Trade Of Corn To Other Countries example essay topic

What really makes economics and society flow nicely together? Economics can be described as the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Society is described as the social relationships among us. The answer is always changing as well as the economical and sociological thoughts behind it as well. This paper will relay a couple economic views from the poem "Cotton And Corn: A Dialogue" by Thomas Moore (1779-1852), an Irish poet.

Should people be allowed to trade with whomever they want to? We " ve been doing it for thousands of years. There should always be fare / free trade, even if the government manipulates it a little bit. If there is an unhappy consumer out there, there is at least one unhappy firm. People should be able to trade freely and hardly controlled by the government. Too much of the time the government regulates it too much, and we lose some of our free trade rights, as this poem illustrates.

As Francois Quesnay believed the idea of "Laissez-Fair", the government should have very little control, if no control over the economy at all. The government will then regulate heavily, create high tariffs, embargoes, and other forms of monopoly to accumulate wealth. This poem was written about the famed Corn Laws that took place in England, that limited the trade of corn to other countries if international rates fell bellow a certain value. The government didn't want wealth to leave the country, as they stopped importing corn, wouldn't export their corn out, and monopolized peasants to buy the countries corn with a regulated price.

This is third idea, is a form of mercantilism. Hoarding a countries wealth, and building up power. Thomas Moore addresses some of these views by introducing thoughts about fare trade, how the government can control / manipulate trade, and mercantilism, in his poem about the Corn Laws. The question is then, with all of this government supervision and control over trade, how do economies prosper and stay alive and well? One of many reasons that keep economies going is through fare trade. This poem deals with the unscrupulous Corn Laws (1689-1846); which deal with protecting English landholders by encouraging the export and limiting the import of corn when prices fell below a fixed point.

The poem speaks of the greedy side of Squire Corn and the famished Poor Cotton. "Great Squire, if it isn't uncivil To hint at starvation before you, Look down on a poor hungry devil, And give him some bread, I implore you!' This line is Poor Cotton urgently begging Squire Corn to trade him some corn (food) for his fabric of cotton. Modern economics have implied that when there is at least one unhappy consumer, there is at least one unhappy firm. They " re unhappy because there exists trade opportunities, and both sides would benefit.

Squire Corn replies in the next stanza with this: 'Low fellow, you " ve surely forgotten The distance between you and me!" We assume in this situation that these two firms (which would be separate countries) could cheaply and easily meet and bargain away any discrepancy, in between a willingness to accept and a willingness to purchase. The supply and demand mechanism is also relevant. There is such a high demand for food, that people are not getting enough or any, and are practically starving. Some countries depend on imported food, but specialize in other factors of production, such as textiles. "To expect that we, Peers of high birth, Should waste our illustrious acres, For no other purpose on earth Than to fatten curs t calico-makers!" England is not accepting their textiles. The poor country doesn't have any wealth because they will not accept their textiles in trade for food.

But there are many families and consumers in both markets producing textiles and corn, and needing both. No one individual will influence this market outcome though. The products are not identical, and there is a supply for both, and a demand. This should promote free and fare trade, with supply and demand present. But we can't have perfect competition and trade if the government does not allow us to. Another factor in economics is how the government can manipulate trade.

In the base of the Corn Laws set forth, the government has basically created a legal monopoly. They set an embargo to keep the wealth in their country and to keep gaining wealth. For example, during the 1980's Japanese automakers began voluntarily restricting exports to the U.S. to avoid even harsher measures form Congress. Because the supply of Japanese cars was limited, their prices rose, and American manufacturers were able to charge more for their own cars. The government is controlling the economy that way. But the physiocratic belief is that once the system is setup (which it is) and the pressure is stabilized, then the government need only to have a minimal role in such matters.

A "Laissez-Fair" belief is what Francois Quesnay believed. Only a minimal role in economy, not a total role, like the government had during the Corn Laws. 'No -- vile Manufacture! ne " er harbour A hope to be fed at our boards; -- Base offspring of Arkwright the barber, What claim canst thou have upon Lords?" The government was controlling a valuable trade source at the time. Squire Corn controlled all the wealth, while Poor Cotton could not trade with him freely. Squire Corn (England) basically said that Poor Cotton is from a family of weavers (referring to Richard Arkwright, the inventor of Spinning-Frame, a superior textile machine), implying that Poor Cotton were once the children (offspring) who worked at these textile mills. Squire Cotton asked Poor Cotton what kind of nobility / wealth do you have to show for it.

