New study suggests Mayas utilized market-based economics:
More than 500 years ago in the midwestern Guatemalan highlands, Maya people bought and sold goods with far less oversight from their rulers than many archeologists previously thought.
That's according to a new study in Latin American Antiquity that shows the ruling K'iche' elite took a hands-off approach when it came to managing the procurement and trade of obsidian by people outside their region of central control.
[...] While there are extensive written records from the Maya Postclassic Period (1200-1524 AD) on political organization, much less is known about how societal elites wielded economic power. Horowitz set out to address this knowledge gap for the K'iche' by examining the production and distribution of obsidian artifacts, which are used as a proxy by archeologists to determine the level of economic development in a region.
She performed geochemical and technological analysis on obsidian artifacts excavated from 50 sites around the K'iche' capital of Q'umarkaj and surrounding region to determine where the raw material originally came from and techniques of its manufacture.
[...] "For a long time, there has been this idea that people in the past didn't have market economies, which when you think about it is kind of weird. Why wouldn't these people have had markets in the past?" she said. "The more we look into it, the more we realize there were a lot of different ways in which these peoples' lives were similar to ours."
Journal Reference:
Horowitz, R. (2022). Economic Integration and Obsidian Consumption in the Late Postclassic Period K'iche' Region. Latin American Antiquity, 1-19. doi:10.1017/laq.2022.79
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 21, @03:53PM (7 children)
Like the beachmaster elephant seal, central authorities can only control so much of their economies. The occasional illicit mating down by the waterline is inevitable, as is black (and, to an extent grey) market trade. See also: Marijuana circa 1970-2010.
Considering the Maya civilization completely rose and fell, there had to be periods where central control was weaker, and probably also enlightened periods where they realized it was better to acknowledge open trade than to force it into a black market situation.
Now, on the question: are open markets good? I feel that is most accurately answered with an analogy: are absolute dictatorships good? Why, yes, yes they can be - sometimes; there are many historical examples of good dictators. However, structurally, they are weak and easily succeeded by bad dictators. Truly open markets are a kind of polar opposite to absolute central control dictatorships, and they suffer the same issues with occasional good examples, but structural vulnerability to abuse which is all too easy to point out in market monopolies.
Were open markets good for the Maya? Apparently not good enough...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday February 21, @05:14PM (3 children)
I think the thing most people fail to realize is that markets are a tool. Like any tool there's tasks they're good at handling, tasks they can do but kinda badly, and then things that they just plain make worse. If all you have is a hammer every window you try to install will be an empty hole ringed by broken glass, as they say.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday February 21, @06:07PM (2 children)
I mean, you can successfully install a window with a hammer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YttTTi-hNZc [youtube.com] (Dude installing a window, with a hammer.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday February 21, @06:17PM (1 child)
Toché. I was thinking about actual glass -> frame, not prefab.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday February 21, @11:57PM
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday February 21, @07:11PM (2 children)
I strongly disagree on multiple fronts. First, to paraphrase Asimov [upenn.edu], if you think "market monopolies" (which often are merely a temporary market dominance) are as wrong as a dictator controlling every aspect of your and your society's existence, then "your view is wronger than both of them put together".
Second, we don't actually have the alleged "structural vulnerability to abuse" from so-called "market monopolies". Market dominance frequently occurs and at a trivial level, there will always be some largest provider or consumer in any given market classification and thus, some excuse to call it a market monopoly even though it never is.
If one looks at actual monopolies that last many decades, they are driven by non-market factors like a legally created rent seeking, contrived barriers to entry, etc. For example, the East India Trading Company has a monopoly on trade in India that lasted almost three centuries. Or the De Beers Diamond Consortium that also relied on state power and corruption to maintain its market dominance for about a century.
