Rob,
    I agree that this has gone on probably far too long for most readers here, so this will be my final post on this thread.  A few points.  
    The demographic low point for western Europe in the later Middle Ages came with the plague in mid 14th century, which followed a half century of ongoing famine and economic crisis.  By the next century, the continent was recovering nicely both economically and demographically.
     I would agree that Braudel and most other medieval historians tend to have a bullionist bias.  However, I think this is partly due to the lack of any alternative data.  Do you really take a statement by Akbar as a convincing disproof of Braudel in India?  And, again, I think Braudel is much more reliable when dealing with Europe than with India.  I am not interested in arguing with either Watson or Sargent-Velde.  
     On Charlemagne, I note that his livre was strictly a unit of account, although widely used throughout Europe once it was invented.  Nobody every minted a coin that was a pound of silver anywhere.
     Let me conclude by returning to the original point of this thread.  Whatever was going on in other periods, during the 700-1000 period roughly, there was much greater respect given to the ancient Greek tradition of philosophy and science in the Muslim world than was the case in Europe at the same time, particularly in western Europe.  The peak of this was during the Caliphate of Haroun al-Rashid of the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad in the 8th century.  For a period the Abbasids were arguably even the world leader in all this, symbolized by their defeat of the Chinese at the Battle of Lake Tana, which triggered an inward turn by the Chinese from the openness of the early Tang dynasty, and which would culminate in the rigidification under the neo-Confucianism of the Song dynasty, although by then the Abbasids had also closed up following the closing of the Gate of Ijtihad, and the economic and demographic revival in Europe had begun, even if it would still be several centuries before Europe clearly moved ahead of the Muslim world intellectually and technologically.
Barkley Rosser

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rob Tye
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

Barkley

We are a little at cross purposes here.  My contention is merely that for (the greater part of) the 15th century, Europe hit a low point, but not however, its lowest point.  So it seems we do not disagree.  And yes, the printing press surely was a very important contributor to Europe's subsequent rise 

I am pleased to take the opportunity to explain how I think that point I made impinges upon European affairs.  I claim Braudel's comment on early modern India reveals a general bullionist bias in his thought.  The return of India to coining in a big way around 1540 was surely driven by government policy.  One of its chief architects, Akbar, had the matter thus: "Able and trustworthy men were appointed to survey the spacious territories of India and to determine the amount of production and to substitute payments in cash so that the market of the embezzlers might fall flat".  This contradicts Braudel's impossible metallic supply side suggestion

I further claim that a similar bullionist bias runs through the great majority of modern texts concerning medieval Europe, but that these are presented, by and large, in a much more skilful and erudite manner.  Andrew Murrey Watson brilliantly attacked the European bullionist Braudellian edifice in 1967 (most specifically Lopez).  But he abruptly ceased to publish on monetary matters early in his career, rather leaving the field free to such as Day, Spufford and Cipola to continue to roll out a very scholarly but never the less rather bullionist agenda, tending to belittle the role or abilities of past government agencies.

These comments are I think particularly pertinent today, because the broadly bullionist arguments, especially those of Cipola, have recently metamorphosed in the hands of such as Sargent and Velde. Even regarding the medieval European sphere, they have now become rather crude misrepresentations.

Back in the 1980's I hoped to use what I saw, and see, as clear evidence of bias in Braudel to prompt a re-evaluation of early monetary history in its entirety, building on foundations laid by Watson.  I think clear misrepresentations in works appearing in the early 21st century might offer that opportunity again.

Rob Tye, York, UK

PS  On Charlemagne's monetary metrology, I believe you are making the same mistake as Sargent and Velde, but those are arcane, controversial and rather technical matters that might best be discussed off group, if anyone so wishes.