Primary Source Analysis

Primary Source Analysis
Name Course Instructor Date
In "The Debate on Salt and Iron," emperor Wu of the Han dynasty reigned over China for years, controlled the food distribution, monopolized liquor, salt, and iron production, and then used the profits to finance his army that protected trade routes. Emperor Wu also bought grains at low prices where there was great produce and stored or taken to areas where there was scarcity. The emperor's fiscal ventures aimed at generating more revenue for the army and included confiscating nobles' land, increasing taxes, and selling titles. The debate pits the learned Confucian scholars or learned men who supported abolishing monopoly on salt and iron and liquor excise tax and removing equable marketing against the emperor's government minister who advocated for legalism.
The author seeks to evaluate arguments for and against the salt and iron monopolies based on the government minister's and Confucian scholars' views.  Since the debate is between the minister and the learned men, the author likely targeted the emperor, who was then to choose the minister's or the learned men's position on the empire's economic system. Emperor Wu maintained a highly centralized economy, but there were questions about whether monopolizing salt and the iron market benefited the people or only the state. The learned men stood against the pursuit of profit, as they believed that morality and morality were more critical in society than profits. The emperor's monopoly of essential food items meant that he could dictate the prices and volume available to the general population.
The author argues that the debate between the minister and the learned men was necessary to determine which policies were essential to promote economic stability and morality in policies. The minister argued that government monopolies and liquor excise tax provided revenue that financed essential government operations, including protecting the empire. On the other hand, the learned men argued the case for morality and virtues to guide decisions rather than profits from salt and iron when more resources would have been better used on agriculture. The scholars also argued that monopolies had caused human suffering, but their idealism was in contrast to the minister who supported the empire's policies' success. The debate highlights differences on whether to maintain ...