What could balance the Roman East trade?

whenever roman relations are brought up, the trade deficit in the east is always one of the first topics talked about - the flow of gold and silver to the east, without any roman trade good to balance the scales, had caused economic problems in an empire already suffering from a legion of them.

How could the roman empire balance the trade to become equally favorable to all sides, or maybe even a reverse deficit? what trade good/s could be used? maybe mediterrenean wine, widely cultivated silphium or noric steel?
 
I think answering this question would answer your question too. From a previous thread of mine.

What if some merchants or some other adventurers proposed to Octavian in Egypt in 30 BC, in exchange for citizenship and Equestrian status, and untold riches, to smuggle silk worms and mulberry seeds in a hollow cane from the Han Dynasty to Rome in the time of Augustus?

Octavian, having nothing to lose, accepts, and the two journeyed from Egypt to China.

They return at about 23 BC.

And a silk industry was established in Italy during that time under their direction, but with the Emperor directly selling the said silk.

What happens then?

The above certainly would help in the balance of trade, since silk was one of the major imports of Rome from the east.
 
If sea silk could somehow be cultivated on a slightly larger scale, it might well both be a trade good and reduce demand for Chinese silk. Otherwise, given trade difficulties, it basically has to be a lightweight luxury good. Elephant ivory perhaps? Gemstones? Coral as mentioned? Amber? Dyes? Papyrus, if papermaking never develops? Furs?
 
Wasn't that the unrefined stuff, in contrast to the potent extract available by the time of the British?
If I remember right, the refining process hadn't changed that much from back when wild opium was being collected. What had changed more was the centuries of gradual selective breeding led to a stronger product because of the higher concentration of active ingredients by then.

So Roman opium would not be as potent as the later British variety, so it wouldn't necessarily be quite as addictive. But opium was being produced and exported usefully as far back as 1100 BCE, when Egyptian opium was being traded around the Med by the Phoenicians and other traders. So I'd expect that the Roman product would also have appeal if trade into China.

The challenge is actually having a Chinese society which prohibits it, since without that local cultivation would follow within a reasonable period.
 
The challenge is actually having a Chinese society which prohibits it, since without that local cultivation would follow within a reasonable period.

Couldn't the Romans try to keep the refinement process a secret, or only sell refined product? It worked for the Chinese with silk, after all.

That being said, I don't know anything about the refinement process of opium, and I'm not about to go looking for details.
 
Roman glass was a nice trade good. Gold and silver tablewares are another. I could see them having a comparative advantage in linen or wool production, even if they don't have an absolute advantage or the kind of advantage where other regions can't produce the goods.

Though question, how much do we actually know about balance of trade in the Roman world, beyond the literary political polemics about the drain of silver sesterces? As well, I'm not sure how much of a problem it actually would pose for them if true that the empire had a persistent trade deficit with the east. Most mainstream economics today looks askance at "Balance of Trade" concerns.
 
Roman glass was a nice trade good. Gold and silver tablewares are another. I could see them having a comparative advantage in linen or wool production, even if they don't have an absolute advantage or the kind of advantage where other regions can't produce the goods.

Though question, how much do we actually know about balance of trade in the Roman world, beyond the literary political polemics about the drain of silver sesterces? As well, I'm not sure how much of a problem it actually would pose for them if true that the empire had a persistent trade deficit with the east. Most mainstream economics today looks askance at "Balance of Trade" concerns.
The trade deficit means that precious metals are going one direction and other goods in the other, is that really viewed with suspicion by economist?
 
The trade deficit means that precious metals are going one direction and other goods in the other, is that really viewed with suspicion by economist?
Modern economies don't trade with each other by handing over bags of silver, which is why economists of today aren't overly concerned about balance of trade. But back in the day, buying stuff from another country meant actually having less money domestically. I believe ancient Rome and China did have credit systems where no actual cash changed hands during transactions but obviously they weren't integrated with each other.

As a digression, I just found this paper online describing the ancient Chinese using privately issued bronze knives and tools as currency. Interesting tidbit:

“The early kings…saw pearls and jade as superior money, gold as medium money, and spades and knives as inferior money. You cannot wear money but you can be warm; you cannot eat money, but you can fill your belly.” 2 The “superior” and “medium” monies were not widely used, but the “inferior” money of spades and knives, along with the coins which developed from the handles of knives, dominated Chinese exchange for many years.​
 
Economists have made arguments against balance of trade as a problem and against mercantilist arguments to prevent goods going one way (on net) and metal going the other (on net), well before money is put on a fiat basis.

My perception is that economists today would tend to side with these arguments, that trade is beneficial, positive sum, and ultimately imbalances in payments will adjust (or be growth out of), and that it's not so much the case that they would have sided with mercantilism under hard money (because decrease in the money supply is bad for the economy and worse than stimulus from trade is good for the economy to boot), and only reject is because we now have established fiat money.
 
Economists have made arguments against balance of trade as a problem and against mercantilist arguments to prevent goods going one way (on net) and metal going the other (on net), well before money is put on a fiat basis.

My perception is that economists today would tend to side with these arguments, that trade is beneficial, positive sum, and ultimately imbalances in payments will adjust (or be growth out of), and that it's not so much the case that they would have sided with mercantilism under hard money (because decrease in the money supply is bad for the economy and worse than stimulus from trade is good for the economy to boot), and only reject is because we now have established fiat money.
The phrasing is a bit confusing, so would they support the idea that a net decrease in money supply through trade deficit is good or that it is bad?
 
What about... fiat currency? Sort of like the Tang dynasty later if the Romans were prude and stable enough to substitute paper for silver then silver will be more plentiful & cheaper for international trade.
 
What about... fiat currency? Sort of like the Tang dynasty later if the Romans were prude and stable enough to substitute paper for silver then silver will be more plentiful & cheaper for international trade.

It takes a lot for fiat currency to be able to catch on and even IOTL it was a four century process. Doing this essentially requires the Romans to develop fractional reserve banking and a host of other things. I'm not saying its impossible per se, but simply saying fiat currency won't work.
 
The phrasing is a bit confusing, so would they support the idea that a net decrease in money supply through trade deficit is good or that it is bad?

Either it doesn't matter at all or is a negative for the economy, but that in either instance the 'medicine' of suppressing trade or distorting trade through protectionist measures would be worse for the economy. That's just my impression mind!
 
Top