Barkley,
	I am sure you are at least partly right; nothing is ever as simple
as its high points, and you know this era far better than I. I found many
good ideas in Veseth's "Mountains of Debt", even if shorter and less
cosmopolitan than Braudel.  It seems Florence and the early Medicis went
through a democratic era, enjoyed peaceful years when Venice and Milan
neutralized each other. Florence prospered mightily and used its surpluses
for various kinds of social dividends. Then along came great banking
successes, and then Lorenzo and his forms of conspicuous consumption and
display of costly art masterpieces, until the alienated proles rebelled in
1494.
	2 years earlier Columbus helped kick off the age of exploration and
westward movement, slowly obsoleting Italy's locational advantages. 
	Lepanto showed there was life in the old girl yet, but a) I don't
think it was mainly Florentine arms that carried the burden; b) warfare
drains away social surpluses, even when your side wins; c) the money was now
in Spain, while the eastern Med. Was a place of struggle rather than the
great prize it once was; d) Rome and the papacy revived and art migrated
south to where the money was (or so I believe - correct me if I err).
Medici daughters married French royalty and became powers there.
	I close here to avoid overparticipating, but would welcome your
rejoinders.

Mason

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

Mason,
    Savanarola was basically a blip, in power only for a couple of years.
Yes, he marked the end of the high point of the Renaissance as an
intellectual movement after the death of Lorenzo Il Magnifico, but
economically and politically, Florence was more powerful and dominant during
the following century, with its artistic output at a peak in the first half
of that century, when such masters as Michelangelo and Leonardo were at work
there, with arguably the world's greatest painting being painted there at
that time by Leonardo, even if it ended up in France.
Barkley

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of mason gaffney
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

It may be a mistake to equate The Italian Renaissance with a peak in civic,
social and economic health. Think Ozymandias. Civilizations that leave
expensive artifacts for us to admire centuries later may be in a stage of
socio-economic decadence punctuated by revolution and disaster, as happened
in Florence in 1494 with Savanarola and the Bonfire of the Vanities. 

Mason Gaffney

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Rob Tye
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

Dear Prof. Rosser

<<The 15th (century) saw the flowering of the Renaissance in Italy>>

I feel this stands in need of clarification.  Spufford seems to be correct
in fixing a low point in pan-European monetary history in the exact year
1464, when coin issue came to a standstill almost everywhere, Venice and
Milan included.  Trade stopped, and banks failed even in Florence.  The
recovery, soon after in the 1470's, likewise was Europe wide.  Italy stood
at the hub of these events but was not disconnected from the rest.

<<Braudel probably providing the best account of all that>>

I would not comment on those specific passages in Braudel, but I like to
expand on my earlier negative comments on his work, as follows.  In passages
I mentioned earlier, in his Capitalism and Material Life Braudel makes a
general summary of the early modern Indian economy which is wrong, and
preposterously so.  I spent a good part of the 1980's attempting to publish
the necessary refutation of his simplistic, counterfactual bullionist
approach, with no success what so ever.  It seemed no one wanted to see
criticism of Braudel in print.  In the 1990's I abandoned historical
research altogether for a good while, to investigate instead the background
to Braudel's work.  At that time it was easy to track the many somewhat
political affiliations his patron Lucien Febvre had forged in the murky
worlds of interwar France and Cold War USA.  But it was not until 2002 I
think, that confirmation began to appear in print that the large donations
made to Braudel's academic institution by the Ford Foundation under McGeorge
Bundy were made with regard to his political rather than intellectual value.
 Nor did I discover until then that the syllabus of Braudel's Maison des
Sciences de l'Homme was co-written with Paul Lazarsfeld

I corresponded with Wallerstein (among many others) about 20 years back,.
asking how Braudel could make such a blunder, and got the reply that Braudel
did not know much about India.  But is it reasonable to suppose that a man
described as "one of the greatest of the modern historians", could go to
print with work that would disgrace a secondary school essay, because he did
not know any better?

Sincerely

Rob Tye, York, UK