Disputes between Wang AnShi, Sima Guang and Su Shi

(2 Pages)
1
2
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Disputes between Wang AnShi, Sima Guang and Su Shi What was the real issue? Rate Topic:

#1 snowybeagle

Sentinel of the Southern Star (鎮南星)

Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
Posts: 5,197
Joined: 09-June 04

Gender:Male

Location:Singapore

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 12 March 2005 - 12:06 PM

I read the Sima Guang (司馬光/司马光), and to some extent, Su Shi (蘇軾/苏轼), opposed the reforms of Wang AnShi (王安石).

When Sima Guang eventually ousted Wang AnShi, Su Shi had wanted to retain some measures which he believed were beneficial but Sima Guang insisted on repealling everything. So angry was Su Shi that he called Sima Guang a stubborn bull (司马牛). Su Shi alienated himself from both reformists and conservantives.

Yet by other accounts, Sima Guang was considered a good official, a loyal subject and praised for his work in writing historical records.

Could anyone shed some light on these disputes?
What was the crux of the disagreement?
Where was each party coming from?

This post has been edited by Yun: 13 March 2005 - 11:05 PM

#2 Yun

Sage-King

Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
Posts: 9,057
Joined: 30-May 04

Gender:Male

Location:Singapore/USA

Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 13 March 2005 - 11:15 PM

Sima Guang was a conservative Confucian who believed that the state should concentrate on nurturing agriculture and setting a moral example for the people, and not interfere in their lives or obsess over taxation and revenue in the Legalist manner. Wang Anshi was a reformist Confucian who wanted an activist role for the state in order to raise revenue to strengthen the army. In today's US, Sima Guang might be a Republican and Wang Anshi a Democrat, except that Sima Guang wasn't as big on the military or big business as the Republicans tend to be.

They also disagreed on Wang Anshi's reforms to the examination system. Sima was from an old northern clan that liked the examinations to be dominated by the elite, and favoured a system of recommendation by the elite for selecting exam candidates. Wang was of a newer southern gentry elite that preferred egalitarian exam policies, and wanted to replace the emphasis on poetry in the exams with more practical questions on administrative policy. At least the policy questions should be answered at the beginning of the exam, and candidates eliminated on the basis of this, rather than poetry at the beginning as was then the norm.

Su Shi was a poet and didn't like this - he felt that policy questions were no more practical than poetry, because candidates can give all sorts of ideas that they will never really put into practice when they are in office. Good poetry, on the other hand, can reveal a person's true ideals and personality. Su Shi also did not like the fact that Wang Anshi had set his own commentaries on the classics as the standard textbook for the examinations - he said that the problem with Wang Anshi was that he wanted to make everyone in the world be like him. For an individualistic artist like Su, this was unacceptable.

The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#3 RollingWave

State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 594
Joined: 03-June 04

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
Song dynasty history, ROC history

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:57 AM

It was interesting that the 3 remained on pretty friendly terms personally dispite the huge political clash they were in though. and frequently wrote letters to each other (especially Sima Guang and Wang An Shi)

One of the central debate was as Yun said, wether the government should go in and take more active measures on various issues espcially those on agriculture and commerce.

One fo the key debate I belive, was on the 青苗法, or the law of green shoots for rice, one of the bigger economic problems of the days was the fact that farmer's income tend to be very concentrated in one time periods, while getting a full harvest requires pre investments over the whole period, espically on acquire the green shoots (i'm not a farming expert so i'm not quiet sure on the details in farming here) many families borrowed from the rich at sometimes unreasonably high interest rates to finance themself during the year, by the time they yielded a harvest they must pay back most of their profit to their debt, or they get ripped off in other ways, while if the harvest fails they face possible bankruptcy. while the cycle starts all over again since now they again lack the money to finance their farm and must borrow once more. in a never ending cycle where the average farmer gets ripped off too often by the rich.

Wang proposed that the State lend to the farmer money at much more reasonablly fixed interest rates, which is almost a rather modern economic concept of settign interest rates, but this brings up a huge debate, the concept was too extreme for its time, the very fact that the state lends money to its citizens and what's more collects interest in return, sparked huge backlashes and debates.

