Lots of people support the idea of buying local goods and service rather than goods and services from elsewhere. (Usually these people have Japanese cars; and their Japanese cars occasionally even have a "buy local" bumper sticker on them.) This idea is stupid.
First some preparing thoughts.
Not all buying local is stupid. If your only option is local, then no one will fault you for buying local. And if your only option is something made a ways away, then that is your only option.
When the people who promote buying local seem to mean (excepting their own cars, and undoubtedly: their cell phones, tvs, computers...) is that buying locally supports your neighbors and is good.
There are many problems with this.
Buying local is not always an option, which means that you are either going to buy "distantly made" things or avoid that product altogether.
We can grow things like citrus fruits in places like New York, but the costs to do so will be nearly immeasurable. We'd need heated greenhouses, sun lamps, etc.
Why is buying oranges from Florida worse than buying oranges grown in expensive (read as: required much electricity, manpower, and materials) greenhouses locally?
Why is are transportation costs worse than production costs?
Have you considered the transportation jobs lost by buying locally?
There are fundamental thoughts on economics ignored by avoiding the allowance of specialization. Buy not allowing specialization (by not buying things made more efficiently) we would be made poorer by either not having many items or by producing them at much higher costs.
What the "buy local" crowd really seems to want us to do is to choose the local option when there is a local option easily available; shop at the local grocery store not Walmart, etc. If they took their slogan literally they'd obviously need to give up their cars, tvs, cell phones, coffee, etc.
What this is is another way to feel good about doing good in a way that does not actually cost anyone any money or effort. Or does it.
It seems to me that when comparing a local to non-local item, there are three options: the local item is better, the non-local item is better, the items are similar.
In the case of the local item being better than the non-local item, it makes sense to buy local, and so what is the point of a "buy local" slogan?
In the case of the non-local item being better, buying the local item instead means that a local producer is able to continue to make things worse, the better creator is not sustained, and you get a worse item. The local producer is "helped," but everyone else is worse off. In this case "buying local" is encouraging you to waste resources by buying worse items.
it is only in the case of the local and non-local items being of comparable quality and price that "buying locally" makes any sense.
***
Specialization is a wonderful thing. It is by specializing one one, or few, things that we can all acquire the wealth generated when someone does not need to spend time doing lots of different things, and can spend all his time on one.
Buy whatever is best, at the best price, and resources won't be wasted making inferior products.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Manosphere Analogies Need Improvement
I was reading The Free Northerner's recent post, featuring links, and discovered a used car lot dating analogy.
Revisiting The Used Car Lot
exerpt:
The purpose of an analogy is to say, "this thing you're unfamiliar with is very similar to this other thing you know all about."
I've bought cars. Most of you guys have bought cars. But how many women see "car" and roll their eyes and think no further?
(I like it that way. I doubt that I'd have much interest in a girl who knows all about cars. If she could take care of the cleaning, and I could take care of the cars, that would be much preferable to the other way 'round.)
If girls don't spend much time thinking about cars, and its been my experience that the subject is very uninteresting to them. Much like when a girl brings up the pop musician of the month, and I lose interest in the subject.
On the other hand, the manoshpere, such as it is, exists to help men not women. So the above example is fine, but i wouldn't use it in order to explain things to a chick.
Also, if you ever use a baseball analogy while talking to a girl, you are an idiot.
Revisiting The Used Car Lot
exerpt:
If this was the case, the assertions above would be false since there would be enough supply to be a zero-sum game. To use the analogy in the linked post, the used-car lot is apt. Men are the buyers and women are the sellers. What we have right now is a car lot full of broken down rusted out vehicles that either don’t work or barely work with price tags that far exceed the representative value of each of those vehicles.Many manosphere writers use analogies to explain points. Comparing women to cars is a fine use of an analogy...if you are talking to a guy.
Now the price tags on these vehicles (women) are already much too high for their representative values. But the representative argument of these two posts is that men should work to pay MORE for these broken down rusted out vehicles. Perhaps another false assumption is at work: If men are willing to pay more, women will provide higher quality product. There are abundant proofs that this is not the case.
The purpose of an analogy is to say, "this thing you're unfamiliar with is very similar to this other thing you know all about."
I've bought cars. Most of you guys have bought cars. But how many women see "car" and roll their eyes and think no further?
(I like it that way. I doubt that I'd have much interest in a girl who knows all about cars. If she could take care of the cleaning, and I could take care of the cars, that would be much preferable to the other way 'round.)
If girls don't spend much time thinking about cars, and its been my experience that the subject is very uninteresting to them. Much like when a girl brings up the pop musician of the month, and I lose interest in the subject.
On the other hand, the manoshpere, such as it is, exists to help men not women. So the above example is fine, but i wouldn't use it in order to explain things to a chick.
