The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Decline of the American EmpireA fiscal and economic analysis of an underestimated correlation.

Josep Adolf Martí i Bouis

INDEX

1. Economy and Fiscal Policy in the Roman Empire………6

2. The Fall of the Roman Empire’s Economy…………………10

3. Comparison with the United States…………………………14

4. Conclusion……………………………………………………….18

Introduction

Much has been written about the fall of the Roman Empire, and about the reasons that led to the disaster. Even with the huge amount of literature about the topic, scholars and members of the academic world do not agree on what were the actions that drove the Empire to its end, being out there different opinions that go from simple military reasons or sociological explanations to alleged environmental causes, like defended by Steve Hallett and others. Roman experts and writers are divided and fighting all time about this issue, maybe because as Charles Philip Issawi said, “"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake”. But does this topic actually not matte at all?

Historians identify different empires over history who hold supremacy and stay superior to their rivals. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, etc. All of them have common characteristics that make them belong to the same category of “empires”, but one of them stands alone: they are all gone. The British Crown may, today, have nominal dominion over some countries like Canada, but it is undeniable that its glorious days remain in the past, and it is likely that they will not come back. One empire still stands today, having de facto power over most of the other nations in the world. The United States of America, as described by Bruce Fein, is the only superpower left after the Cold War, and has the shared traits of an Empire.

America is still young and powerful, and her military is deployed all over the world. With no doubt, the United States are the police of the world and a major force in every conflict, discussion, negotiation or relation between sovereign nations on Earth. But, is the path of this country leading to a predictable fall and destruction, just like the Romans had to follow more than 1,000 years ago? Is there anything in common between the States and Rome? Is the concept of “bad money” and the inflation that it caused in any way related to the Fed and its policies?

This paper tries to analyze the end of the Roman Empire, attaching it to the idea that inflation and bad fiscal policies were the causes of its fall, in order to follow any relationship between what happened then and what is happening today. Lots of sources are available, which makes this work easier, and wise, formed men have written about this topic in some way. Because of that, rather than bring anything new to the world of academics, this text tries to put together concepts, ideas, and studies, taken from other people interested in this very interesting and deep field of knowledge.

1. Economy and Fiscal Policy in the Roman Empire

The study of Roman Economy has different opinions, points of view and confronted hypothesis, too. There are those who defend that it was an economy based on subsistence agriculture and that cities consumed more than they produced, like Moses Finley (who is famous by his theory, presented in “The Ancient Economy”, that ancient economy should be studied with sociological methods instead of pure economically. There are others who believe that, even with the limited means of communication, the Empire was a great economical network and that commerce was what made it the political institution that it became. They claim that the fact that economic growth was greater at that time than in most countries of the world before industrialization (Mattingly, 2010).

Money, the use of coinage, was generalized in the Empire, and that allowed economic growth to happen and an early expansion of commerce and industry to flourish. This also created a new class in society, or at least gave it much more importance than it had in other communities: the figure of the banker, or argentarius (Harris, 2008). With no central bank, like the United States during the XIX century, private banks followed the idea of fraction reserve, keeping less money than the total lent to third parties. Even with this banks alive, most of today’s bank’s actions were carried on by the rich, especially the Senators, that took profit from their privileged position to make business between them and others.

Unlike today’s Governments, the State did not borrow money from banks. When there was deficit, inflation and physical reserves were used to get to pay debts (Duncan-Jones, 1998). Also, Government did not generally bailout banks or give them free money when their risky operations didn’t have success. Only one episode in which the Roman Empire did bailout a bank is recorded: in 33AD, when a credit shortage was going on in Rome and the economy was hurting because of it, the Emperor Tiberius decided to personally loan 100 million sestertius to the banks (Tacitus).

Taxation was very low in general, but not always paid with money. Cattle, grain, and other types of “in kind” payments were made, and some local or regional taxes were created in the Empire. The justification for the taxes was mainly military: money was needed for defense and to expand Rome’s dominion over

the world. Because of that, in some cases, after the capture of a surplus of booty repayments and refunds to the taxpayers were made (Ando, 2006).

Taxes were advanced in structure, and made up most of the revenue of Government. The main direct taxes were a poll tax

on every citizen (not on the income, like in the United States and most countries today) and a tax on land. There were even exemptions under the Roman Rule (for example, exemptions for Egyptian farmers whenever the Nile had a flood) (Ando, 2006). Other taxes included a 4% on slaves’ sales (Cassius), an inheritance tax of 5% and a 1% sales tax on auctions that went to the veterans of the military. While taxes were low and that created lots of opportunities, later on they were raised and modified, in a process that contributed to the Fall of Rome as it is gonna be demonstrated in the next parts of the paper.

