Talk:Palace economy

Untitled

The last sentence "According to press and U.S. government reports, the North Korean state also engages in a wide array of illicit activities in order to fund the ruling elite's lifestyle." is irrelevant to the discussion on palace economies, as arguments could be made to show that the U.S. engages in similarly illicit or illegal activities. An explanation of palace economies has little to do with who's élites are committing "illicit activities".

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy

There is a concept of the palace economy current, which began as a description of some economies in the ancient world, especially Mycenaean Greek. Typically it seems to have become common coin with reference to modern economies. I am sure out there somewhere is a legitimate theorist who knows what he meant and came up with some legitimate modern examples - after all, most economies began in ancient times and modern paradigms exist, so why should this one be any different? But he seems to have escaped this article so far and instead we get a bunch of non-NPOV material some of which already have been hacked out and the remainder questioned. Apparently what was there reflected the article's initial author's personal opinion. Let me say this. Wikipedia I believe is not interested in political or ideological propaganda except insofar as the article is actually about it. Right-wing - left-wing - forget it! Similarly anyone's personal ideas of a palace economy are not of interest here unless they happen to be the published opinions of a noted author respected in the field. We aren't interested in what you may think of the economy of North Korea or of Russia or of anyone's palace economy. What we want to know primarily is "what is it?" and that answer should evidence as much as possible freedom from bias. In other words, no slanting please. I can help out with some of the ancient palace economies but we really need someone with an unbiased view of the modern. The concept is perfectly valid and legitimate in case you were beginning to wonder.Dave (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The leisured class etc.

Rather than waiting around for any attempts to justify this, which may not ever happen, I removed it to here:

The division of labour in such an economy leads to a leisured elite, a class of bureaucrats, and a class of subsistence farmers. This system can be seen as a combination of a command economy and a subsistence economy.

My reason is that these consequences are not in the ancient palace economy theory and you would have to do some pretty high stepping to show that they follow from the modern, if any such are actually credibly found. In other words, such a statement requires a credible theorist, scientific data, or both. "Everyman"'s opinion does not do it.Dave (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Credible theorists and scientific data are abundant, but apparently not making their way here. After stumbling upon this article, I realized I was reading a description of Siam/Thailand's economy for most of its history, at least until the end of the 19th C., with the transition not fully complete in the 21st. What started my search was John Crawfurd's characterization of Siamese palace officials as "rapacious." While true enough, it falls far short of giving a balanced view of the motivations of the "leisured elite," bureaucrats and "subsistence farmers." The latter I don't think existed as a class. Furthermore, subsistence economy only discusses nation-states, not subsistence agriculture or self-sufficiency. The lower strata are better explained in Zomia (geography) and in the theories of James C. Scott, as to how these played out in mandala (Southeast Asian history) polity. Pawyilee (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Asia, etc.

A serious defect of all economic theories is failure to incorporate ecology. The end of palace economy in Minoa and eastern Mediterranean in general was precipitated by the Minoan eruption and ensuing volcanic winter, severely disrupting the trade that all economies depend upon, even those claimed to be self-sufficient. The recovery of trade after the Minoan eruption was further impacted by localized deforestation, from ship-building during prosperity. Interruption of trade precipitated the end of the Bronze Age due to shortages of tin, which had to be imported.

The beginning of the end of palace economies and the mandala system in Southeast Asia coincided with the period of the Maunder minimum, which included the Mount Tambora eruption of 1812, accompanied by wide-spread earthquakes and violent weather that get only scant mention in chronicles of the time, and none that I've found in historical accounts.

Anyway, I'm hoping improvements to this article will help me to balance Crawfurd's opinion of the Siamese palace economy. —Pawyilee (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

" It can be seen as a combination of a command economy and a subsistence economy."