From a modern point of view, Wang's policy was probably the right thing to do, however taken in the historical background it was understandable why it met such resistance. While Wang was also a rather stubborn person himself and partially due to this (and the fact that he did not get the support of most senior capable officals) he had to trust he's policies to officals who were often opportunist or incapable, thus he wasn't able to get the results he had hoped to, causing his opposition to gain rapidly on him.

Not to mention Song Shenzong was mostly interested only in military gains, he accepted Wang as part of his 富國強兵 (Wealthy nation, strong army) policy, when he was able to get some positive results militarily, despite the trouble the new laws met, he was not extremely fully supportive of Wang.

In the end, I think Wang An Shi was a person ahead of his time, however he did not have the other merits and luck to carry out his vision successfully.

This post has been edited by Yun: 16 March 2005 - 11:32 AM

無盡黑夜無盡愁, 但盼黎明破曉時

#4 snowybeagle

Sentinel of the Southern Star (鎮南星)

Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
Posts: 5,197
Joined: 09-June 04

Gender:Male

Location:Singapore

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 16 March 2005 - 03:33 AM

Let's consider specific Wang AnShi's reforms.

Among the measures implemented, the one that was most targetted by opponents was the 青苗法 Qing Miao Fa.

Background
China had always been at heart an agricultural society. Due to natural conditions of its lands and advanced agricultural technology, it had two annual harvests - spring harvest and autumn harvest.

During the Song Dynasty, the terms early crop or Zao Dao (早稻) and late crop or Wan Dao (晚稻) refer to different types of grains being harvested, not the same type of grain being planted and harvested twice annually. It is not also practicable in every agricultural area.

In any event, the double harvest also tend to lead to population increase. There are also other factors which could lead to farmers being caught short of food in between harvests (青黄不接).

The simple solution
Wang AnShi's Qing Miao Fa was a scheme to provide loans for these farmers to tide over the period of hardship, to be repaid by the next harvest, with interest of approximately 20%. The scheme was open for voluntary participation by the farmers. For those who had to borrow twice a year, the effective interest gained would be 40% or nearly 50% after some inflation due to various factors.

The first casualty of this scheme were of course the gentries who owned large tracts of lands and other wealthy people - previously, they were the only ones lending money to the poor, at exhorbitant interest rates (about 30% onwards). When the poor could not repay them, the moneylenders took over their properties.

In theory, it should have been an aid to the farmers with a spell of bad luck, and enrich the state coffers at the same time.

Earlier, during the reign of Emperor Ying Zong (英宗), this scheme was one of the several personally implemented by Wang AnShi during his tenure as magistrate in the Ying county in Ning Bo sub-provinciality (宁波鄞县), successfully alleviating the plight of the poor.

When he was promoted to Prime Minister under Emperor Shen Zong (神宗), Wang wasted little time in putting forth a proposal to implement the scheme nationwide.

It appealed to Emperor who had been unhappy over certain things despite the relative peace and prosperity of the empire - namely, the lavish gifts that he as "Elder Brother" had to provide to the "younger brothers" of Khitans (契丹) in the Liao State (辽) and the rising state of XiXia (西夏) to the west. He thought of teaching them a lesson, but that would mean extra expenses (apocryphal story).

At that time, Sima Guang proposed cutting expenses to manage the state finances, but Wang AnShi felt that merely cutting expenses was insufficient - it must be complemented with cultivating alternative sources of revenues. Sima Guang thought finance/economy was a zero sum game, whatever coin gained by the state would mean coin reduced from the populace, taking a lesson from Sang Hong Yang (桑弘羊) who deceived Emperor Wu of Han dynasty and caused misery to the populace. Wang AnShi was confident flexible and resourcefulness could raise revenue without burdening the people.

Not all who opposed Qing Miao Fa did so out of personal greed or conservatism. Su Shi (苏辙) felt that there was little guarantee that some borrowers would not squader the loan and create bad debts. Sending local officials out as debt collectors could cause disturbances - there was no proper guidelines, policies nor enforcement methods. Wang AnShi agreed and temporarily shelved the plans until a more suitable time.