So, with no public debt and low taxes, was there any fiscal problem in the Roman Empire at all before its Fall? Lots of them! Corruption was generalized, and some of the basic roles of Government were not being done because of a lack of structure and power. As Wilhem Ihne says:

“Though individually the Romans were exceedingly economical and careful in the management of their private property, the state as such was extravagant and careless with the state revenue. It was found impossible to protect the public property from being plundered by private individuals, and the feeling of powerlessness resulted in reckless indifference. It was felt that revenues which could not be preserved intact and devoted to the common good were of no value to the state and might as well be abandoned.”

But, even with that corruption, the standard of living of citizens living in the Empire at 100AD was much superior to the one enjoyed in many european citizens in the early XIX century. The evidence for that is not massive, but a study carried on by Keith Hopkins estimated that the Italian peninsula was about 30% urbanized in the Early Roman Empire. Since urbanization rates can be used as an index of per capita income (done in economic history by many famous historians; David 1967, Craig and Fisher 2002, etc.), we can estimate that GDP per capita in Roman Italy was similar to the one in Spain or France in 1700, when those two nations were among the most powerful on

Tax Collector

Earth (Temin, 2006). However, outside Italy and the capital, only 10% was urbanized. This disparity shows a huge gap between regions that can be also supported by this graph:

An important characteristic of the Roman economy is the decisive role of the Mediterranean Sea, the “Mare Nostrum”, or “Our Sea”, that was used for commerce and transportation. One of the best examples that can be found for this is the grain supply in Rome. The capital of the Empire, Rome, had about one million inhabitants in the Early Roman Empire. Accepting that number, calculations show that about 150,000-300,000 tons of grain would be needed every year, plus olive oil and wine. Because it was cheaper to send this goods by sea rather than by land, the Mediterranean was critical. All this supplies were sent from Africa, Spain and other colonies around the sea, and it is calculated that a 30% of the grain received in the city was given for free through a kind of social program named “Annona” (Hopkins, 1980).

Although there’s not consensus on whether the Roman economy was local or based on “global” commerce, most of today’s experts on roman history believe that commerce was a huge part of roman macroeconomics and it contributed to the GDP almost as much as agriculture. Here is a map with the basic goods exported in each part of the empire and the routes that those goods followed in the mid-Roman Empire. Internal commerce among Provinces was the most common, but to some degree there were commercial relationships with the barbarians.

The analysis of the Roman economic structure and institutions presented here is, anyway, based on the idea that we can understand those with our current ideas of what human behavior is. Moses Finley (1973), Karl Bücher (1911) and others have argued that because the social and cultural institutions of the ancient economies were not market oriented we cannot understand them. This paper follows the studies done by Eduard Meyer, who in 1910 demonstrated that the ancient economy was modern and capitalist in nature, only restricted by the technological conditions available at that time. M. Rostovtzeff (1926) also worked on that idea, and his book “The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire” was predominant in the academic world.

2. The Fall of the Roman Empire’s economy

Although there is not really a general consensus among historians on the reasons that led the Roman Empire to failure, if instead of seeking for reasons one just looks at the facts some conclusions can be taken from that episode of history. The Empire, during the final years of the II century and the whole III century, was different and in some way weaker than the previous centuries. Some emperors, like Caracalla, will exemplify this fact, but the fact that most rulers at that time started getting into power through military coups d’État says a lot about how the conditions changed (there were 26 legitimate emperors during this third century and only one of them died because of a natural death.

We can easily find evidence that the fall of the Roman Empire was because of failed fiscal and economic policies that led to other outcomes traditionally studied. The basic coinage of the Roman Empire to this time — we're speaking now about 211 AD — was the silver denarius introduced by Augustus at about 95 percent silver at the end of the 1st century BC. The denarius continued for the better part of two centuries as the basic medium of exchange in the empire. By the time of Trajan in 117 AD, the denarius was only about 85 percent silver, down from Augustus's 95 percent. By the age of Marcus Aurelius, in 180, it was down to about 75 percent silver. In Septimius's time it had dropped to 60 percent, and Caracalla evened it off at 50/50 (Duncan-Jones, 1994 and Walker, 1975). This process of putting non noble metals to lower a c u r r e n c y ’ s v a l u e i s c a l l e d Debasement, and was one of the techniques used by the roman emperors to pay their debts and military expansions.

