Why didn't companies and corporatism and other features of modern capitalism develop in Ancient Rome? Wasn't Rome capitalist?
>Wasn't Rome an economic model that has it's basis in the late 1700's?
No
>>446595
>corporations
What are latifunidas
Also wasn't some amout wheat given for plebs for free? If yes then it's safe to say that rome was pretty nanny state.
Rome had quite a lot of advertising. Both businesses and politicians would graffiti their names on walls and gladiators would even get sponsored by them.
>This post has been brought to you by the Guild of Millers. The Guild of Millers uses only the finest flour; true Roman bread for true Romans.
>>446600
This
>>446600
Capitalism means trading using money, I'm fairly fucking sure they traded
>>446831
>Capitalism means trading using money
it doesn't
I guess because the agrarian-based aristocracy monopolized political power since the end of the monarchy. It probably has also something to do with the resources available. I remember reading once that the geography favored private ownership of land (unlike, say, Egypt) but I don't know what sort of basis it provided for merchants.
>>446600
Of course it depends of what sort of definition you use. The use of the term "capitalism" to refer vaguely to private enterprise and trade-based economies throughout History is pretty common. It's not anachronistic at all.
>>446595
Mordern Capitalism is based off the phoenician system
>>446595
They did, just on a smaller scale due to the low capital requirements of their low tech methods and practices.
>>446831
You're forgetting the whole investors part. That's a pretty big part of capitalism.
There were businesses but capitalism wasn't really a thing. Nobody really knows the ins and outs of the Roman economy, and I'd say that there most likely wasn't the divide between public and private that we see today. For example the corn dole was managed by the Senate/Imperial authority but warehouses and transport were often ran privately by senators
>>446595
>price ceilings and floors
>capitalist
Nope
>>446595
Corporations are legal fictions created by the state. They are not just things that spring up out of no where.
>>446831
>Capitalism means trading using money,
No, Roman society, as many others, had some goods and services provided by private agents in a market. But it wasn't really a capitalist economy.
The Roman economy is incredibly hard to pin down because there wasn't really much of it and what little there was was completely underdeveloped.
>>446595
>Wasn't Rome capitalist?
>>446831
>that simplistic and incorrect definition of capitalism
Holy fucking shit. You need to be 18 to post on 4chan.
This thread confuses me. Can you guys explain what you consider a proper definition of capitalism?
Also the first multinationals according to the modern definition actually predate the roman empire.
>>448239
A system based on freedom to own property and freedom to trade said property for profit.
There are instances of similar systems in early times like in Rome -capitalism was not created in day- but with many primitive (but somehow surviving) limits to free enterprise like price controls and anti-usury laws. As a whole, capitalism didn't actually came to be until after the mercantilist era, when free enterprise and international trade weren't recognized simply as facts, or even rights, but as a way to universally improve the well-being of the people.
>>448239
>Can you guys explain what you consider a proper definition of capitalism?
No.
Ask /lit/ and they'll quote Marx; Ask /pol/ and they'll quote Rand.
>>448269
oh and slavery, slavery was a big thing preventing capitalism's development
>>448269
Ok that seems to be a clear definition.
In what ways did the Roman empire not qualify for that? Considering we also have limits to free enterprise in the form of antitrust laws (so not inherited from the past like trade barriers).
>>448239
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=capitalism
>>448276
Its funny because I (the guy asking) actually study Economics. Never did we discuss capitalism or what it is explicitly.
The annoying thing is a lot of people want to argue against capitalism (and the evil banking cabal) to me but I never understand what exactly they mean with capitalism (and it changes with every person).
>>446831
>idiots who think that the only possible economi models are capitalism and socialism
Also roman economics changed a lot over time, if you want more info you need to pick a specific period
Like dying the republic slavery was incredibly common as was a system of patronage by which the upper classes basically did favors in exchange for service by lower folk.
>>448239
Is the system that describe the rise of the burgois, the merchants are demanding more powers and rights and telling to the aristocrats to fuck off, so is basically it started like a new feudalism where the rich peasants have political power now.
>>448303
Most of the commerce was made by the government, there were small traders, but just this traders don't mean anything.
>>448318
Doing so gets you a dozen definitions.
Some focus on free markets. Other dont mention them at all and stress individual ownership, often contrasting it to communism (state ownership).
This is why it seems to me that every thread about capitalism goes to shit.
>>448050
Corporate entities certainly existed, though not as we think o corporations today.
Things like guilds, great families, and criminal gangs were all corporate entities.
>>448303
Well, firstly, I don't think there's a modern economy that's fully capitalistic (In fact I don't think that a pure 100% lassiez faire capitalism has ever existed, although Friedman was fond of some economically freer eras of American history), even if most (even the renowned "Scandinavian models" are based on free enterprise. The modern State, through its institution of welfare and war, prevents capitalism from fully arising.
The Roman empire wouldn't qualify because of slavery (among other things), capitalism requires the freedom of every individual, and if a slave isn't free to trade with you, you're not free to trade with him!
>>448343
Because enocomics are like philosophy, they are just thoughs of and a try of people to describe in what kind of system they are living.
>>448343
>Some focus on free markets. Other dont mention them at all and stress individual ownership
A market is implicit in the institution of private ownership and trade.
>>448390
Yes but a free market isn't.
>>446595
>Wasn't Rome capitalist?
Rome was explicitally protectionist, like almost all societies pre-seventeen hundreds.
To operate, you needed a charter that explicitally stated your profits went to the state first and foremost. Usually, this meant that people who owned "companies" also were the ones with political power. You think it's bad today? Back then, there was no difference between the power a guild held and political power, it was one in the same. Capitalism separated the two ideas.
>>448324
I studied economics too. Capitalism isn't defined because there's no real need for it, and the term itself was popularized by socialists as a pejorative. Hence nobody gives a shit what "capitalism" means, because it's a very top-down way of explaining society which non-Socialists reject. Instead we speak of markets and market structure.
But for alternative explanations of Capitalism beyond the Socialist's boogeyman, Capitalism can be considered a historical phenomenon which began with the Acts of Inclosure in the North of England which privatized the Commons (which gave their name to the "Tragedy of the Commons"), helped kick off the British Agricultural Revolution of the late 18th Century and was exported around the British Empire.
>>448269
>A system based on freedom to own property and freedom to trade said property for profit.
So basically, every civilization since the beggining of times.
>-capitalism was not created in day- but with many primitive (but somehow surviving) limits to free enterprise like price controls and anti-usury laws
There are price controls and anti-usury laws and much tighter regulation nowadays in what you can or cannot sell now than in the times of the Persian Empire.
>As a whole, capitalism didn't actually came to be until after the mercantilist era, when free enterprise and international trade weren't recognized simply as facts, or even rights, but as a way to universally improve the well-being of the...
As a whole, blablablablablabla without back up, maymays and [citation needed]