The scheme in action
A chance came several months later when Wang GuangYuan (王广渊), official in charge of finances in the Imperial Capital district, reported commoners being caught short between harvests. Wang GuanYuan proposed a scheme similar to Qing Miao Fa. Wang AnShi supported the idea. In AD 1070, the Emperor signed the executive order to implement it in the capital district, HeBei (河北) and HuaiNan (淮南), and to be slowly implemented nationwide.

The response to the scheme was mixed.

Some officials said the commoners applauded it.
Some said it caused misery.

Misery? Well, the devil is always in the details.

Many officials who opposed Wang AnShi reforms were demoted to sub-regional districts as magistrates. Many in their official capacity deliberately caused the scheme to fail. One of their trick was to make it compulsory rather than voluntary. Even urban dwellers who had nothing to do with agriculture as means of living also got involved.

To make things worse, Wang AnShi was supposed to be a haughty fellow who was proud of his own learnings and achievements - i.e., not an easy guy to get along.

Conclusion?
The problems faced by Wang AnShi exists in practically every country today with a sizable population and geographical distances.

Wang AnShi was able to make it work when he could oversee it personally.

But was it a good plan that was merely badly implemented?

What answer did conservative but supposedly loyal officials such as Sima Guang had as an alternative?

Unfortunately, during its implementation, the country also experienced drought beginning autumn AD 1073, leading to poor harvest. Superstitious people (a lot of them were) blamed it on divine judgment on Wang AnShi's reforms.

#5 Non-Han Nan Ban

Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

Group: Master Scholar (Juren)
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 05-May 06

Gender:Male

Location:Fairfax, Virginia

Interests:All of Chinese history. Seriously.

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
History of Chinese Science and Technology

Posted 12 May 2008 - 11:50 AM

Yun, on Mar 13 2005, 11:15 PM, said:

In today's US, Sima Guang might be a Republican and Wang Anshi a Democrat, except that Sima Guang wasn't as big on the military or big business as the Republicans tend to be.

I was under the impression that it would only have been the military in this regard, as Sima Guang did not believe in meddling too much in people's private affairs, hence meddling in private business and commerce, while others accused Wang Anshi of desiring to debase private wealth in order to build a mass of dependents on the central government. Thoughts? :g:

Eric (En Rui)

"Wait for the wisest of all counselors...Time"
- Pericles, 5th century BC Athenian statesman and strategos

#6 mariusj

Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 1,499
Joined: 06-March 06

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 12 May 2008 - 08:18 PM

Quote

To make things worse, Wang AnShi was supposed to be a haughty fellow who was proud of his own learnings and achievements - i.e., not an easy guy to get along.

I don't think he is haughty at all.

The only reason why he is not easy going is simply people attack his reform for the sole purpose of attacking reforms; that is to say, they don't care whether its good or not, they don't care that Song desperately needs reform, they don't want to reform because their wealth and rights are involved and they won't let go despite that keeping on these 'rights' will eventually destroy Song. Which is the only reason why Wang AnShi decided to expel all the Jiu Dang out of the political circle; he in fact is someone who would listen to advise and would change when pointed out his mistakes, but eventually, when everyone simply attack all your reforms despite your willingness to change some bad ones, you would retaliate too.

There was this one time when someone told him, "Prime Minster Wang, I have an idea that would boost our revenue by a lot.' Hearing the words 'boost' and 'revenue,' Wang's ears perk up and asked,' do tell' and the man said, 'there is this giant lake by the Mountain of Liang, it is eight hundred li wide and were we to empty the lake, we would gain thousands of mou of good land, whether to use for silk worm, or tea trees, it would bring wealth to our nation.' Wang's eye brightened up, 'That is a great idea.' And he thought of it for a while and asked, 'but what about all these water?' A man by the name of Liu Bang [also called Gong Fu] said, 'why not dig another lake eight hundred li wide and fill it with these water?'
Wang realize it was a stupid suggestion, and simply smile and let the man off.

This isn't a guy who is haughty and hard to get alone with.