Then there's the 70 year AT&T monopoly, here enforced by the US government. In comparison, cherry picking a few exceptional examples of market monopolies - that is, business with merely market dominance, Standard Oil technically had a monopoly for around 40 years, though the market share of that monopoly had declined in the latter half. Microsoft for almost 40 years in the desktop OS, although not in cell phones or embedded systems. The current internet market monopolies are short lived in comparison with the big four or five having their market dominance for less than two decades with signs of market decline.
In other words, there's a huge difference in the longevity and level of dominance of parties that have market monopolies as opposed to real ones. You won't see a three century Google dominance without state power behind it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 21, @07:54PM (1 child)
There's also monopoly by a single entity and monopoly by implicit or hidden collusion among "competitors" or the occasional open coalition ala OPEC.
Right now, I'm typing this through a local monopoly company who gives (relative to AT&T of the 1970s) shit for service and arbitrary price hikes for nothing but profit. Our "premier" grocery chain in the region, Publix, switched into "market leader" mode about 5-10 years ago - acting like a monopoly player because their customers act like they can't shop anywhere else. All of a sudden, the more common grocery staples were inflated 80 to 90% in price and then run on "BOGO specials" one week out of 12. Net effect: if you're not a regular, loyal Publix customer with a big pantry to stock up on these "great deals" when they come around, you experienced an effective 15-20% inflation of your grocery bill in the space of about a year.
In Florida (and I suspect much of the US) our construction industry is a "highly diverse loose collection of contractors" who act as a single bloc pushing wood frame construction over concrete block, pushing regulation after regulation through all the government entities they can buy which keeps concrete construction cost-uncompetitive. This leads to two things around here: 1) rapid home reconstruction, remodeling and replacement, because after 40 years the damn things are rotting, mildewed between the walls and ready to fall over in a stiff breeze as compared to their certified strength at time of construction. Meanwhile: concrete only strengthens with age. and 2) to feed the growth machine even faster: since these houses made of sticks are replaced and remodeled so much more frequently, we're growing their footprints at an impressive rate. Whereas raising a family of 4 in 1200 square feet was luxurious 100 years ago, median new construction for single family homes is over 2400 square feet and rising, with many neighborhoods full of 4000+ square foot "oh, ordinary newer homes, nothing unusual." This is a case of the foxes writing the henhouse security rules, using the representatives supposedly elected by the chickens to pass them into law. Is it an "Open Market" - you would be tempted to label it as such, but it certainly isn't acting like one.
>You won't see a three century Google dominance without state power behind it.
I'm glad you can take the long view. Personally, a 20 year monopoly is more than I want sucking monopoly profits out of my lifestyle fund, much less a landscape filled with 'em.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 21, @11:53PM
Two things to note. First, it's not a monopoly since you have at least three satellite internet providers, several cell phone providers, and a mediocre land line. That's a lot more than one. Second, AT&T of the 1970s if it had progressed to today wouldn't give you a phone you could own, much less cell phones or internet. Those came about as a result of the breakup and the resulting aggressive competition.
Moving on:
In other words, they have modest pricing power due to branding. It's not a monopoly since there are other grocery chains in Florida and they have branding too. Pricing power is not a monopoly.
First, I've already allowed for monopoly formation due to non-market forces like this. Second, it's not a monopoly but a cartel. Please learn the difference. Cartels do have some of the same problems as a monopoly, but a) they are constrained legally in how much collusion they can attempt, and b) there's opportunity for defection of cartel members and new players to compete. For example, OPEC is the classic cartel. They can scheme as much as they want since they're nation-states with no real legal obstacles. But they compete with a variety of others who can enter and leave the market as oil prices rise and fall. And members of OPEC are notorious for selling more than they said they would.
If you get good stuff. Those same contractors have figured out the secrets of making bad concrete that weakens greatly with age.
You seem to be the only person so tempted. And as I noted above, I wouldn't be tempted to call it a "monopoly" either.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday February 21, @06:13PM
Of course they did. Whenever I read about them, I'm reminded of the Roman Empire. They had monumental architecture, wars of conquest, and brutal games in an arena so why not a market economy?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.