Talk:Economy of the Song dynasty

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of July 31, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  Generally meets the WP:MOS, but a few things need work. 
* The intro needs to have the parenthetical "see also"s removed. Disambiguate paper money if you like, but self-referential expressions like that are not encyclopedic content.
* the "world's first money" section should come after both production/employment and "Organization, investment and trade". These basic overviews are important to setting up for an encyclopedic discussion of the money section.
* Per WP:GVF and the criteria, neither a featured nor a good article should include the information on memorials to the throne. This is going into excessive detail about an off-topic subject that is only vaguely connected. Not only that, but they aren't that well-written. If their importance is as a meta-analytical tool, then less time should be spent on direct quotations and more on cited historical analysis. Also, the quotations should be block quotes using  formatting. This section should be removed forthwith.
:2. Factually accurate?:  The articles is accurate and well-sourced.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  The article, without the memorials section, is comprehensive and informative without getting off-topic.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  The best of the series so far.
:5. Article stability?  Yes.
:6. Images?:  Properly chosen and placed.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: This article is pretty good, but it is missing a few crucial elements that would give the reader a better understanding of the nature of the Song economy.
The vitality and size of the Song economy was partially attributable to the emergence of what Twitchett called "the Fiscal State" in the latter half of the Tang dynasty, this moneterization of the economy and tax payment scheme should be mentioned. The economic growth of the Song dynasty was not merely a result of extensive growth (population increase), but was intensive in nature, characterized by greater specialization and rise in per capita income. Market forces played a greater role in the Song dynasty than in any dynasty which preceded it. 
Foreign trade: You have to mention the state monopoly system of procurement for overseas items and how this was overseen by the Maritime Trade Supervisiorate (提舉市舶司). Non-luxury goods were taxed, while scheduled luxury goods were a government monopoly. This source of income became increasingly more important as the Southern Song had a reduced tax base and could only engage in international through maritime commerce. You have to distinguish between the means of capital formation for overseas ventures, which included private merchants and government funds, from the distribution system, which was regulated and, for certain items, a government monopoly. 
Currency: Adoption of paper currency was spurred by a fiscal crisis, the issuance of money had always been used by the court to correct fiscal imbalances, but the Song's ability to adjust commodity prices through monetary policy had been reduced due to the greater influence of market forces in the economy. Diminishing seigniorage (sp?) and the shortage of coinage compelled the court to issue paper money. 
You should also mention the creation of a commercial book market, as knowledge and information became commercialized and commodified to an unprecedented degree.
Steel & Iron: you mention Hartwell's assertion about total iron output (I think he stated something to the effect that it rivaled that of early industrial England) and use Wagner's article as a source, yet you don't mention that Wagner's article was written with the express purpose of showing how the basis of Hartwell's assumptions were unsubstantiated, and there was no precise way of quantifying iron output based on the tax receipts/quota receipts in the historical record.
The increase in production quotas for Hancheng were not a direct result of Bao Zheng's memorial, the increase occurred due to the establishment of a government mint, situated to take advantage of rich veins of ore that were present in the region (see Wagner, p. 183). Furthermore, Bao's memorial, although implicitly referring to a profit motive, was not concerned with "profits of the industry," he was writing about the unequal burden of the quota and ways of reducing government expenditure to acquire an equivalent amount of iron.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aas217 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aas217. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you! It's been over a year. I just completely forgot about all of this. Using your suggestion, I have reread Wagner's article and see clearly your point about the steel and iron industry. I have amended the article to accord with this. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Comments

message: IMO, there are many important issues not dealt with. A lot of work still need to be done, without which, one cannot get a wholesome picture of economy in the Song Dynasty
Among them:
*Agriculture in Song Dynasty
** Landlords and tenants
*Handicraft Industries
**Mining
**Textile industry
**Shipyard
**Houseware
*Finance
**Foreign trade
*** Trade with neighbours
*** Oversea trades
*Transportation
*Government policy 
*Taxation system
--Gisling (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not yet 

message: What's mean: 
*ref 85.^ Guan Luqian, 140-142
*ref 86.^ Guan, p143 
a book, article or...?  --Jann (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References