No it can't. Who says? Need a reference there. Moreover, the article attached to the second link totally misunderstands subsistence economy. The palace is the very opposite. To make these statements successfully, you need some definitions and some references. Planned it is. Subsistence it is not.Dave (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I really rang your bell. Let me make it clear that I entirely agree. Like I said above in answer to your 2008 entry, subsistence economy only discusses nation-states, not subsistence agriculture or self-sufficiency. Furthermore,Subsistence economy' in this context is anachronistic, as I believe it dates back to Gandhi's failed attempt to make India independent of the rest of the world. Subsistence agriculture, on the other hand, should not be anachronistically called subsistence farming, which should properly refer to tax farming#Historical_use, i.e., insofar as it refers to ripping off those at the subsistence level. While Zomia (geography) and the theories of James C. Scott do not use the term palace economy — perhaps because it is not a well-known term, but more likely because it applies to all — nevertheless make it clear that all depend on such ripping-off — as do my cellphone and laptop I'm using now. —Pawyilee (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ripping off, is that a scientific term? Well this article is obviously a thorn in the side so it is time to move on it. I think there were two ways to go: a culture history way and a talk-the-talk way. The intro and the box say one way, the outline says another. Mixed signals. The talk-the-talk type uses all specialized language of economics. I don't like that type; this is a people's encyclopedia, not an economics journal. My only concern was, if you are going to use specialized terms of talk-the-talk in a cultural article, you need to give us a hint as to what you may mean; otherwise, as you see, we draw all the wrong confusions. By the way, in the world of socio-political abstraction, there are no thieves and they do not steal. Up until the time the Federal marshals arrive to take you into custody, you are only maximizing profits and getting the greatest return on your investments, etc. The diplomatic world has an equivalent newspeak. WP never goes for emotional content, such as crook, barbarian, thief, torturer and the like. That is for drama, such as Agamemnon's wife and her lover butchering Agamemnon in his bathtub after rolling out the red carpet. That was a high-risk political maneuver, or some such thing. Anyway I am getting us through the definition and then breaking for a few days, or weeks, as the case may be. I see it all unfolding as a historical thing working up to the present. The modern uses of the modern theorists can then be brought in. I would only ask references and an explanation or two. If you want to jump ahead and do that, fine. The distribution system was so pervasive in the early civilizations that only the main site can be covered I fear, but we can use "main." Ciao.Dave (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New testament

I'm familiar with the New Testament description of early Christian communities giving all they had to the patriarch, who would return what they needed to live, as I wrote a term paper on in when I was in 6th or 7th grade during the McCarthy Era. I was sent the the principal's office where he burned it in his ashtray. I don't propose anything so drastic, but consider it a good example of primitive communism and of a failed economic measure, but a poor example of a redistribution economy. A palace economy often, if not always, does, however, subsume a gift economy, which continues in Thailand even though its Palace economy was phased out in the latter half of the 19th Century. BTW, Crawfurd's new testimony gives some examples of what happens to transgressors of Palace economic rules — thrashings of the better classes and on-the-spot beheading of the lower, with ignorance excusing neither. —Pawyilee (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

History pretty well condemns the McArthy Era. I can sympathize with you all right, as I had to live through it myself. Those were the days when you had to take a prosecutorial lawyer or have no lawyer, like it or not, you might be thrown in jail indefinitely without even a hearing, the intelligence community conducted assassinations here at home regularly, the FBI worked in close conjunction with private organizations such as the John Birch Society, slavery was perpetuated regularly through the paeonage system by the former plantantion owners. I could just go on and on and on. If that is all that happened to you, boy are you lucky. Now, I cannot say that I agree with you in any way concerning the "dictatorships of the proletariat." They were first and foremost distribution economies enforced by violence. If the peasants would not turn over their foodstuffs for distribution to the big cites, their resources were destroyed, they were decimated, and the rest turned out into the cold. Excuse me, but "primitive communism" if that is what it is is too a distribution economy. There is a central administration. All resources get funneled through it. See Chadwick's implied question about what counts as a palace. You know, it takes a special kind of internal toughness to study history accurately. Anyone can make it up as you go along, which most people do, and which you have to constantly fight on WP. For example, everyone has heard about how the Swiss assisted the Jews in the last half of the war. Only the Jews are telling us that for the first half of the war the Swiss turned them over to the nazis on request, and furthermore, the Swiss then appropriated the bank accounts of those turned over. No one wants to hear THAT. Well, what are you going to do? I do not care what example is there. I suggest if you do not like that example, supply another. I recall to you the McCarthy era, when only the narrowest views of history or politics were allowed and you had to run in terror if you said or wrote anything that even impled anything else. Most topics were verboten. I still remember my department chairman telling me on the quiet not ever to discuss religion and politics. What else was there? You use your judgement. If you want to refine the definition according to some theorist go right ahead. Anyone can edit WP, up until such time as they can't.

