One of many gripes about Wal-Mart is that it supposedly eliminates competition. Here in the Catskill Mountains in the hamlet of West Shokan in the Town of Olive in the County of Ulster in the declining and falling Empire State I have a few options as to where to go to the supermarket--and it frequently is not Wal-Mart, although I respect its low prices and do take advantage of them with glee.
On the same highway as the Kingston, NY Wal-Mart, which is about 20-25 miles from West Shokan, there is a store called Adams Fairacre Farms and another supermarket called Hannaford's. Both of these stores are successful in competing with Wal-Mart because of their quality. Hannaford's, for example, has a fresh butcher shop and a fresh fish counter. They have a display with a huge assortment of feta cheese and a wide assortment of Greek Olives, not quite as extensive as a deli I remember in my childhood neighborhood of Astoria, Queens but pretty darn good. Their fresh bagels are near-H&H Bagel (of Manhattan's upper west side) quality. Adams is a local chain with excellent quality as well, and its parking lot is always nearly full.
Given this stiff competition, Wal-Mart at the low price end, Adams and Hannaford's at the higher price end, how might an IGA supermarket in Boiceville compete, especially if prices in Boiceville are high because of extra travel and delivery costs and low volume?
The quality of the deli in the Boiceville IGA is the best I have seen anywhere. It is better than what I used to get at Broadway Farm on 84th and Broadway. Their store-cooked roast beef is the freshest deli roast beef I have ever had. Zabars's isn't as good. Plus, until recently they had a daily sushi display, and it was very good. Unfortunately, their sushi chef quit. But their store-prepared hamburger patties are better than Hannaford's butcher (and Hannford's ain't bad). In fact, there is often a line at the deli. In a hamlet like Boiceville, that's an achievement. Sushi in Boiceville? When I was a child, you were happy to get a Slim Jim at the Sawkill Snack Bar not far from here. Now, the good people of Boiceville don't even need to go to Woodstock to have first rate Sushi. Who worries about gasoline prices? You never need to leave town!
But that's not all. There is an even smaller store that outcompetes Boiceville, Hannaford's, Adams' and Wal-Mart. It is called "Smoked Fish and Honey" and it's on Mt. Tremper Road just east of the Mt. Tremper stop sign going toward Woodstock. Smoked Fish and Honey is amazing.
I went there on Friday because I was told that honey comb is good for allergies and I thought I'd give it a try. "Smoked Fish and Honey" is owned by a guy named Lenny. The sign in the front looks like a private homeowner is selling Smoked Fish and Honey, but when you turn into the driveway there's an electric sign in the back and it looks like a regular store, but you can't see it from the road. The driveway is very cool, and there's a car with an imploded roof sitting there because a tree fell on it. Lenny, the bee keeper and trout smoker, wasn't in but his mother is an amazing Latvian grandma with a delightful sense of humor and wonderful old world charm. She regaled us with her insights about life. She mentioned that the tennis star from the 1970s and 1980s, Vitas Gerulaitis was her nephew (I suppose Lenny's cousin). They have a Time or Newsweek cover with him on it hanging in the store. (Tragically Gerulaitis died in a freak accident in the 1990s.)
Now here's the rub. The smoked trout at Smoked Fish and Honey is the best smoked fish I have ever had. Lenny raises much of the trout he uses himself, so it is very fresh. They hot smoke it with a special recipe. It is excellent. Likewise, the ultra-fresh honey is wonderful. I bought a jar and am floored. Unfortunately, a weasel broke into their chicken coop and ate their fresh eggs, but I am looking to buy those next time. (I have to come back to pick up the honey comb on special order.)
Now, can Wal-Mart compete with Smoked Fish and Honey? I think not. No way.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Founding of Dickinson College
Dickinson College has a fascinating account of its founding on its website. Its founder, Dr. Benjamin Rush, was deeply committed to liberty and founded the college in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, then the western frontier, to express libertarian values. How much America has lost intellectually, spiritually and morally since that time.
>"The business of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our country."