Also, if you ever use a baseball analogy while talking to a girl, you are an idiot.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Windows 8 Stinks
I just built a computer, and I needed to decide between windows 7 and 8 for my operating system.
I went with 8 despite the claims that it was bad because:
This missing "start" button is more of a pain than you'd think.
The only ways I know how to turn the computer off are "Ctrl+Alt+Delete" or to hit the power button on the case.
I do not like all the stupid msn/ Microsoft windows for news and other Microsoft software cluttering the screen whenever i hit the "Windows" button.
I don't like how there are a handful of icons hidden along the right side of the screen that appear when I don't want them and I can never get them to appear when I want to see what they are. After two weeks the best I can tell is that the top hidden icon is "search" or maybe "magnify", and I have no idea about the others.
I miss the start button more than you'd think I would.
But the worst part, by far, is the fact that I'm supposed to register my copy of windows. A screen telling me to go to the screen to do so comes up whenever the computer turns on or returns from a screen saver. When that blue screen of "Activate Windows" comes up Nothing works except to hit the button that takes me to another "Activate Windows" screen.
This second screen is white, the left half is full of all sorts of stupid "personalization" options I couldn't care less about, and the right side says something like "You can activate by internet or by phone." This is followed by a perpetual "waiting to connect" [to the internet], despite the fact that I can hit the windows button and then the stupid desktop window icon, and then do all I want on the internet.
If these stupid screens wouldn't come up all the time I'd ignore them. But every so often they'll close whatever I was doing and pop back up.
So I tried activating by phone. I tried three or four times to type the million-digit product code (or whatever), but I am unable to hit the numbers fast enough to prevent the phone from giving me the: "is there a problem? Are you confused? Let's restart you're taking too long."
So I tried entering the numbers in by voice instead of hitting the number buttons. I entered the first section of the product code "A" when prompted, then I did B, C, and D. But before going to E it went to F without giving me the time to enter part E. My options seemed to be start all over, or say, "to hell with this."
***
Windows 8 sucks.
Listen to the complaints about it.
Get windows 7 instead; it is fine.
To hell with you Windows 8!
I went with 8 despite the claims that it was bad because:
- everyone seems to complain about every windows version
- All the complaints seemed to be much ado about nothing
- I figured that the newer version would last longer before becoming obsolete
- The new improved speed and security advertising sounded good
This missing "start" button is more of a pain than you'd think.
The only ways I know how to turn the computer off are "Ctrl+Alt+Delete" or to hit the power button on the case.
I do not like all the stupid msn/ Microsoft windows for news and other Microsoft software cluttering the screen whenever i hit the "Windows" button.
I don't like how there are a handful of icons hidden along the right side of the screen that appear when I don't want them and I can never get them to appear when I want to see what they are. After two weeks the best I can tell is that the top hidden icon is "search" or maybe "magnify", and I have no idea about the others.
I miss the start button more than you'd think I would.
But the worst part, by far, is the fact that I'm supposed to register my copy of windows. A screen telling me to go to the screen to do so comes up whenever the computer turns on or returns from a screen saver. When that blue screen of "Activate Windows" comes up Nothing works except to hit the button that takes me to another "Activate Windows" screen.
This second screen is white, the left half is full of all sorts of stupid "personalization" options I couldn't care less about, and the right side says something like "You can activate by internet or by phone." This is followed by a perpetual "waiting to connect" [to the internet], despite the fact that I can hit the windows button and then the stupid desktop window icon, and then do all I want on the internet.
If these stupid screens wouldn't come up all the time I'd ignore them. But every so often they'll close whatever I was doing and pop back up.
So I tried activating by phone. I tried three or four times to type the million-digit product code (or whatever), but I am unable to hit the numbers fast enough to prevent the phone from giving me the: "is there a problem? Are you confused? Let's restart you're taking too long."
So I tried entering the numbers in by voice instead of hitting the number buttons. I entered the first section of the product code "A" when prompted, then I did B, C, and D. But before going to E it went to F without giving me the time to enter part E. My options seemed to be start all over, or say, "to hell with this."
***
Windows 8 sucks.
Listen to the complaints about it.
Get windows 7 instead; it is fine.
To hell with you Windows 8!
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Minimum Wages
Last week I noted that raising the minimum wage is a stupid idea. Why not raise it to $1 million per hour?
But I wonder, is there any argument that you could make for increasing the minimum wage to $15 or whatever, that you could not also make for $1m?
Logical arguments:
Minimum wages are stupid
The minimum wage should be hugely high
If you are not going to make one of those two arguments, then Shirley you must be admitting that the reason you proposed minimum wage is not higher is because having it too high would hurt the economy. And so you've settled on an arbitrary number.