#7 Yun

Sage-King

Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
Posts: 9,057
Joined: 30-May 04

Gender:Male

Location:Singapore/USA

Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 26 May 2008 - 05:40 PM

Although the two Cambridge History of China volumes on Song history are not out yet, Paul Jakov Smith (one of the co-editors along with the late Denis Twitchett) has released online his chapter on Song Shenzong's reign and the Wang Anshi reforms: http://www.haverford.edu/hist/faculty/smit...gAnshiDraft.pdf

Smith's footnotes mention these two English-language studies that are older but still very useful:
James T.C. Liu, Reform in Sung China: Wang An- shih (1021-1086) and his New Policies (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)

Peter Kees Bol, "Government, society, and state: on the political visions
of Ssu-ma Kuang and Wang An-shih," in Robert Hymes and Conrad Schirokauer, eds.,
Ordering the world: approaches to state and society in Sung Dynasty China (Berkeley,
1993), pp. 128-192.

The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#8 Peregrine

Citizen (Shumin 庶民)

Group: CHF Beginner
Posts: 2
Joined: 01-December 08

Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture

Specialisation / Expertise:
Japanese folklore

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:56 PM

mariusj, on May 12 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

There was this one time when someone told him, "Prime Minster Wang, I have an idea that would boost our revenue by a lot.' Hearing the words 'boost' and 'revenue,' Wang's ears perk up and asked,' do tell' and the man said, 'there is this giant lake by the Mountain of Liang, it is eight hundred li wide and were we to empty the lake, we would gain thousands of mou of good land, whether to use for silk worm, or tea trees, it would bring wealth to our nation.' Wang's eye brightened up, 'That is a great idea.' And he thought of it for a while and asked, 'but what about all these water?' A man by the name of Liu Bang [also called Gong Fu] said, 'why not dig another lake eight hundred li wide and fill it with these water?'
Wang realize it was a stupid suggestion, and simply smile and let the man off.

Dear Marius,

That's a cute way with a tale you've got there :clapping:

I've been surfing far and wide in search of the source of or clues to exactly understand an allusion made to Wang An-shih in a Meiji environmentalist's polemic I'm translating from Japanese to English. It is just possible that your story concerns the same bit of lore that my authorã€€å—æ–¹ç†Šæ¥ had in mind. I wonder if I may ask you a few questions about the story you relate? :notworthy:

1. Where did you learn this story?
2. Do you know of any internet sites (or printed materials) where I could find information or context concerning it?
3. Can you tell me what the Chinese characters are for the "man by the name of Liu Bang (also called Gong Fu)"?
4. What is the name of the "giant lake ... eight hundred li wide"? Is it è¥¿æ¹–?

Other questions may come to me later, but now that it's night my brain's pooped. I'm stepping outside to admire and imbibe the Venus-Jupiter-Moon conjunction, radiant in our clear high-desert sky.

I'm a first-time poster, hoping the characters come out alright...
Thank you very much for reading this,
Nowever,

Peregrine

PS-- Just in case you or an auspicious onlooker reads Japanese, here's the passage:

ãã‚Œã‚’æ”¯é‚£ã®çŽ‹å®‰çŸ³ã®ã‚ˆã†ãªåè¦‹ã§ã€è¥¿æ¹–ã‚’åŸ‹ã‚ã‚‹ã«ã¯åˆ¥ã«ãã®åœŸæ³¥ã‚’å®
¹ã‚Œã‚‹ã“ã¨ãŒã§ãã‚‹å¤§æ¹–ã‚’ç©¿ãŸãªã„ã‚ã‘ã«ã¯ã„ã‹ãªã„ã®ã«æ°—ã
Œã¤ã‹ãšã€åˆ©ç²ã®ã¿ã‚’å¿µã˜éŽãŽã¦ç¥žæž—ã‚’å¤±ã†ã¨ã€ã“ã‚ŒãŒç”°åœ°ã«å¤§ãã
ªè™«å®³ã‚’æ‹›è‡´ã™ã‚‹åŽŸå› ã§ã‚ã‚‹ã“ã¨ã‚’æ€ã‚ãšã€é¥•é¤®ï¼ˆã¨ã†ã¦ã¤ï¼
‰ã®ç¥žè·ã‹ã‚‰å£å…ˆã°ã‹ã‚Šã®é™³è…ãªèª¬æ•™ã‚’ç„¡ç†ã«èžã‹ã›ã¦ã€ãã
®è´è¡†ãŒã“ã‚Œã‚’èžã‹ãªã„ã†ã¡ã‹ã‚‰ã€ã™ã§ã«ç¥žè·è¼©ã®éžç¾©æˆ‘æ…¾ã
«æ„ŸæŸ“ã™ã‚‹ã§ã‚ã‚ã†ã“ã¨ã‚’æƒ³ã‚ãªã„ã®ã¯ç„¡å¿µè‡³æ¥µã§ã‚ã‚‹[...]