For the morals, well, sometimes that line is not easy to draw. Other times it is. If such things were done to you and yours there would not be the slightest question. If they were not, be as objective as you like. If you guess wrong you may draw down the whole society suddenly on your head, and that includes WP. I suppose ideally in an international situation such as this you ought to try not inject any emotionalism or slant into it. Frankly sometimes you are dealing with the raw torrent of deep emotion. Well listen. I have to go now. I will be back after all that has been sorted out to go on with the Bronze Age. Pitch right in. Refine the definition if you can. Give us the nuances that prve the Christian communities were not distribution economies. As I pointed out at the end of definition section, the whole concept has now been placed on the table.Dave (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

High-risk political maneuver; maximizing profits; economic evils

High-risk political maneuver was a point raised Queen Sirikit. She sponsored the filming of The Legend of Suriyothai, which includes regicides, infanticides and the brief reign of Bun Si. In the case of the latter, she took pains to have published a warning of judging Queen Si Suda Chan's actions as disgustingly immoral, but as high-risk political maneuver on behalf of her clan, which had lost practically everything and stood to gain a lot – if it worked, which it didn't. I see it as similar to the morality tales in Judges, which concludes by implying this is why Israel needs a stable dynasty of kings – even if they impose a Palace economy. I think Her Majesty implied much the same, as when her king passes from the scene, Thailand fears a die-nasty crisis.

As for maximizing profits, that was secondary point of the British-Siamese missions, the main being who intended war with whom. I want to balance Crawfurd's valid POV with that of the Princes – which had lot longer legs. As for "ripped off," you are right that such language should not be writ in the article, even if hands holding goods or heads thinking of withholding same were in fact ripped off. As for goods, the oldest reference I know is in the Garden of Eden economic morality tale, where perceiving something as good for goods' sake – rather than as a necessity – necessarily introduces evils into economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.49.248.236 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC) who didn't notice he was logged out.

You don't say? Well, that is interesting. Thanks for telling us that. In the ivory tower of academia however we cannot write of that. It wouldn't get by WP admins. You can probably write all the porn you like and you can even advertise if the persons advertised contribute to WP. But really, is the public ready to hear the truth on these matters? I think we are trying to stick to the most objective language. My main point was, we can;t get moral here, that is beyond WP's scope. "Repent ye sinners, repent" is not a song they wish to sing. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Duh. No, I don't say it in an article, nor do I wish to sing, much less write or link to porn, but am making a good-faith effort to expose my biases here. As for that of the British and the Siamese Palace, both viewed the other as rapacious, and I want to balance Crawfurd's "free trade" bias with that of the historical Palace Economy's. Rama III was already transitioning from the latter to a mercantilist bias, for which he was honored as The Great (in finance) on a Thai 500-baht banknote. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Links

I added to Economy#Ancient times see also Palace economy. Note 'economy' etymology is from house + rules. Pharaoh, meaning "Great House", originally referred to the king's palace. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Communism

It weems to me a communistic order like that attempted in the Soviet Union is, to a large extent, a palace economy, and I think it would be natural for this article to make a comparison. Of course, a good source would be required; I am not a historian and do not have a source.--Nø (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

This is a Compound (linguistics) and has an etymology. Catchpoke (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Palace of Nestor plan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)