ABSTRACT
Although ‘modernists’ and ‘primitivists’ differ in their judgements of the importance and complexity of trade and market exchange in the Graeco-Roman world, even the most ardent ‘modernist’ would agree that most goods were exchanged and traded for the sake of consumption rather than further exchange. For Scott Meikle, known for his work on ancient economic thought, ‡ this is an indication that the ancient economy was a system dominated by ‘use value’ rather than ‘exchange value’. This distinction derives from classical economic theory and concerns the different kinds of value associated with goods in different types of exchange. Exchange value emerges where competitive buyers and sellers purchase goods for resale. Use value denotes a more individual relationship between goods and their consumers and depends on the goods’ specific utility for their consumer. For example, the valuation of a donkey applied by a donkey driver is likely to differ from the price of the same donkey when purchased by a donkey dealer. In the majority of cases, Meikle holds, ancient prices were established on the basis of the use value of goods. Most importantly, money itself had above all use value rather than exchange value. This is not hard to understand if we view credit as an exchange of money for a price (i.e., the interest rate). Although much lending and borrowing took place in the ancient world, there was no competitive market for money (i.e., credit) destined to be used for further exchange (i.e., investment). Since money used for investment is known as capital, Meikle’s line of reasoning implies that the ancient world lacked capital markets.
