State vs. Market

Hi all,

Originally posted by Maju Why "lesser" political entities are not counted as "organizations".

Well see, I know the term "organization" is a bite misleading and I'm not
much satisfied of it myself. But "firm", as the definition referes to as you
may have guessed is even worst because can we say a mercenary army
was an firm? Putting everything under the name of firm as people are
doing nowadays is I think bad for the general uuderstanding (in their
opinion a family's a firm and a state as well).

Originally posted by Maju What do you mean by relation between market and state, etc.

I mean the state always has two possibilities: do or make do. I'm
concidering why and how a state picks the second option. There is an
obviously problematic articulation there dealing with issues such as
sovereignty or sharing taxes between political and economical elite.

Originally posted by Maju But I'll tell you one thing: following Polanyi, the market as physical space is opposed to the market as abstract entity.

I've got the deepest respect for old Karl though on some matters he is
slightly outdatted. Beside that, he was talking about contemporary
tending to be "perfect" market, I'm talking about highly unperfect early
modern markets. So do not worry my posts are not slowly leading to
fascism (if it ever does, hire some basque killers and have me shot at
once please).

to Halevi:
Merci beaucoup for your post.

There were state owned firms in the early modern times because private
entreprises couldn't realize one task at a better price (Venitian arsenal
were workers were "paid" with social prestige and political power hence
the production costs were cheaper), when the state was taking risks as a
real entrepriser (the portugese way of discoveries and slave trade), or
simply to compete with foreign production (i. e. Colbertism in 17th
century France or some identical politics in some german places).

There are inbetween examples were the state organized and private
investors gave the money (English, French and Dutch chartered
companies), Or when the state delegated sovereignty to a private person,
here the most famous example being Christophus Colombus and the
Conquistadores. Others extremely interesting examples are the various
chatered companies: they were fighting under their own flag with
sometimes impressive forces and they were enjoying their own
diplomatic network. States were using both when they needed it.

Concerning the production of primary materials, I'm not very
knowledgeable but the few examples I know are in the minning industry
and basically states were grantting monopolies to big capitalists who
were paying them huge fines for it and than they tried to establish this
monopoly on an international level (papal alum) ot on the national level
(andalucian mercury) always with little success. More examples would be
need to make ourselves a real opinion.

This post is already too long. So bye and thanks.

I don't understand your posts, Maharbal.

Why "lesser" political entities are not counted as "organizations". What do you mean by relation between market and state, etc.

I really don't know what you mean to ask or say.

...

But I'll tell you one thing: following Polanyi, the market as physical space is opposed to the market as abstract entity. Market economies tend to have no markets but to be total markets themselves.

Now I don't know where you put the state, whose only role in this maccabre game of unequal trade is to protect and legitimize the private apropiation called Capitalism.

Hi,
To ataman:
Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not very knowledgeable about France, I'm
much more interested by Italy and England. Though your remark made
me think about something: 16th century Genoan bankers were the money
tank of Charles V el Emperador. After a while, French king Francis 1
realized the importance of this flow of money and asked Genoa to provide
loans for him too. This was very problematic for Genoa because this
republic was officially neutral in the struggle between Charles and Francis
(though a very close ally of Spain). But Francis constantly made the same
mistake: he asked the republic to lend him money. The answer was:
alwayys we don't have money, we are poor and weak. It never occured to
Francis' mind the state could be poor and the bankers rich.
I think here you have a very good insight of the conception this great king
(he arguably created modern France) had of private organisations and
market. He couldn't even imagine them. Most French nowadays still can't.
On the contrary Charles V had a much more decentralized mind. Other
examples of incapacity of thinking the state/market relationship?

to pikeshot:
Thank you as well. Mercenaries or not mercenaries? Here was the
question for most rulers in early modern Europe and as late as the Crimea
war. I think though one answer is of course impossible to give depends
on who, when, where. But I guess one rule can be seen: the more soldiers
on the field, the less mercenaries. An army of 10,000 mercenaies will
fight for you; an army of 100,000 mercenaries will betray you. And if you
see the mercenaries as a market, what about the ruler arriving a bite late?
"Sorry, we don't have anything left, the king of Sweden took the last
ones."
Also different types of ties united mercenaries, condottiere and their
employers.

Bye.

Edited by Maharbbal

Let's start with sub-contracting war.  Start in the 15th century when a few modern conditions began.

War is expensive.  Princes had limited incomes, mostly from the rents and products of their own estates.  Obviously a wealthy prince had an advantage over one less wealthy.  His own subjects were more valuable to him working the estates, so if war it is, let's hire it out.

The first thing in those times was that soldiers were only enlisted for the campaigning season.  Saved money, but does anyone see a problem with that?