The evidence described above is rejected by some other historians like Lo Cascio (1997), but the plurality of academic community sides with the idea that inflation was a major problem by the mid-third century.

The biggest crisis came between 258 and 275, in a period of intense civil war and foreign invasions. The emperors simply abandoned, for all practical purposes, a silver coinage. By 268 there was only 0.5 percent silver in the denarius. (Peden, 1984).

After that, many emperors issued new currency not supported by silver nor gold to try to revitalize the economy and stop inflation, that was literally killing roman citizens (quality of life dropped hugely as prices rose by, sometimes, 1000%). Not only that, to support a oversized military new taxes were created. Caracalla created two new tributes on inheritances, and then many emperors did the similar things.

As mentioned, new taxes and inflation existed partially because of the roman military. he soldiers' pay rose from 225 denarii during the time of Augustus to 300 denarii in the time of Domitian, about a hundred years later. A century after Domitian, in the time of Septimius, it had gone from 300 to 500 denarii; and in the time of Caracalla, about 10 years later, it had gone to 750 denarii. In other words, the cost of the army was also rising in terms of the coinage; so, as the coinage became more worthless, the cost of the army had to be increased. (Sabin et al, 2007).

As we saw during the first part of this chapter, for a long time the Roman Empire enjoyed a pretty much laissez-faire economy, and citizens in Rome had many liberties that other civilizations didn’t have. But, under the crisis that the Emperors had created and the fiscal mess that rose in the Empire, the economic freedoms of the people of Rome started to be eroded. Temples were destroyed (Warren, 1999), land was taken away (Herber, 2015), etc.

Other statist policies were created or enlarged if they already existed as the State grew bigger and bigger. One of the most famous ones was the Cura Annonae, that consisted of giving away free grain to the citizens of Rome, the city. At the beginning it was intended to serve only those that lived under poverty and not the general population, but some calculations say that actually about 25-30% of the citizens of the City of Rome were receiving this kind of public aid. This grain had to come from some place, and so the Empire started buying huge amounts of grain from Spain, Anatolia, Egypt, etc., raising the price for everybody else (Jongman, 1997).

The Cura Annonae was also used as a political weapon. Emperors and Senators would promise to give away more food if the populace and the masses supported them. From this policy comes the phrase “Bread and Circuses” , because that’s what the rulers would give to the citizens of Rome to keep them qu ie t (Garnsey, 1988).

T h e b a r b a r i a n invasions that happened in the late Roman Empire were not made up of stronger warriors than the ones that same Empire had rejected, but they took advantage of the weak fiscal situation of the Empire to push the borders because they knew that they would face no counter attacks. In fact, due to the excessive taxation of the last emperors and the poor economic situation, some people living in the frontier preferred to be attacked by the nordic tribes than to live under the Roman Occupation (de Soto, 2010).

Because of the financial problems and the continual waste of public money in the military, soon that institution was corrupted and not able to carry on its duty of protecting the borders and lands of the Empire. By the beginning of the fifth century there was not effective regular army that could defend Rome against barbarian war chiefs like Alaric.

Also, because of the continuous wars, thousands of miles of “good land”, that had been worked until that point, became useless. That created unemployment and shortage in some regions of the Roman Empire, although it was something that had happened before the Third Century Crisis (during the Punic Wars, for instance). This non-stopping lack of resources dried the internal commerce of the Empire, that was not been very strong before that anyway (Whittacker, 1997).

As the military became a weaker force (it is funny, though, that it became a weaker institution because the useless effort of the emperors that wanted a strong army) the commerce in the Mediterranean Sea, one of the greatest contributions of the Roman Empire, also started to fall down. Pirates, from Sicily and other places, started to dominate the waves and to take the merchants’ goods (Omerod, 1974). This kind of pillage, added to the high taxes, made it less attractive for people to invest in commerce. Economy started getting more and more local in a process that many historians believe led to the starting point of the Middle Age economy.

Eventually, price controls were instructed in the Roman Empire. Lactantius (1984), that lived by that time, tells that blood was shed over “small and cheap items” and that goods disappeared from sale. Yet, “the rise in price got much worse. After many had met their deaths, sheer necessity led to the repeal of the law”. As always, price control and socialist measures do not work.

In conclusion, the fall of Rome was essentially due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation and over-regulation. Higher taxes did not create the needed revenue and the process of debasement made it impossible to save, thus stopping investments and commerce.

