Week 3: Revenge of the Professors

PROFESSOR: Because the market takes time to adjust to changes in Supply and Demand, economies often encounter shortages or surpluses. 
LIBERAL STUDENT: If economists can predict these changes, why don't we have the government tell everyone how much to produce?
PROFESSOR: You would trust the government to run the entire economy that composes of millions of billions of transactions?
LIBERAL STUDENT: Sure.
PROFESSOR: I would like to know where your going to find the angels that won't abuse that sort of power.

Welcome to week 3. This week was characterized by professors who were truly agitated over the fact that the majority of the students in their classes had barely said five words. While there was a minority of talkative collegians, they couldn't make up for the silent masses that inhabited the desks. Two different approaches were adopted by the frustrated faculty. One, the nice method. This method entails a honest heart-felt speech that  was nuanced [ @Psmithn nu·ance. noun \ˈnü-ˌän(t)s, ˈnyü-, -ˌäⁿs; nü-ˈ, nyü-ˈ\ : a very small difference in color, tone, meaning, etc. 1:  a subtle distinction or variation 2:  a subtle quality :  nicety 3:  sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)] (A personal joke. Please disregard if you aren't Psmithn) with the dueling emotions of frustration and pleading. It even went so far as to say that, while the five relationships of Confucius may not seem relevant, what we learn may come in handy one day. This was very effective and inspiring for those who cared. I even felt bad for the guy (a new professor on campus). Plus, his lecture was awesome, and I tend to be more responsive when I am in historical ecstasy. Approach numero dos was a bit more interesting. She reminded us that college was a contract, and that if she came with everything prepared, students should as well. Then you kinda understood the veiled threat that non-paticipating students would be penalized. I didn't like that one as much, but it seemed to energize the rest of class discussions. So hurrah for dealing with laziness!

The great lecture by my Asian professor was about the Han dynasty (pronounced like the star wars character). Now, I am not a macho Chinese buff. I tend more towards the Japanese side of the studies spectrum. This made me all the more surprised when my prof brought up the title of his lecture, "The Han Dynasty: The First Laissez-Faire Economy". This seemed absolutely absurd to me. I always viewed China as autocratic and utterly hierarchical, completely at odds with the laissez-faire principles. [Laissez-Faire is an economic system that emphasizes small government and free markets] I learned that the Qin (pronounced Chin) Dynasty had succeeded in uniting China after a period of chaotic warfare. But, the Qin turned out to be pretty terrible. They attempted to destroy learning, conscripted peasants into a labor force for public works, and then screwed up the economy big time. Needless to say, as soon as the emperor died there was insurrection. The rebels eventually won out, and their leader (a peasant) became the founder of a new dynasty. This new dynasty, the Han, emphasized a path of non-intervention in their society. This included such acts as lowering the taxes, reducing spending except for infrastructure, encouraging learning, reducing the importance of the bureaucracy, and creating a system of trade. While this didn't lead to outright capitalism, China did achieve a prototype version of it, and there was quite a bit of prosperity. This prosperity did eventually lead to the downfall of this free-market system, but it is an interesting mental experiment to wonder what might have happened if China had achieved capitalism. I was quite surprised to learn that while Rome was descending into feudalism China was proving the merits of free-markets and small government.

In my other history class we learned of the Medici family. They were a family that lived in Renaissance Florence. Through their strangle hold of money and banking, the Medici family was able to subvert the republic and control it. It may just be me, but I found it morbidly fascinating the way that the Medici was able to control Florence. They used a network of connections, marriages, and businesses to put all major powers in their debt. The republic was in fact never dissolved and continued to function, but the Medici family controlled everything. They were so intertwined that when someone did try to stop them, they simply removed all their business from Florence, and the city went into a severe recession. Eventually, the Medici did fall onto hard times, but, for a time, they show historians the power of the indirect control that individuals can have on governments.

That has pretty much been the highlights of this academic week. Professors, Free-market China, and the enigmatic Medici family. 

Signing off.

Ciao 

Gryphon