#9 Howard Fu

Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 770
Joined: 30-December 05

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
Economics/Management

Posted 01 December 2008 - 11:52 PM

RollingWave, on Mar 16 2005, 01:57 AM, said:

One of the central debate was as Yun said, wether the government should go in and take more active measures on various issues espcially those on agriculture and commerce.

One fo the key debate I belive, was on the 青苗法, or the law of green shoots for rice, one of the bigger economic problems of the days was the fact that farmer's income tend to be very concentrated in one time periods, while getting a full harvest requires pre investments over the whole period, espically on acquire the green shoots (i'm not a farming expert so i'm not quiet sure on the details in farming here) many families borrowed from the rich at sometimes unreasonably high interest rates to finance themself during the year, by the time they yielded a harvest they must pay back most of their profit to their debt, or they get ripped off in other ways, while if the harvest fails they face possible bankruptcy. while the cycle starts all over again since now they again lack the money to finance their farm and must borrow once more. in a never ending cycle where the average farmer gets ripped off too often by the rich.

Wang proposed that the State lend to the farmer money at much more reasonablly fixed interest rates, which is almost a rather modern economic concept of settign interest rates, but this brings up a huge debate, the concept was too extreme for its time, the very fact that the state lends money to its citizens and what's more collects interest in return, sparked huge backlashes and debates.

From a modern point of view, Wang's policy was probably the right thing to do, however taken in the historical background it was understandable why it met such resistance. While Wang was also a rather stubborn person himself and partially due to this (and the fact that he did not get the support of most senior capable officals) he had to trust he's policies to officals who were often opportunist or incapable, thus he wasn't able to get the results he had hoped to, causing his opposition to gain rapidly on him.

This is a very interesting topic. Not to disagree with you, but I think Wang's economic policy was wrong.

What Wang did is to want the government to step in and give farmers loans to protected them from the greedy riches. But the problem is how can the government know if the fixed interest rate is profitable or not. If the interest rate is too low, the government will suffer loss. It would be like the modern counter part that the government is giving farmers subsidies, but the major income of the government is tax and tax at that time mostly came from farmers. If the interest rate is too high, then it would be useless because people will go to private loaners for a lower interest. Only the market can sort out what interest rate is good.

The argument of rich exploiting poor is not sustainable either. If the interest rate is too high farmers will go to other lower interest loaners and the high rate loaners will have to lower their rates. I think Wang is using extreme cases to justify his policy here.

The real effect of the policy is that it takes the farmers out of the hand of rich loaners but place them in the hand of government officials which was even greedier. The only difference was that if the loaners rate was too high, they could choose not to get the loan, but they can't avoid the government's loan, no matter how high it was. Although the nominal interest rates was fixed, but in practice the officials use small measure units when giving loans and use big measure units when receiving. The result was that Qing Miao Fa, though supposed to help the farmers was much hated by farmers. Then Wang would blame it on greedy local officials or conservatives sabotaging his policy. But from modern economy point of view, if you agree with the Austrian school, Wang's policy wouldn't work if the officials are all saints. But then it's a matter of debate too. If you are a Keynsian, Wang was trying to stimulate the economic growth by a less tight monetary policy :b_woot:

, and the New Policy is like the counter part of New Deal in 11th century China.

