Economics and Poetry – Cotton and Corn: A Dialogue” by Thomas MooreEssay title: Economics and Poetry – Cotton and Corn: A Dialogue” by Thomas MooreWhat 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 FranĐ·ois 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 isnt 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, youve 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 curst 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 1980s 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”
The Government of the USA is also under control of a system of government and government-controlled media. One of the main goals behind the government’s policies is to keep prices and the economy high. The Federal Reserve and some other federal agencies operate with the purpose of maintaining the U.S. economy. There are, however, numerous examples of government-controlled media which use to promote government policy policies. There may be instances where the U.S. government is used to promote the government of the United Kingdom or to the government of Spain. Here, we have government-controlled media such as The New York Times , which is used to make political statements, while the U.N. Committee on Human Rights is a non-governmental, legal body that deals with issues such as human rights. The U.S. has no government-controlled media and it does not have any media coverage in the rest of the world. What is needed is something to present the government-controlled media as an alternative to the government media in this country. What is needed is a media that is independent of any government-sponsored propaganda, even from inside of the government. For example, the U.S. Government’s policy of using a lot of government funding (through a military program, or covertly) to maintain large portions of the American economy is just not supported by the media. What is needed is a media that promotes the positive, rather than negative, development of China, Japan and others over the next several decades, especially in the wake of the Chinese economic reforms and privatization. To do this, we need to create one entity as the official propaganda arm of the U.S. Government and one as the government-owned media. This will help to provide the means for citizens to voice their opinions. When a newspaper is used to promote one governmental policy in the U.S., in part, it will be used by the government, and the government uses it all the time. The government’s media will be used more to encourage those who want to change things for the better, rather than trying to change the face of economic change. So that is where the question becomes: do we need to have a media which is independent of government agencies, or is it a media aimed at government government propaganda?
The U.S. needs to remove the media’s role outside of government. This is not as easy as it seems, but it could happen in the near future. If the U.S. does not remove the media, any criticism or discussion that could be directed elsewhere or put at greater risk should be kept private. The U.S. government has been given a monopoly on the media. The U.S. media and government-owned content is available only to a small number of people. Therefore, government propaganda in the U.S. is not necessarily government-sponsored when it comes to promoting public policy issues. If the government does remove the public media from the government-controlled media, the government could be forced to pay for some of the censorship it receives. Thus, the only way for the