- Benjamin Rush
The Birth of a New College
>Revolution was in the air when Benjamin Rush, a prominent Philadelphia physician, prepared the charter for Dickinson College in 1783. A grammar school founded in Carlisle in 1773 served as the foundation of the new college. In the decade prior to laying the groundwork for Dickinson, Rush had marched alongside the American army, signed the Declaration of Independence, served as a physician to the Philadelphia community, and maintained his eminent position among the progressive political and intellectual minds of the budding nation. He was a revolutionary in the midst of a revolution.
At his core, Rush believed in freedom-freedom of thought and freedom of action. And he believed fully in America's potential for unprecedented achievement. But Rush also believed that the American Revolution did not end when the muskets stopped sounding; that, he felt, was only the beginning. Now that America had fought for its liberties, Americans needed to maintain a nation worthy of those liberties. Rush knew that America could only live up to its own expectations if it was a country built of an educated citizenry. So seven years after he met with other members of the Constitutional Congress to add his signature to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush signed the charter of a new college on what was then the American frontier. On September 9, 1783, a struggling grammar school in Carlisle was transformed into Dickinson College. Less than a week earlier, the Treaty of Paris had officially ended the Revolution and guaranteed international recognition of the United States of America. Dickinson was the first college charted in these new United States.
Tuta libertas. Those were the words that John Dickinson used describe the new college. Tuta libertas--"A bulwark of liberty." To further his educational enterprise, Rush had asked that Dickinson--known widely as the "Penman of the Revolution" and the governor of Pennsylvania--lend his support and his name to the college that was being established in the western frontier of his state. Dickinson was easily convinced, and together he and Rush set about the task of devising a seal for the college. The image they created--featuring a liberty cap, a telescope, and an open Bible--remains the official college seal today. It represents a mission that has been ingrained in Dickinson College for nearly 225 years: to offer students a useful and progressive education in the arts and sciences, an education grounded in a strong sense of civic duty to become citizen-leaders.
In many ways, Benjamin Rush-the man who set this enduring mission in place- was a man before his time. He was an outspoken opponent of slavery, a vocal proponent of equal education for women, a supporter of the rights of the mentally challenged, and a generous provider of health care to the indigent in Philadelphia. His voice was strong and distinctive, and he believed that the students at Dickinson College could, like him, develop their own voices and positions on issues of the day. They could be leaders and shapers in the new nation.
The Shape of the Story
As the site for this endeavor, Rush chose Carlisle, a town founded in 1751 as the seat of Pennsylvania's Cumberland County. Though a center of government, Carlisle was also a frontier town, located about 25 miles west of the Susquehanna River-at the time, an outpost of westward expansion (unlike today, when Carlisle sits at a central transportation crossroad, with Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia just two hours away). It's safe to assume that this combination of activity and uncertainty would have attracted a man with Rush's educational sensibilities.
From the first, Carlisle was seen as a sort of laboratory for learning-a place, for instance, where Dickinson students could venture from campus to the nearby county courthouse to watch the new American judicial system in action. But it was also a place where, a few decades later, science students could study ecology by actually examining the wilderness of the surrounding Appalachian Mountains. (Dickinson was the first college to introduce field studies into its science curriculum.) These sorts of firsthand experiences, Rush believed, would foster the minds that would lead the next generations of Americans. Time has not diminished Rush's ambitions. Today, this engagement with the wider world continues to guide Dickinson--through internships, field studies, workshop science, and one of the most extensive global education programs in the nation.
In 1784, at the first official meeting of the college's trustees in Carlisle, a Scottish minister and educator named Charles Nisbet was elected the first principal, or president, of Dickinson College. Nisbet had been a supporter of the American Revolution and was well known among America's intellectual circles as an impressive man of learning. Sometimes called a "walking library," Nisbet established high standards of education and scholarship for Dickinson students. Because of these unbending expectations, the college can list among its earliest graduates a U.S. President, a pair of college presidents, two justices of the Supreme Court, a governor, a founding father of the Smithsonian Institution, and at least two abolitionists.
Read the whole thing here.
>"The business of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our country."
- Benjamin Rush
The Birth of a New College
>Revolution was in the air when Benjamin Rush, a prominent Philadelphia physician, prepared the charter for Dickinson College in 1783. A grammar school founded in Carlisle in 1773 served as the foundation of the new college. In the decade prior to laying the groundwork for Dickinson, Rush had marched alongside the American army, signed the Declaration of Independence, served as a physician to the Philadelphia community, and maintained his eminent position among the progressive political and intellectual minds of the budding nation. He was a revolutionary in the midst of a revolution.
