Economics and Poetry - Cotton and Corn: A Dialogue" by Thomas Moore

What really makes economics and society flow nicely together? Economics can be described as the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Society is described as the social relationships among us. The answer is always changing as well as the economical and sociological thoughts behind it as well. This paper will relay a couple economic views from the poem "Cotton And Corn: A Dialogue" by Thomas Moore (1779-1852), an Irish poet. Should people be allowed to trade with whomever they want to? We've been doing it for thousands of years. There should always be fare/free trade, even if the government manipulates it a little bit. If there is an unhappy consumer out there, there is at least one unhappy firm. People should be able to trade freely and hardly controlled by the government. Too much of the time the government regulates it too much, and we lose some of our free trade rights, as this poem illustrates. As FranÐ*ois Quesnay believed the idea of "Laissez-Fair," the government should have very little control, if no control over the economy at all. The government will then regulate heavily, create high tariffs, embargoes, and other forms of monopoly to accumulate wealth. This poem was written about the famed Corn Laws that took place in England, that limited the trade of corn to other countries if international rates fell bellow a certain value. The government didn't want wealth to leave the country, as they stopped importing corn, wouldn't export their corn out, and monopolized peasants to buy the countries corn with a regulated price. This is third idea, is a form of mercantilism. Hoarding a countries wealth, and building up power. Thomas Moore addresses some of these views by introducing thoughts about fare trade, how the government can control/manipulate trade, and mercantilism, in his poem about the Corn Laws. The question is then, with all of this government supervision and control over trade, how do economies prosper and stay alive and well?

One of many reasons that keep economies going is through fare trade. This poem deals with the unscrupulous Corn Laws (1689-1846); which deal with protecting English landholders by encouraging the export and limiting the import of corn when prices fell below a fixed point. The poem speaks of the greedy side of Squire Corn and the famished Poor Cotton. "Great Squire, if it isn't uncivil To hint at starvation before you, Look down on a poor hungry devil, And give him some bread, I implore you!" This line is Poor Cotton urgently begging Squire Corn to trade him some corn (food) for his fabric of cotton. Modern economics have implied that when there is at least one unhappy consumer, there is at least one unhappy firm. They're unhappy because there exists trade opportunities, and both sides would benefit. Squire Corn replies in the next stanza with this: "Low fellow, you've surely forgotten The distance between you and me!" We assume in this situation that these two firms (which would be separate countries) could cheaply and easily meet and bargain away any discrepancy, in between a willingness to accept and a willingness to purchase. The supply and demand mechanism is also relevant. There is such a high demand for food, that people are not getting enough or any, and are practically starving. Some countries depend on imported food, but specialize in other factors of production, such as textiles. "To expect that we, Peers of high birth, Should waste our illustrious acres, For no other purpose on earth Than to fatten curst calico-makers!" England is not accepting their textiles. The poor country doesn't have any wealth because they will not accept their textiles in trade for food. But there are many families and consumers in both markets producing textiles and corn, and needing both. No one individual will influence this market outcome though. The products are not identical, and there is a supply for both, and a demand. This should promote free and fare trade, with supply and demand present. But we can't have perfect competition and trade if the government does not allow us to.

Another factor in economics is how the government can manipulate trade. In the base of the Corn Laws set forth, the government has basically created a legal monopoly. They set an embargo to keep the wealth in their country and to keep gaining wealth. For example, during the 1980s Japanese automakers began voluntarily restricting exports to the U.S. to avoid even harsher measures form Congress. Because the supply of Japanese cars was limited, their prices rose, and American manufacturers were able to charge more for their own cars. The government is controlling the economy that way. But the physiocratic belief is that once the system is setup (which it is) and the pressure is stabilized, then the government need only to have a minimal role in such matters. A "Laissez-Fair" belief is what Francois Quesnay believed. Only a minimal role in economy, not a total role, like the government had during the Corn Laws. "No -- vile Manufacture! ne'er harbour A hope to be fed at our boards; -- Base offspring of Arkwright the barber, What claim canst thou have upon Lords?" The government was controlling a valuable trade source at the time. Squire Corn controlled all the wealth, while Poor Cotton could not trade with him freely. Squire Corn (England) basically said that Poor Cotton is from a family of weavers (referring to Richard Arkwright, the inventor of Spinning-Frame, a superior textile machine), implying that Poor Cotton were once the children (offspring) who worked at these textile mills. Squire Cotton asked Poor Cotton what kind of nobility/wealth do you have to show for it. The government again is not allowing the export of goods, in order to stay powerful; sell the goods to their own people; and to keep the wealth in their own country. This simply shows that tariffs/embargo tend to constrict economic growth, but this protects wealthier countries and shuts down lesser-developed countries to economic dormancy.

Another economic thought in trade that is demonstrated in this poem, is mercantilism. Now the exact definition of mercantilism is not defined in this poem. Belief in precious metals compromising the wealth of nations: this is not displayed in the poem. But the focus on keeping the wealth inside the country is inhibited. Producers were not allowed to trade with other countries when their corn fell below a certain value. This is the same concept of mercantilism with the government highly regulating it. The other countries recognized this mercantilism and it had an adverse effect on them. They soon realized that they couldn't eat cotton. "That

...