> >I don't disagree China was heavily
> > commercialized after AD 1000. I just think the essential component
> > of the economy was hydraulic planning;
>
> still seems to beg the question of why (in your view) the existence of
> a large powerful centralised state is somehow inimical or antithetic
> to the coexistence of large and diverse markets, rather than actually
> (and always and everywhere) a condition of existence of large etc
> markets.
I see your point, and I guess this is a problem for those
neoclassical scholars who have tended to play state centralization
against markets, yet now find themselves dealing with an area
where both coexisted. Reading P you would never know there was
a state in China. I don't think it is inimical. I just think the "first
premise" of history is Nature, not markets or technology.