Hehe! Maybe that's why sometimes Wang is called Chinese Keynes.

This post has been edited by Howard Fu: 01 December 2008 - 11:56 PM

"And this too showed how the Mafia in Sicily was cancerous to the society it inhabited. Merit meant nothing. Talent meant nothing. Work meant nothing. The Mafia Godfather gave you your profession as a gift.

Michael had plenty of time to think things out. During the day he took walks in the countryside, always accompanied by two of the shepherds attached to Don Tommasino’s estate. The shepherds of the island were often recruited to act as the Mafia’s hired killers and did their job simply to earn money to live. Michael thought about his father’s organization. If it continued to prosper it would grow into what had happened here on this island, so cancerous that it would destroy the whole country. Sicily was already a land of ghosts, its men emigrating to every other country on earth to be able to earn their bread, or simply to escape being murdered for exercising their political and economic freedoms. " -- The Godfather, Mario Puzo

"The Godfather presents the gangster's perspective of the Mafia as a response to corrupt society. " -- WikiPedia

#10 mariusj

Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 1,499
Joined: 06-March 06

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:30 AM

Peregrine, on Dec 1 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Dear Marius,

That's a cute way with a tale you've got there :clapping:

1. Where did you learn this story?
2. Do you know of any internet sites (or printed materials) where I could find information or context concerning it?
3. Can you tell me what the Chinese characters are for the "man by the name of Liu Bang (also called Gong Fu)"?
4. What is the name of the "giant lake ... eight hundred li wide"? Is it è¥¿æ¹–?

Other questions may come to me later, but now that it's night my brain's pooped. I'm stepping outside to admire and imbibe the Venus-Jupiter-Moon conjunction, radiant in our clear high-desert sky.

I'm a first-time poster, hoping the characters come out alright...
Thank you very much for reading this,
Nowever,

Peregrine

PS-- Just in case you or an auspicious onlooker reads Japanese, here's the passage:

ãã‚Œã‚’æ”¯é‚£ã®çŽ‹å®‰çŸ³ã®ã‚ˆã†ãªåè¦‹ã§ã€è¥¿æ¹–ã‚’åŸ‹ã‚ã‚‹ã«ã¯åˆ¥ã«ãã®åœŸæ³¥ã‚’å®
¹ã‚Œã‚‹ã“ã¨ãŒã§ãã‚‹å¤§æ¹–ã‚’ç©¿ãŸãªã„ã‚ã‘ã«ã¯ã„ã‹ãªã„ã®ã«æ°—ã

Œã¤ã‹ãšã€åˆ©ç²ã®ã¿ã‚’å¿µã˜éŽãŽã¦ç¥žæž—ã‚’å¤±ã†ã¨ã€ã“ã‚ŒãŒç”°åœ°ã«å¤§ãã
ªè™«å®³ã‚’æ‹›è‡´ã™ã‚‹åŽŸå› ã§ã‚ã‚‹ã“ã¨ã‚’æ€ã‚ãšã€é¥•é¤®ï¼ˆã¨ã†ã¦ã¤ï¼
‰ã®ç¥žè·ã‹ã‚‰å£å…ˆã°ã‹ã‚Šã®é™³è…ãªèª¬æ•™ã‚’ç„¡ç†ã«èžã‹ã›ã¦ã€ãã

®è´è¡†ãŒã“ã‚Œã‚’èžã‹ãªã„ã†ã¡ã‹ã‚‰ã€ã™ã§ã«ç¥žè·è¼©ã®éžç¾©æˆ‘æ…¾ã

«æ„ŸæŸ“ã™ã‚‹ã§ã‚ã‚ã†ã“ã¨ã‚’æƒ³ã‚ãªã„ã®ã¯ç„¡å¿µè‡³æ¥µã§ã‚ã‚‹[...]

The coding of your Japanese is off. My program does not recognize it.

Anyway, the story came from here.

