2026-04-17 12:53:27
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
Kim Bowes is an archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania whose book, Surviving Rome: The Economic Lives of the Ninety Percent, Tyler calls perhaps his favorite economics book of 2025. By sifting through the material remains of Roman life — shoes, bricks, ceramics, and the like — she uncovers a picture of ordinary Romans who could evidently afford to buy multiple sets of colorful clothes, use gold coins for daily transactions, and eat peppercorns sourced from thousands of miles away. This vast web of commerce, she argues, both bound the empire together and provided the tax base that kept it running — and when it unraveled, Rome unraveled with it.
Tyler and Kim discuss what would surprise a modern visitor to a Roman elite home, what early Roman Christianity actually looked like on the ground, why Romans never developed formal economic reasoning, what decentralized money-lending reveals about the Roman state, whether there were anything like forward markets, why Romans continued to use coins even as the empire debased them, the economics of Roman slavery, whether Roman recipes taste any good, the Romans as hyper-scalers rather than inventors, what Rome made of China and Egypt, why Kim’s not a fan of the Vesuvius challenge, the practicalities of landscape archaeology, how a vast belt of factories along the Tiber Valley went undiscovered until twenty years ago, where to go on a three-week tour of the Roman Empire, what she thinks is ultimately behind Rome’s unraveling, and much more.
Here is an excerpt with some economics:
COWEN: Say, when the government is clipping the silver coins and lowering their silver content, as we now know in economic theory, this will imply at least some inflationary pressure. Are there Roman writers who understood that and laid it out, or they’re just vague public complaints about government clipping the coins?
BOWES: They’re not so much clipping them as they are minting them with less silver, which amounts to the same thing. It’s just a little bit classier and harder to detect. Absolutely, people know that they’re doing this. What I think is most interesting and what we’re all still wrestling with is, from even before Nero onwards, Roman emperors recognized the advantage to the fisc to basically producing coins with less silver.
Then they start to have silver problems, and they start really pulling the silver out of their coins, and nobody cares. That is to say, people care, and they notice, but the convenience of the Roman coin of the realm, the denarius, which is made with silver, outweighs—that’s a little bit of a pun—the actual silver content of that coin, and so people are willing to just suck it up and deal, and they keep using it.
There is inflation, and inflation, we can now tell, thanks to some great papyri from Egypt, trends upwards very slowly over the first century, the second century, the third century, but it’s not proportional to the amount of silver that’s being pulled out of the coins. People basically still have trust in their coinage, which really shows the degree to which the state has convinced people, simply by supporting ordinary people’s coin use, that the coins work and that they’re going to back their coins, even though they’re slightly pulling the silver out.
COWEN: Why was there so much decentralized money lending? You would think that banks would have economies of scale, offer better terms, just like I wouldn’t borrow money from my friends, I would go to the bank. Why doesn’t the Roman Empire evolve that way?
BOWES: The Roman Empire confuses us, I think, because on the one hand, it looks like a really big state that ought to do things that big states do. The Roman big state is really a mask for an empire of friends and family. You borrow money from friends and family. Banks, such as they exist, are really nothing more than friends and family, so even when you have actual banks, they tend to be largely constituted by a single family.
The difference that you’re making between borrowing from a bank and borrowing from your family is much less clear-cut in a world in which the bank is your family, or the bank is a family that is friends of yours. It’s not that Romans don’t use banks, they do use banks. We can see the most often wealthier Romans using banks. It’s a lot harder to see the 90 percent using banks, and they seem to more often default to the immediate circle of people that they know, which again, it’s not such a huge distinction. In a world in which there’s no FDIC, in which the bank isn’t guaranteed and protected by the state in the way in which our banks are, the distinction between bank and family, bank and friends, is much less clear.
Interesting and engaging throughout, definitely recommended. You can buy Kim’s excellent book here.
The post My excellent Conversation with Kim Bowes appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-17 02:53:07
A new venture, focusing on evidence-based approaches to economic development globally. Here is Paul Niehaus on GiveDirectly and the evidence for cash-based transfers. Here is the home page and a link to subscribe.
The post In Development magazine appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-17 00:01:37
1. Kasparov analyzes the rise of Sindarov.
2. Podcast on Houellebecq’s Submission. With transcript.
3. “A majority of Australian children under age 16 still use social media apps despite a ban implemented in December, according to new research.
Sixty-one percent of Australian children between the ages of 12 and 15 told researchers from a prominent UK foundation and an Australian youth research agency that they can still access accounts on major platforms just as they did before the ban was put in place.” Link here.
4. “If anything, nationalists are fighting to reassure pro-EU voters. Marine Le Pen has softened her line on Brussels over the years to remain electorally competitive in France. Giorgia Meloni has mostly co-operated with the EU during her three-and-a-half surprising years as a hard-right Italian prime minister. Both will have watched events in Hungary over the weekend and felt themselves vindicated. Of all the varied reasons for Viktor Orbán’s landslide defeat, the public’s desire to mend relations with the EU was prominent. The election winner Péter Magyar, no kind of liberal, and in fact a former Orbán man, favours a “return to Europe”.” (Ganesh in the FT)
5. Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia. And a useful thread.
6. Alex Imas on the evolution of employment with AI.
The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-16 22:02:13
Here is one appreciation. His three-volume biography of Keynes (better than the one-volume condensation!) is in my opinion one of the very best books ever written, up there with Caro on Moses, etc.
The post Robert Skidelsky, RIP appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-16 19:21:13
Here’s a revision I made to Modern Principles, my textbook with Tyler. Some things change dramatically, some things never change.
The post Revising Modern Principles appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-16 17:29:52
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics has been awarded annually since 1969. Who wins the prize is a topic of much interest and tracks the whole course of the academic discipline over the last 57 years. Explaining who wins the prize in any given year is a complex process, which involves the subtle endogeneity of the choice of the field and the individual(s) who should be honoured. Citations, track records, networks of past winners, institutional factors along with field rotation and Economic Prize Committee composition may all play a role. A dynamic sample involving a changing stock of would-be candidates along with a moving flow—both into and out of the sample—add complexities to the modelling. We find robust evidence that the Nobel Prize rotates in a semi-regular way between the fields of economics. Earlier awards were for a single paper, later ones for a body of work. Networks do not matter, but having a Nobel student or co-author does. There is some evidence that the personal preferences of Committee members had an effect on either field or individual winner. The Committee’s decisions changed after Lindbeck retired.
That is from a new paper by Peter J. Dolton and Richard S.J. Tol. Via Niclas Berggren.
The post The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, 1969-2025 appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.