Diocletian and Constantine attempted to solve, not only the political and social problems of Rome, but also fundamental economic problems as well. Bruce Bartlett argues that the two did exactly the wrong thing. Please read Bartlett's article How Excessive Government Killed Rome. Do you think Bartlett's criticisms accurate? Why, or why not?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Constantine (Extra Credit)
Diocletian and Constantine attempted to solve, not only the political and social problems of Rome, but also fundamental economic problems as well. Bruce Bartlett argues that the two did exactly the wrong thing. Please read Bartlett's article How Excessive Government Killed Rome. Do you think Bartlett's criticisms accurate? Why, or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe that they are part of the reason. I think that not only the laws are at fault but there are many other factors that led to this.Such as foreign enimies,Leadership,and just that it is way too hard for one people to rule such a large area in general.
"Finally, the very survival of the state was at stake. At this point, the Emperor Diocletian (284-305 A.D.) took action. He attempted to stop the inflation with a far-reaching system of price controls on all services and commodities. [10] These controls were justified by Diocletian's belief that the inflation was due mainly to speculation and hoarding, rather than debasement of the currency."
Diocletian may have been a cruel Pagan emperor who persecuted Christians, which is what I do not like about him. Although he was a excellent economist and really knew how to fix Rome's failing economy. He instituted price controls to help solve the problems with the price inflation. Diocleatian did it believing that some of the markets were just trying shovel in money for themselves. There is some truth to that. For once, the government jumping in and managing the economy is successful. Alex Mason
It seems that Bartlett seems to have some good points. Even though Diocletian and Constantine tried to save the economy there were some things that could never be fixed in the ways they tried to fix them. First trying to keep certain items at one price like Diocletian did was in theory a good idea, but one that is very tough to enforce and even harder to enforce when money isn't worth much. I think the Soviet Union ran into this problem too when money was worthless and the government tried to have fixed prices. With that you will get a black market and goods will be priced at whatever the seller wants to sell them at. Yes, it could lead to their death, but they could also become very rish if they had a lot of goods.
You also have these emperors making it so workers can leave the land they are on to maybe find a better job or place of work. This ends up being in effect for hundreds of years and makes it tough for anyone who works on an owners land to make a good living if the owner is one who doesn't pay well the way it is.
Eric Bengs
I believe that Bartlett's criticisms were somewhat accurate but at the same time they were a little extreme. Yes I believe that Diocletians method of suddenly turning to basically a barter trade system of collecting taxes or Constantine's method of tying people to the land they worked weren't great ideas. This I agree with however from another stand point what exactly were they supposed to do. By the time Diocletian became emperor the Roman economy was in enough of a shambled mess that it was going to take more than one mans reign in order to fix all the problems wether Diocletian was the greatest emperor ever or another blood soaked nut job such as Nero or Caligula. Thus when Constantine becomes emperor there was nothing he could do either. Thus I think Bartlett's criticisms are a little extreme.
You know I think that a lot of Romes problems discussed can actually relate alot to what times are like now. They discuss certain tax breaks and "free grain policies" hurt the empire in rome because of trade agree ments wit egytp. That is a lot like china today the US relies so greatly on china that we give them tax and trade breaks because of that. That is one of the great number of reasons our country is in econominic strife, just like Rome was at this time. Therefore if it hurts to day and it hurt in the past I have to agree that Bartlett is at least partialy accurate.
Post a Comment