At his core, Rush believed in freedom-freedom of thought and freedom of action. And he believed fully in America's potential for unprecedented achievement. But Rush also believed that the American Revolution did not end when the muskets stopped sounding; that, he felt, was only the beginning. Now that America had fought for its liberties, Americans needed to maintain a nation worthy of those liberties. Rush knew that America could only live up to its own expectations if it was a country built of an educated citizenry. So seven years after he met with other members of the Constitutional Congress to add his signature to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush signed the charter of a new college on what was then the American frontier. On September 9, 1783, a struggling grammar school in Carlisle was transformed into Dickinson College. Less than a week earlier, the Treaty of Paris had officially ended the Revolution and guaranteed international recognition of the United States of America. Dickinson was the first college charted in these new United States.
Tuta libertas. Those were the words that John Dickinson used describe the new college. Tuta libertas--"A bulwark of liberty." To further his educational enterprise, Rush had asked that Dickinson--known widely as the "Penman of the Revolution" and the governor of Pennsylvania--lend his support and his name to the college that was being established in the western frontier of his state. Dickinson was easily convinced, and together he and Rush set about the task of devising a seal for the college. The image they created--featuring a liberty cap, a telescope, and an open Bible--remains the official college seal today. It represents a mission that has been ingrained in Dickinson College for nearly 225 years: to offer students a useful and progressive education in the arts and sciences, an education grounded in a strong sense of civic duty to become citizen-leaders.
In many ways, Benjamin Rush-the man who set this enduring mission in place- was a man before his time. He was an outspoken opponent of slavery, a vocal proponent of equal education for women, a supporter of the rights of the mentally challenged, and a generous provider of health care to the indigent in Philadelphia. His voice was strong and distinctive, and he believed that the students at Dickinson College could, like him, develop their own voices and positions on issues of the day. They could be leaders and shapers in the new nation.
The Shape of the Story
As the site for this endeavor, Rush chose Carlisle, a town founded in 1751 as the seat of Pennsylvania's Cumberland County. Though a center of government, Carlisle was also a frontier town, located about 25 miles west of the Susquehanna River-at the time, an outpost of westward expansion (unlike today, when Carlisle sits at a central transportation crossroad, with Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia just two hours away). It's safe to assume that this combination of activity and uncertainty would have attracted a man with Rush's educational sensibilities.
From the first, Carlisle was seen as a sort of laboratory for learning-a place, for instance, where Dickinson students could venture from campus to the nearby county courthouse to watch the new American judicial system in action. But it was also a place where, a few decades later, science students could study ecology by actually examining the wilderness of the surrounding Appalachian Mountains. (Dickinson was the first college to introduce field studies into its science curriculum.) These sorts of firsthand experiences, Rush believed, would foster the minds that would lead the next generations of Americans. Time has not diminished Rush's ambitions. Today, this engagement with the wider world continues to guide Dickinson--through internships, field studies, workshop science, and one of the most extensive global education programs in the nation.
In 1784, at the first official meeting of the college's trustees in Carlisle, a Scottish minister and educator named Charles Nisbet was elected the first principal, or president, of Dickinson College. Nisbet had been a supporter of the American Revolution and was well known among America's intellectual circles as an impressive man of learning. Sometimes called a "walking library," Nisbet established high standards of education and scholarship for Dickinson students. Because of these unbending expectations, the college can list among its earliest graduates a U.S. President, a pair of college presidents, two justices of the Supreme Court, a governor, a founding father of the Smithsonian Institution, and at least two abolitionists.
Read the whole thing here.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
My blog on the irrelevance of the New York Times appears on the Republican Liberty Caucus site:
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
>The small but growing New York State chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus recently had a spirited debate on our Yahoo! group site as to the best way to respond to the New York Times and its writers. My claim is that it is malevolent neglect. Don’t talk about them. Laugh when they are quoted. Several other New Yorkers argue that a rational response is necessary.
Those who favor free minds and free markets gravitate toward reason and tend to assume that it is through reasonable debate that minds are changed. Ayn Rand argued for reason as the cornerstone of morality and claimed that man is the “rational” as opposed to the “political” animal. But Aristotle considered both to be critical, and was concerned with the inculcation of moral as well as intellectual virtue in the minds of his students. Whether he was successful or not can be judged from the success of his most famous graduate: Alexander the Great.
