Though unless there is attestation in other sources, I'm not sure it quite matches the grand description given above. The senate, in a bout of moralizing, attempted to crack down on usury, stipulating that money lent at interest should be recalled and invested into land.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @BeijingPalmer ja
Presumably the intent being to convert debt assets into land assets. Instead, land prices collapsed as leveraged aristocrats rushed to sell land to cover their debts (which of course made it impossible for them to cover their debts).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @BeijingPalmer ja
So essentially, a liquidity crisis created by the senate's moralizing. Tiberius eventually resolves the problem by dumping money into the banking system and offering interest-free loans on the security of land, essentially bailing out both the bankers and the landholders.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @BeijingPalmer ja
Tacitus really wants to connect this to the Sejanus affair, but the banking crisis in in 33, Sejanus is dead in 31, so I'm not sure I buy it.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @BeijingPalmer ja
I'm not sure we should regard the affair as a major crisis. Dio gives it literally only a sentence (58.21.5) and thinks it mainly important because it resulted in the death of a notable equestrian by suicide before Tiberius bails everyone out.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
I disagree. The historian Charles Bartlett called it a "severe economic crisis", and every financial and economic historian I have read on the subject thought it was a serious financial crisis. Perhaps it takes people with banking experience or knowledge of financial history...
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @michaelxpettis, @BretDevereaux ja
to recognize how familiar the sequence of events were, beginning with years of capital outflows prior to the crisis. At any rate if this were only a minor event, it is hard to imagine why Tiberius, someone not famously liberal with his money, would have made such...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @michaelxpettis, @BretDevereaux ja
...a large, interest-free, 3-year loan to bankers when loans at the time were rarely extended for more than a few months. This was unprecedented, and was unlikely to be a response to a minor matter.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
It was not unprecedented. Tiberius' two immediate predecessors, Julius Caesar and Octavian had made similarly sized donations to either the people of Rome, the public treasury, or both.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Again I have to disagree. I checked the banking section of my copy of "Roman Market Economy", and Peter Temin says "The only attested case of lending by the Roman state is an exception that proves the rule: in the crisis of 33 CE, Tiberius placed HS100 million from...
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä
The key word there is 'lending' - Roman emperors more frequently simply outlaid funds without the expectation of repayment. Again, Augustus notes several such 'bailouts' in the Res Gestae.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @michaelxpettis ja
The main difference here is simply that Tiberius, being a bit of a miser, expected the state to get paid back.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystäKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.