By "wealth" I presume you mean gold and silver? Some sort of precious substance that I not easily replaced? Thus converting permanent for fleeting (assuming the spices were consumed and the silks were not currency.)
Could this lead to a shortage of "money" - which in turn limits production of essentials, like say food?
It's an interesting hypothesis but would take quite a lot of research to explore. It was a slave economy - so no money needed there. On the other hand perhaps non-slave workers were laid off, reducing production etc.
My gut sense is that it's not a significant issue. Conditions like drought and storms are more likely to have needle-moving effects. Food security is the root of stability and (as the article points out) there were periods of food insecurity towards the end if this period.
I'm also unaware as to the degree of currency production at this point (ie mining of gold etc which was what might be referred to as "wealth".)
The most obvious wealth of course is land, and that can't be sold "out" of the economy.
I suspect you are pondering though to analogize it with today. Since the supply of physical money is not constrained these days, there's no real risk of unrestrained imports impacting of the economy. Rather the loss of primary production would be a concern (a metaphorical drought) . However primary production (food, oil, mining etc) seems strong. Secondary production (factories) are weak though. Which is probably a bad thing overall.
My understanding was that they were buying silks and spices from abroad with silver and gold at higher and higher prices, so that whatever silver and gold they were able to obtain, ultimately flowed out towards the East, causing inflation. I don't think it was a core issue, but it was something that contemporary Romans considered very alarming. They felt that Rome was losing it's Roman-ness, and pouring money into other countries. How important that was in the grand scheme of things is debatable. If you have good resources to share, I'd like to read them!
Could this lead to a shortage of "money" - which in turn limits production of essentials, like say food?
It's an interesting hypothesis but would take quite a lot of research to explore. It was a slave economy - so no money needed there. On the other hand perhaps non-slave workers were laid off, reducing production etc.
My gut sense is that it's not a significant issue. Conditions like drought and storms are more likely to have needle-moving effects. Food security is the root of stability and (as the article points out) there were periods of food insecurity towards the end if this period.
I'm also unaware as to the degree of currency production at this point (ie mining of gold etc which was what might be referred to as "wealth".)
The most obvious wealth of course is land, and that can't be sold "out" of the economy.
I suspect you are pondering though to analogize it with today. Since the supply of physical money is not constrained these days, there's no real risk of unrestrained imports impacting of the economy. Rather the loss of primary production would be a concern (a metaphorical drought) . However primary production (food, oil, mining etc) seems strong. Secondary production (factories) are weak though. Which is probably a bad thing overall.
Certainly an interesting hypothesis though.