Putting aside Oscar Wilde’s observation that “man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”, human rationality is a useful philosophical concept (and one on which the subject of economics thrives) but has limited practical use. In the long run the rational survive and prosper, but in the short run psychological, political and symbolic behavior prevail. The institutionalist economist Thorstein Veblen noted both conspicuous consumption and academic caps and gowns as symbolic phenomena that flourish in their respective arenas, even as we who are rational prefer to drive Hyundais and wear jeans.
The Federalist Papers and the debate about the Constitution reflected the highest degree of reason. But we too often forget that in the late eighteenth century only a propertied minority was allowed to vote. Even so, the Founding Fathers put little stock in the voter’s rationality. The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College. Only Congress was to be directly elected.
There were three steps to the expansion of democracy. The first was the granting of universal white male suffrage in the Age of Jackson. The second was the Progressives’ institution of direct election of Senators and, in some states, referenda, recalls and initiatives, along with female suffrage. The third was the fulfillment of the 15th Amendment in the 1960s, giving African Americans more equal ballot access.
By the time of the second extension of democracy in the Progressive era, Progressives were noticing public opinion’s malleability. John Dewey argued that the public needed to be provided with simplified pictures of public issues and this was to be the responsibility of the press. Walter Lippmann, the most conservative of the three founders of the New Republic magazine (the other two were Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl), was pessimistic about the ability of the public to make rational decisions. Lippmann was critical of the press as well. By the 1950s, left wing sociologists like C. Wright Mill were arguing that the centralization of mass media enabled a power elite to dominate public opinion.
The history of Athens reminds us that public emotion and demagoguery threaten democracy. In part because the Founding Fathers were concerned with classical history, they favored republicanism as opposed to direct democracy. After a century of democratized republicanism, it is safe to say that the broad extension of democracy has dimmed the expression of public will. The majority is easily misled and manipulated, and finds itself supporting policies whose results are opposite of what it expects. The symbolism of the New Deal and the Great Society is sufficient to generate public support for these policies even as they have caused diminishing real hourly real wages since 1970.
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/12/libertarians-the-new-york-times-and-saul-alinsky/
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
>The small but growing New York State chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus recently had a spirited debate on our Yahoo! group site as to the best way to respond to the New York Times and its writers. My claim is that it is malevolent neglect. Don’t talk about them. Laugh when they are quoted. Several other New Yorkers argue that a rational response is necessary.
Those who favor free minds and free markets gravitate toward reason and tend to assume that it is through reasonable debate that minds are changed. Ayn Rand argued for reason as the cornerstone of morality and claimed that man is the “rational” as opposed to the “political” animal. But Aristotle considered both to be critical, and was concerned with the inculcation of moral as well as intellectual virtue in the minds of his students. Whether he was successful or not can be judged from the success of his most famous graduate: Alexander the Great.
Putting aside Oscar Wilde’s observation that “man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”, human rationality is a useful philosophical concept (and one on which the subject of economics thrives) but has limited practical use. In the long run the rational survive and prosper, but in the short run psychological, political and symbolic behavior prevail. The institutionalist economist Thorstein Veblen noted both conspicuous consumption and academic caps and gowns as symbolic phenomena that flourish in their respective arenas, even as we who are rational prefer to drive Hyundais and wear jeans.
The Federalist Papers and the debate about the Constitution reflected the highest degree of reason. But we too often forget that in the late eighteenth century only a propertied minority was allowed to vote. Even so, the Founding Fathers put little stock in the voter’s rationality. The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College. Only Congress was to be directly elected.
There were three steps to the expansion of democracy. The first was the granting of universal white male suffrage in the Age of Jackson. The second was the Progressives’ institution of direct election of Senators and, in some states, referenda, recalls and initiatives, along with female suffrage. The third was the fulfillment of the 15th Amendment in the 1960s, giving African Americans more equal ballot access.
