I know this post is far overdue; it was meant to be discussed long before this is posted now. But here goes.

In the past 300 years or so, there have been major shifts in plenty of aspects in the sciences and humanities – namely economic thought, art theory/history, and literature. The first shift coincidentally occurred around the 19th century. Art began to break away from painters simply trying to recapture the image of some rich noble or royalty to painters starting to become more expressionist and bold (i.e. Vincent Van Gogh). In economics, this period is when present-time theories are starting to be developed – especially when Keynes starts entering the picture. In literature, writers start to break away from traditional writing forms and genres.

Then another shift occurs – postmodernism. This occurred mostly within the 20th century all the way to today. Artists again broke away from modernist patterns of painting and started to introduce further meanings & themes into their art. This is when abstract paintings that resemble a beautiful colourful mess are passed off as art. Writers start to introduce postmodern aspects, such as fragmentation and the unreliable narrator. In economics, theorists have started to assess and analyze different strains of economics, bringing with them entirely new modes of economic thought and process.

So now I suppose we wait for the next shift? The speed of technological progression, global interdependence, and the internet  should be a key catalyst in this. Anyways, what should the next shift look like? Or how have other topics (i.e. architecture) progressed through the modern and postmodern shifts?

Hi Everyone,

I suppose we can now open the floor to discuss what our main thesises were or any major themes/ideas we were focused on throughout the term.

What I found is a recurring pattern in most of the novels throughout the term. The economic well-being of most major characters seem to get better or worsen depending on their actions and habits. We can take Roxana and Tom Tulliver for example. There are literary critics who have analyzed either characters’ actions and explained how these characters made their economic gains. Roxana made her gains not only by catering to the various men she was with, but by making sure she kept her distance from anyone that would expose her past or who she really is. Tom Tulliver made his gains by making and managing his money and capital extremely well – to the point where he manages to pay off his father’s debts and reclaim the mill as well.

How about you guys?

Hi all,

Now that the term is wrapping up and quite a handful of novels are finished, I suppose it’s time to open the floor and, in retrospect, discuss which novels were your favourites and why.

I’ll start first. My first pick would be Money: A Suicide Note. For a novel within an academic curriculum, its content and subject matter were surprisingly quite refreshing. I’m not advocating indulging in vices altogether, but it’s just not every semester that everyone get a chance to explore content and topics deemed risque in today’s society. The novel seems akin to all those ‘sex drugs and rock n roll’ tales portrayed by celebrities and rock stars. The progression towards the novel’s ending also suggests a fresh outlook in life for the reader; sometimes we can find happiness in even a simple and humble life. And I have to admit; there were quite a handful of times I find myself chuckling whilst reading the novel.

I personally liked Mill on the Floss as well. Right on the first few pages and chapters of the book, the novel gives the reader a chance to feel sense of heartwarming childhood nostalgia. The lengthy passage of elapsed time (within the novel) to see how characters develop is always an enjoyable experience. Abrupt deaths are always a shock in fictionary tales; but almost often, every great and popular story always has an element of abrupt death (i.e. Game of Thrones…).

Would love to see everyone’s thoughts

And it only came to me as a realization that, throughout the economic readings and novels presented throughout the course, I realized the progressive evolution of economic theories and ideas. They often attempt to replace or negate each other, just as much as previous theories negated. Take a close look, and you’ll realize that during Defoe’s era, one of the only economic ideas present is the notion that “credit is merely the populace’s confidence and trust in each other’s ability to repay, with the crown as the figurehead to place in our trust”.

The novels Emma and Mill on the Floss introduce social classes. The matters of business become more tangible and countable, such as loans, interest, and land/capital, as the various classes. Economics also expands, taking into consideration social aspects such as reputation, class, family, and marriage. Each has intrinsic value that can signal potential economic gains in all traits.

And now we arrive at Keynesian theory. In class, I can only ponder why his name rang a bell, that I’ve heard this name before. Only later on have I realized that Keynes is one of the most important contributors in Macroeconomics and Government Economic Policy, and that the majority of the content in ECON 102 or 311 is based on his theories. In fact, the Keynesian Range is the level of aggregate supply in an economy that remains constant – until a massive shift of consumer demand takes place.

I quickly skimmed through the remaining economic readings and found that Friedman’s reading is simply a crash course in money theory and micro/macro economics. The New Yorker article is an exposition of how genius financiers have managed to utilize mathematics and current economic theories to “hack” finance to their benefit. And only disciples of finance and economics can decipher these schemes; otherwise, it appears as complex as “this asset’s worth is equal to X equities, backed by a hedge fund Y for each Z security that has W probability of raining in Guatemala while conversing with the Sultan of Brunei.”

And so I wonder. In today’s era, what will the next economic evolution look like?

For those who have studied Economics before, they might notice this strong notion of causality: Y happened because of X. A few examples include: a fire in a factory causes a shortage for goods made in that factory; some hip trend causes a shift in demand for a particular good. And more prominently, a lack of confidence in the market causes a stock market crash, which causes a recession – and layoffs, lack of overall spending, slow economy, etc. Moreover, causality is especially prevalent with money and credit. Credit, of course, depends heavily on causality; your credit is either great, terrible, or somewhere in between, depending on your ability to pay back loans, pay rent, bills, etc.

Throughout the novels in the course, we can find this theme of causality. So far, the novel that emphasizes this theme the most is probably Roxana. In the early parts of the novel, we can conclude that Roxana’s initial predicament in poverty is caused by her first husband – her only real source of income at the time – and his lack of prowess in business and credit. His poor credit and reputation can be caused by his lack of proper dealings with his clients and stakeholders. We see this again further on in the novel when we revisit him via a spy – he gains a reputation as a sort of swindler. And there’s just many, many more examples of causality in this novel: Roxana herself haunted by Susan, a daughter conceived by her past trysts; the jeweller murdered,  perhaps with the assailants’ knowledge of his precious jewels and his complete absence of security; even Roxana’s philosophy on marriage, based on her experience with the rigidity of having just one husband versus the flexibility of moving between lovers.

However, we can also argue for the lack of causality throughout the novels in the course as well. The most recent example of this is the abrupt ending in The Mill on the Floss, where our beloved main characters are unexpectedly killed by the flood. It’s in these chance moments where we think to ourselves, “how on earth could that have possibly happened?” And even in the beginning of the novel where our main Characters, Tom and Maggie, are each given default circumstances beyond their individual choices (warning: inequality overtones ahead). Tom, born a male, is given the privilege of higher learning by default. Unfortunately, he also has been given the responsibility of paying off his father’s debt without a choice. On the other hand, Maggie, born a female, is denied an education at first. She is also promptly reprimanded during moments when she does something unladylike (cut her hair, does/doesn’t wear something in particular, etc.). (Note: this is all in the past now; we clearly have stronger notions of gender equality today)

Throughout the novels in the course, where can we find other examples of Causality? Or even any unexpected happenings?