The government again is not allowing the export of goods, in order to stay powerful; sell the goods to their own people; and to keep the wealth in their own country. This simply shows that tariffs / embargo tend to constrict economic growth, but this protects wealthier countries and shuts down lesser-developed countries to economic dormancy. Another economic thought in trade that is demonstrated in this poem, is mercantilism. Now the exact definition of mercantilism is not defined in this poem. Belief in precious metals compromising the wealth of nations: this is not displayed in the poem. But the focus on keeping the wealth inside the country is inhibited.

Producers were not allowed to trade with other countries when their corn fell below a certain value. This is the same concept of mercantilism with the government highly regulating it. The other countries recognized this mercantilism and it had an adverse effect on them. They soon realized that they couldn't eat cotton.

"That Bishops to hobbies should bend -- Should stoop from their Bench's sublimity, Great dealers in lawn, to befriend Such contemptible dealers in dimity!" Again Poor Cotton from the poem is asking Squire Corn to step down from his high noble righteousness to bargain some fine linen with him in exchange for some seed. He is trying to contend for free trade on corn, on the grounds that trade has always been free (Free Enter and Free Exit), and while corn is cheap, it's a needed necessity to all, and profits will not fall however great the gain of capital. There is a continued high value for food and other raw goods. Poor Cotton is saying let these be supplied from out of the country in exchange for manufactured goods (cotton), and this would be difficult to predict when you would stop gaining wealth. This form of mercantilism that was setup by the Corn Laws also created a monopoly among other things. Consumers living in this controlled economy would only be able to buy corn at one set price from the government.

Because of no allowed abroad trade of corn, the government could sell corn at any price just as long as it wasn't lower than another country's price. This created a huge monopoly effecting the whole "Circular Flow of Production" studied in class. With higher food prices comes higher wages, which attracts workers. But when workers multiply wages go down. Thus, payments will stay at a level high enough to sustain them.

Workers work at the farms for tenant farmers, who in turn rent the land from a landowner. They rent the land and hire workers, which gains them profits. The landowners rent the land out to the tenant farmers, and sit back and live a wealthy life, as they accumulate wealth that doesn't leave the country. This restricts economic flow out to other countries, and upsets the balance of trade. A country can only build up so much wealth over time. The will quickly realize they have no use for all this accumulated wealth, and so forth, will have to eventually branch off to other countries for capital.

In reading Thomas Moore's poem, Cotton And Corn: A Dialogue, one can draw more than one economic theory. The obvious theory is that he thought against the Corn Laws. He seemed to come from a point of view that he despised the rich landlords that were making all the money benefiting from the capital earnings from renting out fields. At the same time he takes the side of the peasants who suffer high food bills, and factory owners having high wage bills and diminished regulated trade to other countries. He takes the point of view of the rebelling citizens against the Corn Laws. Even though this poem is directly aimed at one specific event, many economic ideas can be based off this.

Thomas Moore metaphorically uses the characters Squire Corn and Poor Cotton as economic symbols. Squire Corn often represents the rich powerful nation hoarding its wealth for itself only. Poor Cotton could represent another country in need of agricultural goods or grain, but only has manufactured goods to offer. Squire Corn could also represent the rich wealthy landowners. Poor Cotton would represent the peasants that are charged an inflated price for their normally cheap corn (wheat, grain, etc. ).

The overlying points I have discussed in the following pages are not easily missed either. One could assume that there of course is no fare trade happening. If there were fare trade, there would not even be these Corn Laws. You would also notice that the government has interfered with the economy.

When they control and censor the economy like this, they are only restricting themselves. There is no such thing as free trade with other nations, and the "Laissez-Fair" idea goes away. We are giving the government a monopoly to control the citizens like puppets. This interrupts the whole circular flow of how the economy works.

In this game, only the big powerful landowners are profiting. This is also another form of mercantilism. The goal is to stop buying from, and sending wealth to other countries. Not an exact definition of building up silver and gold bullion and then hoarding it all, but the same concept of not letting other countries share the wealth and the goods that they have come to depend on from another. All of a sudden this flow is halted and the country can no longer trade for what it wants and needs. The government can influence many factors of an economy as demonstrated in this poem.