoup.blog/2020/07/2... has made me question how I think about technology and economic growth.
My model had been something like “humanity used to be poorer because nobody had yet invented the technologies that could make more food and other goods with less labor.”
But this post is saying that a Roman peasant probably wouldn’t *want* a technique that made his yields 10% larger even if a time traveler magically handed it to him.
There was no good way to store surplus for the long term, either money or grain.
Peasants usually “invested” big harvests by sharing them with neighbors — relationships were better stores of value than granaries or strongboxes.
Many ways to increase farming efficiency also increase risk, and a peasant family is more worried about risk of starvation than hopeful about extra-big harvests.
Also, you can’t really “move up in the world” if there are firm legal/political barriers blocking the low-born from the aristocracy. There’s no point trying to become prosperous if the good life is guarded by guys with swords.
This suggests that the real blocker on growth isn’t lack of good technology for production, but lack of good social “tech” for trade, savings, insurance, and security.
People who can’t rely on trade can’t specialize; people who can’t save or secure their property won’t invest in capital improvements.
A lot of these problems are symptoms of living in a weak state (and all ancient & medieval states are weak by modern standards.)
States mint coins, establish banks (and secure them with force, see FDIC), build roads and cities, and establish courts and enforce laws. Much as it pains my anarchist heart to admit it, all those things do seem to promote investment in productive tech.
If you want less state or no state, and you care about prosperity, you need some way to ensure enough security & trade that it’s worth it for people to invest in production.
Relevant to @jasoncrawford and @MarkLutter maybe
Important caveats: states are *themselves* a source of risk that can inhibit investment (you never know what’ll be banned or taxed or just appropriated) and there are non-state ways to do financial instruments & security
