Why did the Roman Economy Decline?
The academics believe in phantoms, and fallacies. Rome did not fall due to low taxes, or lack of Keynesian stimulus. It died form excesses of government, and failures of leadership. While in earlier years government took a small amount from the public, and provided muscular protections against invasion, crime, fraud, and corruption, at the end this shifted, and government took more, and provided less. Collapse was inevitable.
Or as Toyama states:
"If Brown’s account is implausible, what does account for the decline? The best account I am aware of is Bryan Ward-Perkin’s The Fall of the Roman Empire and the End of Civilization which Brown dismisses as “tendentious and ill-supported polemics”.
The collapse of the Roman state was catastrophic, not because the Roman state was an engine of economic growth, as Brown contends, but because it provided, albeit imperfectly, the public good of defense. In the absence of this, transactions costs greatly increased, long-distance trade declined, markets contracted, and urbanization declined."
Socialism has so tightly wound itself into the brains of these academics they can see nothing else. Every problem is analyzed through the distorting lens of socialism, and every problem distorted by this fantasy economic theory. All must conform to the Protocols of the Elders of Marxism. And so it does, regardless of how deficit.
The Academe must be reformed, if only to save it from itself.