Can it be any other way? Are there any arguments for $15 that you couldn't use for $1 million without admitting that minimum wages harm the economy?
One more example of progressive politics being about the gain of progressives at the expense of someone else. And to heck with everyone else.
But I wonder, is there any argument that you could make for increasing the minimum wage to $15 or whatever, that you could not also make for $1m?
Logical arguments:
Minimum wages are stupid
The minimum wage should be hugely high
If you are not going to make one of those two arguments, then Shirley you must be admitting that the reason you proposed minimum wage is not higher is because having it too high would hurt the economy. And so you've settled on an arbitrary number.
Can it be any other way? Are there any arguments for $15 that you couldn't use for $1 million without admitting that minimum wages harm the economy?
One more example of progressive politics being about the gain of progressives at the expense of someone else. And to heck with everyone else.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Obamacare will be Awful: Links
No kidding, right?
Socialized medicine is bad in Canada.
Universal healthcare is bankrupting Japan. Let the elderly die, says one politician.
And our politicians, who lovingly voted for Obamacare, have opted themselves out of it.
How wonderful.
"Everyone has a right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."
-Murry Rothbard
***
Also note that I was going to add a few select quotes from the linked articles, but Blogger was not allowing me to copy and paste. Stupid Blogger. Use Wordpress for blogging.
Socialized medicine is bad in Canada.
Universal healthcare is bankrupting Japan. Let the elderly die, says one politician.
And our politicians, who lovingly voted for Obamacare, have opted themselves out of it.
How wonderful.
"Everyone has a right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."
-Murry Rothbard
***
Also note that I was going to add a few select quotes from the linked articles, but Blogger was not allowing me to copy and paste. Stupid Blogger. Use Wordpress for blogging.
“everyone
has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no
medicine and no care.” - See more at:
http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.XwMKTzFG.dpuf
A
recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year.
In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized
medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers
Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of
Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpu
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpu
A
recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year.
In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized
medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers
Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of
Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.d
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.d
A
recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year.
In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized
medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers
Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of
Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
A
recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year.
In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized
medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers
Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of
Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpufecent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpufecent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of
specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between
the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91%
longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
A
recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year.
In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized
medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers
Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of
Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf
Friday, August 2, 2013
Another Stupid Idea
Were I still taking politics and economic news seriously, the idea of a $15/ hour minimum wage would sound awful. I'd say, "how stupid are the people proposing this idea? Why not make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour instead? What arguments are there for $15 and not for $1m?"
Of course this idea is stupid and would harm the economy. And of course the people promoting the idea are stupid and/ or evil. (see RWC&G on the lying going on to support this stupid idea.)
Instead of being annoyed by the stupidity, my first reaction upon hearing of this idea was to say, "HA! HA! Do it! It'll be hilarious! HA!"
It would be funny to see the unemployment rate shoot up and to see prices rise, while the supporters of this stupidity blame the evil big businesses and 1%.
Before we raise the minimum wage however, it would be nice to know what the actual unemployment and underemployment numbers are. We obviously cannot believe the government's numbers. Does anyone know where we can find the actual numbers?
If you do believe in the government's unemployment numbers, do you also support the idea of raising the minimum wage to $1 million per hour? Would you mind lending me a few grand while we're at it?
Of course this idea is stupid and would harm the economy. And of course the people promoting the idea are stupid and/ or evil. (see RWC&G on the lying going on to support this stupid idea.)
Instead of being annoyed by the stupidity, my first reaction upon hearing of this idea was to say, "HA! HA! Do it! It'll be hilarious! HA!"
It would be funny to see the unemployment rate shoot up and to see prices rise, while the supporters of this stupidity blame the evil big businesses and 1%.
Before we raise the minimum wage however, it would be nice to know what the actual unemployment and underemployment numbers are. We obviously cannot believe the government's numbers. Does anyone know where we can find the actual numbers?
If you do believe in the government's unemployment numbers, do you also support the idea of raising the minimum wage to $1 million per hour? Would you mind lending me a few grand while we're at it?
Thursday, August 1, 2013
China: A History
by John Keay
This is a great big book on the history of China.
The first point that jumps out at me is the fact that if you are not an emperor, then you'll be almost completely ignored by history. Even if you are an emperor you'll likely get no more than a mention, unless lots of important stuff happened while you were in charge.
Then again, if we wanted to remember everybody, we'd have no time for anything else.
Another point of interest is that the name we know people by are different from what we think they are. Confucius was not some guy's name. His name was Kong. The way it works "in the East" is family name, then first name or title. Master Kong is "Kong Master," as in Kong then something approximating "fucius" for "master".