3. Comparison with the United States

The correlation between the current economic situation in the United States of America (and to some extent the rest of the Western Civilization) and the Late Roman Empire is clear. In fact, many scholars have started calling the United States of America the “American Empire” since the XX century for its military actions overseas (Bachevich, 2008; Boot, 2002; Johnson, 2004; Todd, 2004; etc.).

When historians talk about the American Empire and compare it to the Roman Empire they often do so by looking at the military, political, social and cultural side of the coin. Only a few have written about the monetary policies and the consequences of those that both nations have in common. Like the Roman Empire, America is a huge free trade area with lots of inhabitants and commerce. Like the Roman Empire, America has a past of incredible prosperity and low taxes and regulations, in a pro-market society, during the XIX century and before (Rothbard, 1975). And, like the Roman Empire, the United States are going down the path of economic failure (Schiff, 2012).

But why?

As in the Roman Empire, the United States presidents and its Congress have been using the process of debasement to make it easier for the Government to rule the economy (through the Fed), have been adding debt to the nation (nearly 19 trillion at the time this paper’s being printed), and have created a big Government that consumes a huge portion of America’s GDP.

The great american economist Murray Rothbard said in a documentary in the 80’s:

“For more than twenty years, the living standards of middle class Americans have steadily declined; incomes have remained flat or falling and the opportunities and security we once took for granted have begun to fade. For most families, one income no longer pays the bills; it requires two or more incomes to afford a home, pay medical and childcare expenses, and put children through school. Unless present trends change, young workers are unlikely to ever live as well as their parents. Good jobs with a future are harder to come by; education doesn't count for what it once did; taxes continue to rise while social security is going bankrupt. Private pensions are no longer reliable; economic volatility and uncertainty are on the rise. Politicians espouse numerous theories about the cause of this country's economic woes;

seldom however do these officials look below the surface: the roots of our economic ills can be traced to central banking and our present monetary system.”

These words can be repeated today with the same strength, conviction and truthfulness. Who’s to blame for the desperation of the middle-class, the failure of Social Security and other Big Government programs and the loss of jobs and economic freedom? The Federal Reserve, created in 1913 to stabilize the dollar, is the culmination of 50 years of Government intervention in the monetary system. Before 1862, private banks issued their own money under the guidance of the House of Representatives, and many economists believe that that system created less inflation and crisis (Rothbard, 2002).

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S Dollar has lost most of its value. A dollar owned in the first decade of the XX century would equal less than five cents today and America’s currency is no longer based on anything but trust in the Government. Or not even this, since the Federal Reserve has almost no checks at all. Looking at today’s system it is easy to say that Congress, the House of Representatives, has lost all of its power to create money as specified in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The idea of the Federal Reserve of printing more money, infinitely, without backing it with anything whatsoever is the cause of the graph above. If you cross the Value of a $1 Federal Reserve Note data (since 1971, when the United States official left the Gold Standard System) and the amount of money printed, you get an almost perfect correlation:

And not only the Fed’s policies have destroyed any value that the US dollar used to have. It has allowed the US Government to get a debt that is virtually impossible it’ll ever get paid. If the Federal Reserve had never been created, and the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free currency all this time, it is entirely conceivable that we would have absolutely no federal government debt at this point (Snyder, 2013).

As said before, the Roman Empire had no debt at all at the beginning. But as wars started to become common and Government spending went up, so did debt with private companies. Many economists believe that this debt that Rome got into was one of the main causes of its eventual destruction (Hudson, 2013), and some economists, scholars and politicians are today saying that America is following the example settled by the Empire.

Under president Obama, America’s public debt has tripled and it’s assumed that it will keep going up. Every children born in this country has a shared part of the national debt of $60,000.

If you include to the amount of debt just presented the unfunded liabilities of Social security and Medicare, the U.S real indebtedness e x c e e d s $ 8 3 t r i l l i o n (Tanner, 2015).

Added to the huge national debt of the United States holder by the Federal Government, there’s a 80,000 pages long IRS’ Tax Code and other taxes that create on of the biggest bureaucracies in the world.

While some companies have to pay almost 50% of their revenue in taxes and some citizens have to do the same with their income, the free-market dream on which America was founded is slowly dying. Regulations, restriction to commerce, police state… many of the liberties that formed the core spirit of the United States are now being ignored by the Government or Society, and at the same time economic growth is almost gone.

With such big figures, is there anyway that America will not become the new ancient civilization whose Fall will be studied in years to come? Is this economic and fiscal situation gonna last forever?