By the time of the second extension of democracy in the Progressive era, Progressives were noticing public opinion’s malleability. John Dewey argued that the public needed to be provided with simplified pictures of public issues and this was to be the responsibility of the press. Walter Lippmann, the most conservative of the three founders of the New Republic magazine (the other two were Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl), was pessimistic about the ability of the public to make rational decisions. Lippmann was critical of the press as well. By the 1950s, left wing sociologists like C. Wright Mill were arguing that the centralization of mass media enabled a power elite to dominate public opinion.
The history of Athens reminds us that public emotion and demagoguery threaten democracy. In part because the Founding Fathers were concerned with classical history, they favored republicanism as opposed to direct democracy. After a century of democratized republicanism, it is safe to say that the broad extension of democracy has dimmed the expression of public will. The majority is easily misled and manipulated, and finds itself supporting policies whose results are opposite of what it expects. The symbolism of the New Deal and the Great Society is sufficient to generate public support for these policies even as they have caused diminishing real hourly real wages since 1970.
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/12/libertarians-the-new-york-times-and-saul-alinsky/
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Ebb and Flow of Civilization
There have been over 200 theories as to why Rome declined. Some scholars today argue that Rome did not decline but was transformed from Roman to barbarian rule. But archaeological evidence suggests a significant decline in economic welfare during and after the fifth century, from which western Europe did not recover until the 13th century, and maybe later. The extent of trade was diminished, the quality of pottery was significantly reduced, construction materials became more local and were softer. Thatched roofs instead of tiled roofs were used. Barbarian violence against Romans was common in the fifth century. The Barbarians treated Romans as second class citizens. For example, under Frankish rule, a Roman life was decreed to be worth one half of what an Frankish life was worth (see discussion in Bryan Ward-Perkins' Fall of Rome).
There is debate as to whether there was economic decline in the third and fourth centuries that led to Rome's inability to defend itself in the fifth century. The claim that there were no economic and social changes in the third and fourth century seems incredible. The most powerful empire in western history that in the first through third centuries repeatedly conquered and defended itself against barbarian tribes fell to barbarian tribes in the fifth century. How could this be possible without some kind of failure of social organization, whether economic or social?
The construct of Rome's decline and fall may mask a more fundamental pattern, that Rome itself represented an eight century decline from Hellenic civilization, a decline that may have accelerated in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, Rome did not develop much beyond what the Hellenes had achieved. It did advance organizationally and in terms of civil engineering and law, but its technology was limited largely to what had been accomplished in Greece and the Hellenic colonies by the third century BC. Its economic methods reflected little or no progress over five centuries.
All large scale civilizations go through periods of innovation and imperialism. The periods of innovation are characteristic of times when the civilization is of smaller scale. The imperialism creates larger scale and so introduces homogeneity and consistency. Consistency limits experimentation, by definition, and so limits innovation. In Rome there was a degree of laissez faire, but a large portion of the economy was oriented toward state purposes. Taxes to support military and civil projects were significant. The Roman image of progress was largely one of conquest. Conquest involved imposing the Roman model, so that conquered countries became replicas of Rome. The larger scale was associated with homogeneity.
In the case of Athens, imperialism existed alongside experimentation. The Greek world was highly decentralized because it was organized along the lines of the polis or city state. There were radically different forms of organization of the polis. The two most important were Sparta, an oligarchy ruled by "ephors", and Athens, which evolved from oligarchy and aristocracy into democracy. There were also some tyrannies or monarchies. The experimentation of the Greek world led to Athenian democracy, which led to innovation. This was only possible because of decentralization.
Decentralization is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for innovation and progress. In the case of tribal societies, such as the Americas before 1492, other conditions for the evolution of progress are absent. However, if progress is to occur, a degree of experimentation would seem to be an important root. Without it the intelligence of a small group of central administrators would be the only potential source.
In China Chin Shi Huangdi, the first Chinese emperor who unified China under Chin rule, created a high degree of centralization early in its history, in 221 BC. He and his adviser Li Si passed perhaps the earliest version of totalitarian legal and social reform; built large projects such as the Great Wall of China and a national road system; and killed many people. Li oversaw a massive book burning, illegalizing all intellectual activity. Scholars who resisted were buried alive. In this case the centralization may have preceded economic advance. Economic decline followed immediately upon the centralizing, totalitarian measures. But China's history is characterized by repeated overthrows of the central administrations. Advances may have occurred during disruptions to centralized authority. Alternatively, the Civil Service system may have facilitated a degree of innovation centrally. It will be interesting to trace the extent to which innovation did or did not occur during the centralizing periods. This intellectual elite likely produced considerable advances. But to what extent were the advances made available to the widespread peasantry and to what extent did they translate into improved well being?
