Rob,
	Please give one more particular: what "agenda" do you believe Veseth
is favouring?  He may indeed have one - many writers do - but it would be
helpful to know what it is.

Thank you, 

Mason

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Rob Tye
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

Mason

There is an argument to be made that Florence was in great part responsible
for the dreadful out turn for Europe as a whole in the 14th and 15th
centuries.  That it butchered the only democratic movement it had of its own
in Piazza della Signoria in 1378.  That its interventions in monetary and
banking policies, from London to Kutna Hora, triggered the bloodbath of 1381
in London's financial district, (Lombard Street).  That this event was in
turn directly associated with the rolling out of Hussite war wagons all over
Central Europe in the not so pleasant 1420's.  That its influence in fact
lasted longer and was deeper than that of the great plague, to which popular
attention is usually directed, or misdirected.  

I do not claim that that narrative is the correct one.  I just point out
that it is child's play to reverse engineer all sorts of narratives, to suit
any agenda one may happen to favour.  Thus I am not going to comment of what
I have seen of Veseth's narrative, but I would not place a lot of faith in
it either.

I must however take him to task on one point.  He writes

<<after 1427, when Florence created the very first income tax,>>

That would perhaps be apart from the one Wang Mang instituted in China
around 9 AD, 14 centuries earlier?

Rob Tye, York, UK