4. Conclusion

The Republic of the United States of America looks like the Roman Empire in many ways. Fiscally, its high taxes, regulations, and restrictions to commerce, are killing what once was the paradigm of free market capitalism. In monetary policy, the destructive policies of the Federal Reserve, headed by Janet Yellen, are doing to the U.S dollar what the emperors did to the denarius during the third century. And yet, there’s a huge difference between those two “empires”.

The Western Roman Empire has been gone for about 1,500 years, while the United States have been around only for about 240 years. The time to change is still there, and the opportunities to rethink and reconsider the current path of the nation are available. Looking at the evidence presented in the third part of this chapter, the reader may feel overhaul by the numbers that appear in there. However, modern investigation reveals that citizens’ implication in Government is the most powerful way of lobbying, and so nothing is impossible for a compromised and decided group of citizens (Miller, 1994).

Because of that, while the citizens of Rome may not be able to decide anymore what they want to do with their country’s situation, americans do have the opportunity to do so. Thus, the future is open to any kind of ending. One possibility, as presented in this paper, is that the United States of America will end up falling under the enemy that destroyed Rome: the Empire itself.

Bibliography

Hallet, Steve. “Life Without Oil”. 2011.

Fein, Bruce. “American Empire Before the Fall”. 2010

Mattingly, David. “The imperial Economy” A Companion to the Roman Empire.

(Blackwell, 2010)

Harris, William Daniel. “The Nature of Roman Money”. 2008.

Duncan-Jones, Richard. “Money and Government in the Roman Empire”. 1994.

Tacitus. “Annales”. 1992

Ando, Clifford. “The Administration of the Provinces”, pg. 187. 2006.

Cassius Dio 55.31.4.

Ihne, Wilhelm. “The History of Rome”, vol. 4, p. 156. London, 1884.

Hopkins, Keith. “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C-AD. 400)”. Journal of Roman Studies.

Temin, Peter. 2006. "The Economy of the Early Roman Empire." Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 20(1): 133-151.

Finley, M.I. “Anthropology and the Classics”. London, 1975.

Finley, M.I. “The Ancient Economy”. Berkeley, 1999.

Bücher, Karl. “The emergence of the national economy”. 1911.

Meyer, E. “Einleitung. Elemente der Anthropologie. Geschichte des Altertums”.

Berlin, 1910.

Rostovtzeff, M. I. “The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire”.

Oxford, 1941.

Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1998.

Walker. “The Metrology of Roman Silver”.

Crowford, M.H. “Finance, Coinage and Money from the Severans to

Constantine”.

Lo Cascio, E., ‘Prezzi in oro e prezzi in unita di conto tra il III e il IV sec. d.C.’ in J.

Andreau, P. Briant and R. Descat (eds.), Economie antique: Prix et formation des

prix les économies antiques, Entretiens d’archaeologie et d’histoire, Saint-

Bertrand-de-Comminges 1997, pp. 161-182

Sabin, Philip et al. “The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare” Vol. 2.

2007.

Bowersock, Glen Warren et al. “Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical

World”. 1999.

Herber, F.R. “On the Importance of Expropriation in the Roman Empire and in

Modern Europe”. European Scientific Journal. 2015.

Jongman, W.M. “Cura Annonae”. Stuggart, 1997.

P. Garnsey, Famine and Food-Supply in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge,

1988)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcaciZean4 de Soto, Caída del Imperio

Romano, 2015

Whittacker, C.R. “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. 1997.

Ormerod, Henry A. (1974) Piracy in the Ancient World: An Essay in

Mediterranean History. Liverpool University Press.

Lactantius(1984)Dc Mortibus Persecutorum.J.L.Creed.

Bacevich, Andrew (2008). The Limits of Power: The End of American

Exceptionalism. Macmillan. ISBN 0-8050-8815-6.

Boot, Max (2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of

American Power. Basic Books.

Johnson, Chalmers (2000). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of

American Empire. New York: Holt. ISBN 0-8050-6239-4.

Johnson, Chalmers (2004). The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the

End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books

Todd, Emmanuel (2004). After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American

Order. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13103-2.

Rothbard, conceived in liberty

The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy – How to Save Yourself and Your

Country, 2012, Peter Schiff

History of Banking in the US, ROthbard, 2002

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-

reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems Michael Snyder, 2013

Michael Hudson, http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/debt-slavery-why-it-

destroyed-rome-why-it-will-destroy-us-unless-its-stopped/

Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis Hardcover – June 7,

2015

by Michael D. Tanner

Valerie Miller, 1994 “NGO AND GRASSROOTS POLICY INFLUENCE”