The first Chinese emperor is known as Qin Shi Huang. This is a "name" he picked for himself. (I hear many Chinese pick the name they are known as as an adult, themselves.) It actually means "first emperor." It would be like referring to George Washington as "first president," and mentioning him by no other name or title. First President was born in... First President was a military officer in the French and Indian wars. First President lead the revolutionary army during the war of independence.
Apparently, the next guy was "second emperor." And after that other dynasties took charge and changed their naming ideas.
Another interesting note is how much of China's history occurs after around 300 BC. There is a chapter, or two, before then, but I don't recall anything about the earlier times.
One of the early empires was known as the Han. Today the largest, numerically, ethnic group is the Han Chinese.
The Han empire was divided by some events into the "Former" and "Later" Han. One of the most important characters in between the two empires was known as Wang Mang. He was emperor for a while and wanted to reform the country to make it more prosperous.
He instituted price controls, divided the land equally among the citizens, and so on.
Guess what happened when he improved the lives of the poor by taking land from the wealthy, gave it to the poor, and did things like institute price controls?
That is not the only economic fact I found interesting. A while before 500 AD land ownership was banned and whenever there was a war the citizens fled to wherever there wasn't a war. Around 500 AD the various emperors determined that they needed to incentiveize staying in place, so they allowed private property to accumulate. And the book explicitly stated that this was the last time, until Mao that China attempted to progressivize the country. They seemed to notice that it never turned out well and they avoided much of it for around 1500 years.
Anyway, from my perspective, it seems that the various emperors can be grouped into four parts, in somewhat equal measure: the well meaning, the mean and awful, those with no interest in running an empire, and those who were too young and had regents run things for them, often to take up the title themselves and join one of the first two parts.
The succession of emperors takes up a large part of the book. Their numbers and even the empires that they ran are too numerous to mention, or even understand after reading such a book.
***
This is a good book. Even though I'm not as interested in India as I am in China I would read Keay's History of India if I was not already so far behind in my reading.
Recommended for those of you who are interested in lengthy readings on the whole history of China.
This is a great big book on the history of China.
The first point that jumps out at me is the fact that if you are not an emperor, then you'll be almost completely ignored by history. Even if you are an emperor you'll likely get no more than a mention, unless lots of important stuff happened while you were in charge.
Then again, if we wanted to remember everybody, we'd have no time for anything else.
Another point of interest is that the name we know people by are different from what we think they are. Confucius was not some guy's name. His name was Kong. The way it works "in the East" is family name, then first name or title. Master Kong is "Kong Master," as in Kong then something approximating "fucius" for "master".
The first Chinese emperor is known as Qin Shi Huang. This is a "name" he picked for himself. (I hear many Chinese pick the name they are known as as an adult, themselves.) It actually means "first emperor." It would be like referring to George Washington as "first president," and mentioning him by no other name or title. First President was born in... First President was a military officer in the French and Indian wars. First President lead the revolutionary army during the war of independence.
Apparently, the next guy was "second emperor." And after that other dynasties took charge and changed their naming ideas.
Another interesting note is how much of China's history occurs after around 300 BC. There is a chapter, or two, before then, but I don't recall anything about the earlier times.
One of the early empires was known as the Han. Today the largest, numerically, ethnic group is the Han Chinese.
The Han empire was divided by some events into the "Former" and "Later" Han. One of the most important characters in between the two empires was known as Wang Mang. He was emperor for a while and wanted to reform the country to make it more prosperous.
He instituted price controls, divided the land equally among the citizens, and so on.
Guess what happened when he improved the lives of the poor by taking land from the wealthy, gave it to the poor, and did things like institute price controls?
A. Prosperity ensued, Wang Mang was widely admired, and his dynasty lasted hundreds of years.If you've visited this blog before, you don't need to be told which was the case.
B. Nothing good, starvation and so on, his line ended with him, and all historians from the time despised him.
That is not the only economic fact I found interesting. A while before 500 AD land ownership was banned and whenever there was a war the citizens fled to wherever there wasn't a war. Around 500 AD the various emperors determined that they needed to incentiveize staying in place, so they allowed private property to accumulate. And the book explicitly stated that this was the last time, until Mao that China attempted to progressivize the country. They seemed to notice that it never turned out well and they avoided much of it for around 1500 years.
Anyway, from my perspective, it seems that the various emperors can be grouped into four parts, in somewhat equal measure: the well meaning, the mean and awful, those with no interest in running an empire, and those who were too young and had regents run things for them, often to take up the title themselves and join one of the first two parts.
The succession of emperors takes up a large part of the book. Their numbers and even the empires that they ran are too numerous to mention, or even understand after reading such a book.
***
This is a good book. Even though I'm not as interested in India as I am in China I would read Keay's History of India if I was not already so far behind in my reading.
Recommended for those of you who are interested in lengthy readings on the whole history of China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)