Arnold Kling doesn’t think we can construct cathedrals, anymore:
Charlton says that we no longer have the sort of concentrated expertise that enabled us to fly to the moon. Perhaps. If you go to Europe, you will see cathedrals that I do not think we could build any more. Does anyone think that we could produce a Constitution as brilliant as that devised in 1787?
Perhaps Arnold read a previous post of mine:
Few people realize that the great economic and spiritual enlightenment that happened after the Dark Ages in Europe also coincided with the beginning of the use of the Brakteaten money system. Local lords issued silver plaques which were called in every six months or so, taxed (physically, which made the coins thinner, and thus reduced their value) and returned to the users. The demurrage fee was around 2-3% per month for the entire period of about 1150-1300AD. Again just as in Egypt, this prevented hoarding by the people, and increased the velocity of the money, creating ample investment demand.
What did lords invest in? Since this was a time of globalization, cities were looking to attract Christian immigrants from around Europe. What better way than massive (and impressive) cathedrals as celebration of their spirituality? The Brakteaten money system facilitated this kind of long-term investment. What event coincided with the downfall of this architectural era? The king’s monopoly on money.
Now, it is patently obvious that we can build cathedrals today. And, given enough capital, you could build a cathedral to the very exact specification of your favorite Medieval building. This isn’t the point that Arnold is trying to make; the point of the post is that we lack the organizational capital to build the network — the innate bond between people — which allowed humans to previously build large works of wonder with voluntary participation of the community.
I think this phenomenon (to the extent that it is true, and I don’t think it’s as true as Kling may believe) largely has to do with our money system.
Update: I want to add that I think Bruce Charlton’s simple model is very, very wrong. He lays it out in this paragraph:
This may sound bizarre or just plain false, but the argument is simple. That landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achievement of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans. 40 years ago we could do it – repeatedly – but since then we have *not* been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.
Now, what would suggest that we should repeatedly go to the moon? I want to go to the moon — is the fact that consumer demand is there, but we simply can’t make it cost effective the problem? No. Going to the moon remains very expensive, we’ve already been there, gotten what we needed (unless, you know, there IS an alien base on the dark side of the moon), and now it’s pointless. The marginal costs FAR exceed the value of another trip to a dead rock just to say we did (again). Plus, we’ve put a rover on Mars…is that not impressive?
Moreover, I can now reliably communicate with people anywhere in the world for free or very cheap. I can interact with some of the greatest minds in economics, of which I would have never had the chance to hear them speak at 25 in any other time. I can collaborate with people from around the country, whom I’ve never met (indeed, that is what I’m doing right now). I can travel distant cities with the confidence of a free map, with suggestions as to where I should visit. I can listen to the greatest musicians and view the works of the greatest artists of my era (and every other) for negligible marginal cost. From literally anywhere I find myself, I can be steeped in more culture, opinion, and knowledge than anyone of any wealth level of any other period in time — for a fraction of what just one of these activities would cost them. Is this not impressive?
However, I don’t think Bruce’s argument is even about material accomplishments. Here is the key passage:
By 1986, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, it was clear that humans had declined in capability – since the disaster was fundamentally caused by managers and committees being in control of NASA rather than individual experts.
Indeed, this fits in the “organizational capital” category. Bruce is lamenting our inability to form networks, not achievements. However, I’m not very inspired by how he understands networks work.
(The update has little to do with my comment about money systems above and in the comments.)
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ June 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Thorfinn
Does this hold true for other religions/architecture? There have been plenty of Hindu/Sikh temples; Muslim mosques built lately which are quite impressive.
I think history is pretty clear that many of the monuments we admire were funded out of extractive levies; ie, tithing and taxes. Fortunately, our governments/organized religions now no longer waste enormous amounts of money taken at swordpoint to fuel their legitimacy.
Galbraith has complained about this as well. But libertarians should be thrilled.
Tuesday ~ June 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Niklas Blanchard
Religion does weird things to the time-value of money…which is inextricably linked to what you happen to believe about the afterlife, and how strongly you believe it.
However, look at the Burj al Arab. If you’re not impressed by that, you’re probably a zombie. What about Abramovich’s “Eclipse” yacht. There are all kinds of very impressive things that we build. China is in the process of building eye-poppingly impressive high-speed rail.