王荆公好言利。有小人谄曰：‘决梁山泊八百里水以为田，其利大矣。'荆公喜甚，徐曰：‘策固善，决水何地可容？’刘贡父在坐中，曰：‘自其旁别凿八百里泊，则可容矣。’荆公笑而后止。
From 邵氏闻见后录.

#11 mariusj

Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 1,499
Joined: 06-March 06

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:40 AM

Howard Fu, on Dec 1 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

, and the New Policy is like the counter part of New Deal in 11th century China.

Hehe! Maybe that's why sometimes Wang is called Chinese Keynes.

You miss the point.

The idea would be more in the form of helping farmers - for those who have no capital, they probably cannot gather capital to increase their production b/c no one would loan them anything b/c they have no capital, and the only one who would be willing to loan those people capital are 1) Government 2) Loan shark.

You are talking about micro economics, Wang is using macro economics.

#12 Peregrine

Citizen (Shumin 庶民)

Group: CHF Beginner
Posts: 2
Joined: 01-December 08

Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture

Specialisation / Expertise:
Japanese folklore

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:28 PM

mariusj, on Dec 2 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

Ah.. my gratitude to you for this citation, goes out to the world.

Sorry about the miscoding. I really thought I had made sure to enable Unicode. I post Japanese on Japan-related forums just fine, hmmmm :g:

I'll get to the bottom of it.

The Japanese passage I'm working on can be found at http://kumagusu.miku...gosiiken11.html
as the fourth paragraph.

As before, any help with capturing precisely the twist that my author puts on the Wang An-shih allusion would be vibrantly appreciated. I feel like I have a pretty good feel for it, but am still a bit unsure.

Are there many Japanese folks and Japanologist sorts here at CHF? I've lived in Japan studiously for eight years and have been studying for twice as long, yet just recently I'm experiencing a fresh bout of utter amazement at the extent and depth to which Japanese culture and psyche were saturated, permanently colored, forever fertilized and informed by the Chinese mind and spirit in ancient times. (Thanks to all those intrepid seekers of old! :notworthy:

) It's fairly mind-blowing to be poking around in on a daily basis. Always in China's mammoth shade.

Thank you kind folks,

Peregrine

#13 Howard Fu

Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 770
Joined: 30-December 05

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Specialisation / Expertise:
Economics/Management

Posted 03 December 2008 - 12:45 AM

mariusj, on Dec 2 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

Yes, the initial motivation of the New Policy was to help the farmers, but later it became a big burden.
If the farmer had no capital but he was an honest fellow and had a good reputation of paying back money on time, some people may think he has good credit and would loan him money. The reason nobody wanted to give him loan was probably they all know he's not gonna pay it back. When the government step in how the officials would know if the person pay it back?

As I've said, it's a matter of debate. Some economists actually using arguments like what you said. It depends on which school you support. The conservative's economic policy was like the supporters of laissez-faire, and Wang's economic policy was like Keynes or even socialism. You know Lenin called Wang An Shi the great reformer.

To cite the Cambridge history of China Yun posted above, the conservatives' point was like:
First, conservatives such as Ssu-ma Kuang held that despite increases in the size of the population (as Ssu-ma Kuang acknowledged) the size of the economic pie remained relatively fixed;
Second, although fate, natural endowment, and the inelasticity of economic output uced great inequalities in wealth, onservatives such as Ssu-ma Kuang, Su Hsün, Su Ch'e, Cheng Hsia, Fan Chen, and others insisted that the relationship between rich and poor was both nign and mutually beneficial: the wealthy served as the pillars of local society and the state and as the providers of capital (land and credit) and security to the oor, who in turn assisted the wealthy with their labor.
And third, the fixed size of the economic pie defined the proper relationship between the economy and the state: the economy functioned best when it was least burdened by the overnment. Although conservatives acknowledged that economy and fisc were both in crisis, that crisis was caused solely by the irresponsible spending of the state. because of the inelasticity of economic output, there was no way to increase government revenues beyond traditional limits (which Chang Fang-p'ing defined as the land tax, taxes on the products of the mountains and the marshes, and commercial taxes assessed on goods in transit and at the point of sale129) without in turn decreasing the incomes of the people.

