Let's take entertainment decisions as an example, where I use the price of cinema admission as a measuring stick. An average film is around 2 hours long, and costs approximately $15. If I am considering buying a video game that costs $60, I ask: will this game be as fun as four movies? If yes, purchase. Or take a 3-day music festival. In that time, I could probably watch around twenty films at $300 (let's call it $350, as I will want snacks, and possibly special 3D goggles). If the festival is near or below that price, it is positively a steal. Purchase.
In the same vein, I make up my mind about how I feel about new inventions or ideas with a simple question:
"Would the Ancient Romans be impressed?"

But other modern things would not have impressed our Latin ancestors in the slightest. I give you two examples.


In contrast, the unwilling king of the modern-day goths, Robert Smith, holds sway over a disaffected band of ne'r-do-wells that pale in comparison to their ancient namesakes. During the Visigoth sack of Rome, the shocked population of the city fled into the countryside as Roman institutions and landmarks were desecrated, and the city's wealth lost. If only Rome were so fortunate to have been sacked by modern-day goths! In such a scenario, the only territory lost would have been the steps of the Pantheon, where the goths would sit for most of the day to avoid the sun and discuss their "worries".

Most importantly, King Smith (a fine musician) loves cats, whereas I have it on good authority that the Romans, if forced to choose, were ultimately dog people.
The above is just a taster. What else might draw the ire of the Romans?
Your film-based monetary analysis fails to account for diminishing marginal utility. Would you really be as willing to spend $15 for the 20th movie as you would be first?
ReplyDeleteSorry, took a while to get to this. The answer is yes.
Delete