The way I read Kling’s post is as a half-hearted attack on the type of structures will build, but a full hearted attack on the type of networks we build. Kling self-identifies as a “civil societarian”, and he has in numerous blogs lamented the fact that humans don’t build certain types of voluntary societal organizations to do things like aid the poor, and resolve various coordination problems that (some) people seem to instinctively turn to the government provide.
What I’m saying is that I believe this is a residual effect of the type of money we use. The rules of our money system are such that it breaks down this type of community participation — and necessarily so — due to the scarcity of money. This is an integral part of the base of a competitive economy. However, those rules aren’t set in stone, and different monetary rules foster different types of behavior because those rules discount things in a unique way.*
Societal, communal, and even familial bonds often break down when money becomes involved — and particularly when money becomes very scarce. It is, indeed, good that we don’t “waste” money building structures at the behest of a feudal lord…but of course, I don’t read it as being the buildings (or even achievements) that ultimately count.
*I would cite Japan’s Fureai Kippu currency as an example of this.
Wednesday ~ June 23rd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Thorfinn
I’m very impressed by Dubai and China’s fancy new structures. But it’s not at all surprising that authoritarian regimes can waste enormous sums of money (acquired through oil rents or extractive taxation).
Nor are these structures (or many others I can think off–Pyramids, Angor Wat, Great Zimbabwe etc.) financed by any sort of fancy money. You rip off the peasants, and spend it on monuments. I see no reason to invoke exotic monetary forms or “networks” when these structures tend to be built the world over by societies which are very different but boast undemocratic forms of government.
Even if you think currency has some role, you have to look at the overall structure of the economy and taxation. Surely the fact that the Mughals taxed farmers on the order of ~40-50 percent has something to do with how they got the money to pay for the Taj Mahal.
Wednesday ~ June 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
The Present’s So Bright . . . « Modeled Behavior
[...] ~ June 23rd, 2010 in Society | by Karl Smith Niklas discusses the grand achievements of the modern age. The exposure to culture and ideas; the opportunities for travel and intellectual [...]
Wednesday ~ June 23rd, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Rebecca Burlingame
“A residual effect of the type of money we use” – I only came to this (entire) dialogue recently because of my belief that the money we use today is broken for people at middle to lower levels of use. While anyone who remains monetarily connected may not believe this, there are probably a growing number of individuals who will approach such dialogues in similar fashion. Conversations like this one are most helpful. And ultimately, the voluntary associations that are needed now will be quite different from those of the past in that they can only happen if knowledge and information happen in real and lateral time.
Thursday ~ June 24th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Jonathan
We recently built the National Cathedral in DC, which is traditionally made. I used to watch the stone cutters work on the sculptures above the entry doors. And we recently finished another actual cathedral in NYC. So yeah, we can build cathedrals today.
Thursday ~ June 24th, 2010 at 10:15 am
IVV
I immediately think of the Frauenkirche in Dresden. The cathedral was flattened, along with the rest of Dresden, in WWII. Under the Soviet thumb, there was never the political will to rebuild. Rebuilding only seriously began after the German Reunification, and it is today… a glorious cathedral, finished only about five years ago.
We can build cathedrals today. We should always remember this.
Thursday ~ June 24th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Kevin
We no longer build cathedrals because they are not necessary. Steel has eliminated the need to build with stone and the expertise to build with stone has died. Could it be resurrected? of course it could.
We no longer go to the moon because it is not necessary, especially in light of the fact that the funds necessary to do so would be better utilized in a million other places.
Rreading anything into this beyond the above is in my opinion, a waste of time.
Thursday ~ June 24th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Niklas Blanchard
I agree. I don’t think we’ve lost the “ability” to physically create anything. I can be found regularly push back against the ubiquitous “25-year old TV” argument.*
I’m not even really arguing that the social relationships between people were desirable; just that they were there, that there is strong evidence that the type of money they used fostered those types of relationships, and that the money we use breaks them down. For better or for worse. That is a strongly anti-(econ)establishment argument…and I figured I’d get a lot of criticism for making it, but I have yet to receive any!
*The argument that we used to build TVs that lasted 25+ years, but we can no longer because [insert issue that someone wants to rail against here].