It seems that scholars have been excessively impressed with the glories of scale. Rome was impressive, but its substance represented a small improvement of organization over the gains that the Greeks had already made. In terms of the fundamental driver of progress, innovation and experimentation, Rome represented a decline from the Hellenic world, especially in the Periclean era before Athens itself began to increase its scale and become an imperialist power. The obsession with empire, with the trappings of power and external grandeur mask the essential process that drives wealth: experimentation and creativity. These died with the fall of the Hellenes to Rome.
There is debate as to whether there was economic decline in the third and fourth centuries that led to Rome's inability to defend itself in the fifth century. The claim that there were no economic and social changes in the third and fourth century seems incredible. The most powerful empire in western history that in the first through third centuries repeatedly conquered and defended itself against barbarian tribes fell to barbarian tribes in the fifth century. How could this be possible without some kind of failure of social organization, whether economic or social?
The construct of Rome's decline and fall may mask a more fundamental pattern, that Rome itself represented an eight century decline from Hellenic civilization, a decline that may have accelerated in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, Rome did not develop much beyond what the Hellenes had achieved. It did advance organizationally and in terms of civil engineering and law, but its technology was limited largely to what had been accomplished in Greece and the Hellenic colonies by the third century BC. Its economic methods reflected little or no progress over five centuries.
All large scale civilizations go through periods of innovation and imperialism. The periods of innovation are characteristic of times when the civilization is of smaller scale. The imperialism creates larger scale and so introduces homogeneity and consistency. Consistency limits experimentation, by definition, and so limits innovation. In Rome there was a degree of laissez faire, but a large portion of the economy was oriented toward state purposes. Taxes to support military and civil projects were significant. The Roman image of progress was largely one of conquest. Conquest involved imposing the Roman model, so that conquered countries became replicas of Rome. The larger scale was associated with homogeneity.
In the case of Athens, imperialism existed alongside experimentation. The Greek world was highly decentralized because it was organized along the lines of the polis or city state. There were radically different forms of organization of the polis. The two most important were Sparta, an oligarchy ruled by "ephors", and Athens, which evolved from oligarchy and aristocracy into democracy. There were also some tyrannies or monarchies. The experimentation of the Greek world led to Athenian democracy, which led to innovation. This was only possible because of decentralization.
Decentralization is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for innovation and progress. In the case of tribal societies, such as the Americas before 1492, other conditions for the evolution of progress are absent. However, if progress is to occur, a degree of experimentation would seem to be an important root. Without it the intelligence of a small group of central administrators would be the only potential source.
In China Chin Shi Huangdi, the first Chinese emperor who unified China under Chin rule, created a high degree of centralization early in its history, in 221 BC. He and his adviser Li Si passed perhaps the earliest version of totalitarian legal and social reform; built large projects such as the Great Wall of China and a national road system; and killed many people. Li oversaw a massive book burning, illegalizing all intellectual activity. Scholars who resisted were buried alive. In this case the centralization may have preceded economic advance. Economic decline followed immediately upon the centralizing, totalitarian measures. But China's history is characterized by repeated overthrows of the central administrations. Advances may have occurred during disruptions to centralized authority. Alternatively, the Civil Service system may have facilitated a degree of innovation centrally. It will be interesting to trace the extent to which innovation did or did not occur during the centralizing periods. This intellectual elite likely produced considerable advances. But to what extent were the advances made available to the widespread peasantry and to what extent did they translate into improved well being?
It seems that scholars have been excessively impressed with the glories of scale. Rome was impressive, but its substance represented a small improvement of organization over the gains that the Greeks had already made. In terms of the fundamental driver of progress, innovation and experimentation, Rome represented a decline from the Hellenic world, especially in the Periclean era before Athens itself began to increase its scale and become an imperialist power. The obsession with empire, with the trappings of power and external grandeur mask the essential process that drives wealth: experimentation and creativity. These died with the fall of the Hellenes to Rome.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