If Malthus, Adam Smith and David Ricardo went back to the 11th century Chinese court, they could probably argue better but the basic points would be the same. I think the conservatives hit the New Policy on the head. What the New Policy really doing was the state monopolize the loan business, the trade of commodities etc. The real consequence of it was to '与民争利', that the state to compete with the people for profits and the people could hardly benefit when they were competing with the state. The New Policy succeeded in enriching the exchequer of the state but at the cost of weakening the whole economy in the long run.

This post has been edited by Howard Fu: 03 December 2008 - 12:57 AM

#14 mariusj

Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
Posts: 1,499
Joined: 06-March 06

Gender:Male

Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:23 AM

Quote

No.
Heard of social mobility?

Quote

As I've said, it's a matter of debate. Some economists actually using arguments like what you said. It depends on which school you support. The conservative's economic policy was like the supporters of laissez-faire, and Wang's economic policy was like Keynes or even socialism. You know Lenin called Wang An Shi the great reformer.

Almost all things in life is a matter of debate.

Quote

To cite the Cambridge history of China Yun posted above, the conservatives' point was like:
First, conservatives such as Ssu-ma Kuang held that despite increases in the size of the population (as Ssu-ma Kuang acknowledged) the size of the economic pie remained relatively fixed;

Actually, that is not true. The very reason why conservatives fought back was b/c Wang AnShi's reform hurt their economic benefit and well being.

Quote

Second, although fate, natural endowment, and the inelasticity of economic output uced great inequalities in wealth, onservatives such as Ssu-ma Kuang, Su Hsün, Su Ch'e, Cheng Hsia, Fan Chen, and others insisted that the relationship between rich and poor was both nign and mutually beneficial: the wealthy served as the pillars of local society and the state and as the providers of capital (land and credit) and security to the oor, who in turn assisted the wealthy with their labor.

I want a source that Si MaGuang and Su brothers believe this.

Quote

And third, the fixed size of the economic pie defined the proper relationship between the economy and the state: the economy functioned best when it was least burdened by the overnment. Although conservatives acknowledged that economy and fisc were both in crisis, that crisis was caused solely by the irresponsible spending of the state. because of the inelasticity of economic output, there was no way to increase government revenues beyond traditional limits (which Chang Fang-p'ing defined as the land tax, taxes on the products of the mountains and the marshes, and commercial taxes assessed on goods in transit and at the point of sale129) without in turn decreasing the incomes of the people.

No. It is in your perspective that government interference burdens the economy.
The new laws were launched NOT to increase per capita, but rather to strength the state's military strength and power, and at the same time, help those who can be helped.
Then, what is the meaning of elasticity or inelasticity of economic output?
Silk, tea, salt, are all rather inelastic goods relative to your income group to a certain degree.

Quote

If Malthus, Adam Smith and David Ricardo went back to the 11th century Chinese court, they could probably argue better but the basic points would be the same. I think the conservatives hit the New Policy on the head. What the New Policy really doing was the state monopolize the loan business, the trade of commodities etc. The real consequence of it was to '与民争利', that the state to compete with the people for profits and the people could hardly benefit when they were competing with the state. The New Policy succeeded in enriching the exchequer of the state but at the cost of weakening the whole economy in the long run.

Ricardo would talk about international trade.

Then, the state is NOT competing against common people for profit, but rather, against 士大夫.

In one sense, we need to see what the goal of the government is. The idea of New Policy is to benefit the nation, if such concept would exist, is faulty, instead, the New Policy is to strength the country for WAR, and the preparation of war.
See how England uses monetary policy to strengthened itself in numerous wars and end up victorious AT THE COST of a recession/depression after the act.

Government ought to be treated like an entity - it has its own goals, agenda, etc etc; whereas we like to think government works for the benefit of people, in reality, government work for its own goal. Nations would not wage war if it value the people, it would not do many things, but instead, it does what every individual do.
Therefore, in my personal belief, the New Policy was aim for a goal of strengthening the weakening state, instead of emphasis on the富国，it would be on 强兵. It is attacked, b/c that is contradictory to the 'norm' of Confucianism of that time.